Talk:Eurabia conspiracy theory/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Eurabia conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Another possible source

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Snopes.com has debunked the "Eurabia" myth: [[1]]. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Snopes.com has debunked the "Eurabia" myth:" (Stonemason89) I don't think so. This article only focus against "Muslim Demographics" video. As for add it as a source, the article is currently ("Last updated: 10 August 2009") useless in my opinion (that's why I have not added it). 89.2.241.2 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Snopes is just liberal propaganda. Get a better source. 75.215.47.255 (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Muslims don't read Snopes, I presume

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUqLztI4mQ

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxjL3CIs0xw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.30.131 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

References that are not working please somebody remove them...

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. http://www.bu.univ-paris8.fr/web/collections/guide_vincennes_assia_melamed.pdf

2. http://www.scb.se/templates/pressinfo____251100.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimbo Vales (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from N192, 13 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{editsemiprotected}} Excerp: Justin Vaisse, co-author of Integrating Islam Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France, says his book intends to debunk "four myths of the alarmist school." Using Muslims in France as an example, he writes:

   * The Muslim population is not growing as fast quickly as the scenario claims, since the fertility rate of immigrants declines[24]
   * Muslims are not a monolithic or cohesive group[25]

N192 (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Explanation: Why should this edit be done? The sentence shows terrible grammar. The word "fast" is an adjective, which(by definition) generally describes NOUNS. What is described is a verb ("is ___ growing"), not a noun. This requires an adverb, like "quickly".

Remember, he is "fast" because her runs "quickly". If you keep this in mind, you will never be confused.

Done Now fixed, thanks for pointing it out, jonkerz ♠ 03:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect map

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The figure for 10% Muslims in France comes from the CIA and is, to say the least, challenged and most certainly biased. 217.167.195.235 (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you simply ASSUMING it is biased solely because it is from the CIA factbook, or do you have a credible source to substantiate your claim? Jersey John (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is Matt Carr a "scholar" and why should his opinions as expressed in an explicitly political organ like Race & Class be given any credence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.169.225 (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Likely because http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_%26_Class&oldid=375895329 say that "Race & Class is a peer-reviewed academic journal". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Article really a mess

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The topics and issues involved are notable and important, but should they be discussed under the title of a "neologism"? How can that be neutral?Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the article is a mess, there never was a topic to write an article about. This article only exists because some people were trying to broadcast their political opinions via Wikipedia.

The issues involved are valid, but they already have their dedicated encyclopedic articles. This is just a battleground for people looking for wikidrama.

There is the neologism: take it to wikt:Eurabia.
There is the book: take it to Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (tellingly, still barely a stub. It's not like anyone is intereted in discussing the book, people are just here for the political noise and some poo-flinging)
the actual issue: take it to Islam in Europe.

Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If Muslims are only 3.2% of Europe's population then surely to refer to the "premise that the Muslim population in Europe will become a majority within a few generations" is ludicrous. It cannot happen - why is the idea dignified with the concept "premise". Is the idea not the mirror image of the ZOG "concept" (described,rightly, by wikipedia not as a premise but as an antisemetic conspiracy theory) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.244.8 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Matt Carr wrote in Race & Class that "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s preposterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd.

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So from my understanding, the recent rise of Muslim populations throughout Europe are due to mainly poor Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries that immigrate to Western Europe for labour along with their many many children? As an Arab, I'm embarrassed. I haven't been to Europe in 10 years, so I don't know how different it's gotten. Why can't the converts in Europe (or European blood) be as much of a public story? There are many Christian Arabs in Europe, too. And not all Muslims in Europe are Arabs. A significant amount are Pakistani and Somalian. And why is Eurabia (Europe + Arabia) named that way if MUSLIMS are the focus, and not the ARABS? It's distorting the message badly. And WHY is this an issue if the Jews and the Christians made it to Europe? Ok. The Europeans (in general) prefer Christianity over the other two Abrahamics. Jews weren't lucky for many centuries. I guess now Muslims are on the spotlight. I think the immigrants should stop. Europe needs to stop leaving the front door wide open if immigration is problematic! At least the "Eurabians" are legal. But still. I wonder.

68.100.42.40 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)"Amerabian"(I guess that's what I'd be called...)

Conservatism in the United States

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

User:Lionelt replaced Category:Conservatism in the United States by Category:Conservatism in Europe. While "Eurabia" involve indeed the Conservatism in Europe, I added back Category:Conservatism in the United States because "Eurabia" involve also:

American conservative people, such Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Bruce Thornton, Christopher Caldwell, Tony Blankley, Walter Laqueur, George Weigel, Stuart Varney, Jennifer Morse;
American conservative organizations, such Hudson Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Free Republic, FrontPage Magazine, Regnery Publishing, VDare, CBN, Fox news;
conservative people working and publishing in the United States, such Mark Steyn;

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't find any US involvement in Eurabia in the article body. Many of the people & orgs you mention are cited as references, but this is a far cry from involvement. Apart from Americans commenting on the issue, how does Eurasia directly impact the USA and vice versa? Remember, from WP:CAT, addition of a cat must be obvious and indicated by the article. Lionel (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Eurasia" (Lionelt) I guess it's a typo to "Eurabia". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Apart from Americans commenting on the issue, how does Eurasia directly impact the USA and vice versa?" (Lionelt) Sorry, but I fail to see how this is relevant to add Category:Conservatism in the United States. However, you can look at Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project , December 2004, National Intelligence Council, quoted in [2] and [3], and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Salo, Eurabia: Strategic Implications for the United States [4], United States Army War College, March 2010. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Other try: Apart from European conservative commenting on the Eurabia issue, why is Category:Conservatism in Europe involved? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misnomer and POV editing

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see no valid reason to remove the description of the term as a misnomer from the introduction. That's precisely what the term is, by definition. Eur + abia, from Europe + Arabia, yet the term is quite specifically used to discuss Islamization, not Arabization. "Arab population in Europe" is not the same thing as "Muslim population in Europe." User:Atwarwiththem reverted the "misnomer" description, but it's clear from his or her edit history that he or she has a habit of making obvious partisan edits to articles relating to Islam and conservative politics (most recently blanking the Anders Behring Breivik religious description and removing the citation to replace it with "Atheist" and no citation or rationale). Same user has also misrepresented information contained in refs by editorializing previously written text, e.g. on the Muslim Brotherhood page: "However, in addition to holding highly conservative, if not sexist views on issues such as women's rights,^[1]

So, I'm restoring the "misnomer" description until someone makes a convincing argument to the contrary. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

POV lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Fails to mention any of the numerous criticism of this concept. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote a short summary. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead is still extremely POV. It fails to identify this adequately as a far-right fringe conspiracy theory and makes it look like it is widely supported by the mainstream. JonFlaune (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

In particular, this article provides a significant number of further readings that support the terms, but only one in criticism. This is not because of a lack of sources, but clearly editors have slanted the article towards supporting views, rather than a multi-viewpoint perspective.--Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's because only one book against the concept has been published. In this version I even removed the Critical Books section. "the "Eurabia" conspiracy theory, which holds that EU bureaucrats have struck a secret deal to hand over Europe to Islam in exchange for oil.", "the so-called Eurabia conspiracy theory, which purports to expose a secret deal between European bureaucrats and Islamists to hand over Europe to Islam in exchange for oil.", "the conspiratorial “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.”" and "the classic conspiracism of the "Eurabia" takeover fantasy" are not books, aren't they? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then WP:UNDUE is given to the supporting books. However, a cursory google book search reveals: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12] - all are critical of the concept, and of course, books - and some from far more respected publishers and authors the included "supports" are, not that this is a reason to delete, but its something that puts into question your assertion that sources cannot be found.

Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete reference to book totaly or mostly about Eurabia, pro or con. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I only found one book totaly or mostly about Eurabia and critical of it. I may have missed (some book totaly or mostly about Eurabia and critical of it), but at first look the 6 books you show does not fit in this category. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, thank for Richard Bonney's book, it secure the content of Eurabia. Ou pas. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not worried about Supporting Books section's WP:UNDUE because I found many shorter-than-a-book text mostly about Eurabia and sharpy critical of this theory, from a scientific revue to a norvegian blog, including american, canadian, french newspapers. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, feel free to improve the article, and welcome here. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added several critical external links: 444141045 444326573. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is not the sole criticism on WP:DUE, while the concept has had significant coverage, it is still fringy, in particular in academic circles. It is very important that information that tackles the subject, such as demographic information, be included. This information has been published in reliable sources, including the (in)famous The Economist cover article that Anders Breivik used in his video. --Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of demographics, the data used for the map in the infobox is an 'estimate' from the Pew Research Center an American think tank - not actually demographics at all. The use of this source in the infobox is misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Laqueur

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I agree that his book should not simply be listed as supporting [13] . With the risk of overusing Carr's paper, he has a summary of Laqueur's more nuanced position. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't find any mention of Walter Laqueur in Matt Carr, You are now entering Eurabia, 2006. There is "Unlike Fallaci and Mark Steyn, Caldwell does not rant or sneer. He presents his book as an objective and judicious discussion rather than a polemic, and avoids conspiratorial explanations for Muslim immigration of the type made by Eurabian theorists like Bat Ye'or. His arguments are measured, thoughtful and nuanced, and considerably more sophisticated than the rantings of Melanie Phillips." in Matt Carr, Christopher Caldwell dissected, 2009, but about Christopher Caldwell, not Walter Laqueur.

Howewer, the three source I mentionned in 443565634 acknowledge that Walter Laqueur, The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent, 2007, is less extremist and less ludicrous than other eurabian books:

"the Eurabia theorists - with the partial exception of Walter Laqueur, the most judicious of them - seem to regard the mass of Muslims as the enemy. [...] (Again, only Laqueur notes the many rifts.) [...] Laqueur portrays a future Europe in which some countries have Muslim majorities." in Simon Kuper, The crescent and the cross, Financial Times, 2007;
"Littérature "Eurabia": quelques auteurs nord-américains [...] Walter Laqueur, The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent (2007)." in Justin Vaïsse, L'Europe islamisée, Esprit, 2010, without other mention of The Last Days of Europe;
"Despite their Europe-focused content, these books are a largely North American phenomenon. [...] Caldwell, the jocular and hyperbolic Mark Steyn, the shallow Bruce Thornton, the more serious Walter Laqueur, and the high-pitched Claire Berlinski and Bruce Bawer, write from the other side of the Atlantic." in Justin Vaïsse, Eurabian Follies, Foreign policy, 2010;

Of course, this doesn't mean that Walter Laqueur, The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent, stand against all eurabian thesis. The editor presentation itself speak about "a falling birthrate collides with uncontrolled immigration [...] Here he describes how unplanned immigration policies and indifference coinciding with internal political and social crises have led to a continent-wide identity crisis.". In Laqueur's letter to the Economist (answerring to Eurabia revisited, May 2007), he wrote "On at least three occasions I called Eurabia a term “largely misleading” since it does not apply to Britain, to Germany and several other European countries." which means an half or a quarter of Europe (but not whole Europe) will transform into Eurabia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit mystified by the course of this thread. Isn't an author in a better position to characterize his own views? Having been overruled in my original correction (deletion of the reference to Laqueur's book as "supporting" Eurabia), I have addressed a direct question to the author. With his permission I reproduce his response:

(Beginning Laqueur) "Voltaire wrote that everyone who writes a book must be prepared to be attacked not only for what he wrote but for what he did not write. But I think this should not apply to an encyclopedia.

"It is wholly irrelevant whether the concept of Eurabia is right or wrong, prophetic or pathologic... What matters is what the author wrote.

"I dissociated myself from the concept as misleading in my book and many articles saying that the immigrants to the UK are mainly from India, Pakistan and the West Indies—but not Arabs, the immigrants to France mainly from West and North Africa not Arabia, those to Germany mainly from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Russia but not from Arabia. The same applies to Belgium, Sweden, Austria and other countries.

"Reviewers of my book noticed that I rejected the concept—for instance Jeffrey Herf in the New Republic. To ignore this is either rooted in ignorance or deliberate falsification and it has no place in an encyclopedia." (End Laqueur)

Wouldn't you think this should end the mini-controversy? Unless one has an agenda, or an ax to grind, one need not object to a purely factual correction. Medovar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

I believe you, Walter Laqueur, The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent, 2007, does not belong to the variant of the Eurabia genre in which Europe is overflooded by Muslims from Arabia. However, according to Commentary Magazine, July 2007, the two main point of the book are "a demographic crisis [in Europe] Due to low birthrates, many European nationalities are shrinking and some are on the path to virtual extinction [...] the inability of the countries of Western Europe to sustain the expensive welfare states" and "uncontrolled migration [into Europe]", which seem to be suffient for

Eurabia revisited, the Economist, May 2007
Simon Kuper, The crescent and the cross, Financial Times, 2007;
Justin Vaïsse, L'Europe islamisée, Esprit, 2010;
Justin Vaïsse, Eurabian Follies, Foreign policy, 2010;

to categorize the book in the Eurabia genre (but another variant, likely Europe is decadent + European do not breed enough + Europe is too socialist + Europe is flooded by immigrant + Europe can't maintain its traditions). So what to do? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Walter Laqueur's mention in Daniel Pipes, Europe's Stark Options, 2007. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Walter Laqueur, The Slow Death of Europe, The National Interest, 2011-08-16. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd, suggesting to me you either relish being the contrarian or are driven by an irrelevant, non-encyclopedic agenda. Here is a telling quote from John Thornhill, former editor of the Financial Times Europe edition, no fan of Laqueur. He writes (July 8, 2007): "At least Laqueur dismisses the notion -- popular among more extreme US commentators -- that Europe is about too turn into Arabia." Case closed. Just let go. You are compromising the credibility of this institution by your obstinacy. This is no arena for account settling or effete frowning. There are plenty of other fora. As for facts, you know, they tend to be pretty stubborn things. Medovar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead once again

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would have added a POV tag to the article, if it had not already included a POV tag (for good reasons it appears). As pointed out by others, the lead fails to mention any mainstream view on this far-right conspiracy theory, as it's considered by any mainstream source. Marján and Sapir have a succinct and balanced description of this theory in their book, representing the mainstream view, stating that the idea of "Eurabia" is "based on an extremist conspiracy theory, according to which Europe and the Arab states would join forces to make life impossible for Israel and Islamize the old continent." JonFlaune (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Marjàn and Sapir writes "the very idea of Eurabia".. The very idea according them I suppose. Anyway in the current lead there is any reference to the conspiracy or to the States secret accords. Not all people read the notes. I would add that Marjàn and Sapir write that Bat Ye'or is "Israeli-born" (p.161 of the quoted book); as all we know Bat Ye'or is Egyptian born. Marjàn and Sapir even know who they are talking about. I wonder if they have read her book as in the back cover of Eurabia: the Euro-Arab axis is clealy written![14]. How could someone write a "succinct and balanced description" of a theory with this kind of error?--Domics (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added some info to the lead. The information from it was deleted by an editor (who also deleted other info) without giving a reason. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

new sources and views

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bat Ye'or exposes her theory in the entry "euro-arab anti-semitism" in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture, Volume 1, p. 115.[15].
History professor Seth Armus writes: "there are certainly worse books on the subject than Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, by Bat Ye'or, and her sistematic analysis deserves serious attention. It is not her fault that her thesis has been widely embraced by thoughtless polemicists" (French anti-Americanism (1930-1948): critical moments in a complex history, p. 167)[16].
Israel W. Charny, psychologist and historian, even if in disagreement with Bat Ye'or writes that she is "a world-renowed scholar of Islam" and that she "has been published extensively and respectufully by important academic presses and who is invited to lecture at responsible and conservative academic centers".(Charny, "Fighting suicide bombing: a worldwide campaign for life", p. 34).--Domics (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik link inserted into revision history

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Someone or something inserted the Anders Behring Breivik link currently at the top of this article into what looks like every revision of the page going back to 17:41, 13 June 2010. I'm not all that familiar with this sort of thing, so I'm not sure whether to treat this as hardcore vandalism or some sort of technical/bot error. How to proceed? I can't remove the link from the current version - it doesn't appear as an editable hyperlink. Also can't revert it, naturally, because it's inserted into every revision. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don;t see anything amiss - no revision of the article has his name before he became known AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Either it was a bug or someone is playing games. A link to the Anders Behring Breivik article appeared at the top of every revision back to the one I mentioned above without any way to edit it out just a couple of hours ago. Now it's gone entirely from the page history. It was even inserted into my own revisions (which didn't include it originally), so I'm positive it was a later addition. What to do? It was either a bug or abuse. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Percentages in Cyprus

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We can't have the map saying 20-30% in Cyprus and 95-100% in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. If referring to the TRNC on the one hand and Cyprus on the other, then the latter refers to the government-controlled area where Islam is as small as Christianity is in the TRNC - on the other hand we have to keep the reference to Cyprus (as indicated in the coloring of the map currently)as 20-30% and remove the one for TRNC.Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong page. Comment moved to Template talk:Islam in Europe by country. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The lumping together of a bit of everything

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What logical fallacy is committed when you pick out some anonymous YouTuber video about personal views on "Muslim Demographics", and the rejection of the claims in that video, and present that as a rejection of the "eurabia theory"?--88.91.29.16 (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding ZOG as see also

Latest comment: 12 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion

I think Zionist Occupation Government as a see also would be a good idea since both theories is based on a conspiracy by a specific ethnic/religious group. The only real difference is what group is targeted. // Liftarn (talk)

ZOG is a conspiracy theory that claims that a tiny minority of the population – Zionists/Jews – have secretly controlled Western governments for decades. Eurabia is a theory that Muslims will eventually openly take over European societies primarily through demographics. With that broad a connection, one could equally easily add "See also" links to Democracy and Communism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not conspiracy theories based on ethnicity/religion. Please try again. // Liftarn (talk)

Please try again, this time directly addressing the points I've raised, which note the fundamental differences between ZOG and Eurabia. I can repeat them if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"ZOG is a conspiracy theory that claims that a tiny minority of the population – Zionists/Jews – have secretly controlled Western governments for decades." (Jayjg) Yes.

"Eurabia is a theory that Muslims will eventually openly take over European societies primarily through demographics." (Jayjg) Yes, but it does not restrict to this. The Eurabia theory, which has been called a conspiracy theory many time, is also claiming that sold-out-to-Muslims (a tiny minority of the population?) secretly control European governments for decades. See for example "For 40 years Eurabia has built its networks, its finance, its hegemonous power, its totalitarian control over the media, the universities, the culture and the mind of people." in Bat Ye'or; "Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel." in Bat Ye'or; « At the center of her story is something called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), a joint initiative of the EU and Arab governments whose meetings are closed, proceedings unpublished, and activities thus "shielded from scrutiny and democratic control." » in Bruce Bawer; "the European Union has de facto surrendered the entire European continent to ongoing Islamic colonization" in Fjordman; "All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe" in Geert Wilders.

See also "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s preposterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US." in Matt Carr, "You are now entering Eurabia", Race & Class, 2006-07, doi:10.1177/0306396806066636. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you citing blogs, and doing WP:OR? Please stick to reliable sources that directly connect the two concepts. And we've already dismissed Matt Carr on the ZOG talk page: he's one non-notable individual who wrote an article six years ago claiming that the "broad contours" of Bat Ye'or's thesis, once "stripped of its Islamic content", "recall" notions of ZOG - that's really tenuous. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am correcting your incomplete statement about the Eurabia theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You weren't "correcting" anything, and my statement wasn't "incomplete". Wikipedia doesn't care what blogs and other similarly unreliable sources have to say. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

« my statement wasn't "incomplete". » (Jayjg) Source? Can you show a reliable source claiming that "Eurabia is a theory that Muslims will eventually openly take over European societies primarily through demographics" and is nothing else, or are you a reliable source about Eurabia theory yourself? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't care what blogs and other similarly unreliable sources have to say." (Jayjg) Actually, you are the one who have to say about Eurabia, who made a statement about Eurabia in this talk page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who attempted to prove your point using blogs and other similarly unreliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't care what blogs and other similarly unreliable sources have to say. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to prove that your previous statement wasn't incomplete, then I have nothing else to say; case closed. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be enlightening to read up on WP:SEEALSO. We can add a note saying that ZOG is a simmilar conspiracy theory of a hidden takeover by a different religioethnic group. As we also have an article in a peer-reviewed publication linking the two conspiracy theories together I do think it should be included. // Liftarn (talk)

I oppose the addition. Inclusion into the See Also section should not be based on editors random theories, as in this instance. I also oppose including the commentary of non-notable redlinked commentators, though this should have been clear to all of us. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Race & Class is a peer-reviewed journal published by a publisher that specializes in academic texts. It is a reliable source, and this ~~game~~ attempt of claiming that because the author is redlinked or "not-notable" that it means the source is somehow invalidated directly contradicts both WP:RS and WP:N. WP:RS makes clear that the source, being published in a peer-reviewed journal, is reliable. WP:N restricts arguments on notability to the existence of articles, not the content of articles. A reliable source directly compares Eurabia and Zionist Occupation Government, that is enough reason to include a see also. But if editors are opposed to that, Ill start a section using that reliable source to discuss the comparison in greater depth. nableezy - 15:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you again were unable to assume good faith and had to attack me in your opening comment to this discussion. I don't understand how you think accusing me of playing games is conducive to a civil and collaborative discussion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I didnt attack you personally, I attacked the fallacious argument, first brought by Jayjg and repeated by your good self, that a reliable source should not be used because the author is "non-notable". WP:RS and WP:N directly contradict that. The source is reliable because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal by a publisher specializing in academic works. "Notability" covers the existence of articles, not their content, and certainly does not in any way restrict reliable sources to those written by "notable" persons. Do you have any response to that? But to accommodate your sensitivities, I have modified a single word in my initial response. Maybe now you can actually address the argument. nableezy - 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The obvious response is to invite the editors here to review WP:UNDUE: why did this article devote so much space and give so much weight to the musings of Matt Carr, who, though this article rather grandiosely described him as a "scholar", is actually just a freelance journalist? Why haven't actual scholars, or even notable writers, made this connection? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. In its current state the article gives Matt Carr's "musings" far more weight than any of the other commentators, who are not only scholars in the field, but also notable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I predict that some editors here will prefer to edit-war to retain this bad source, rather than find a good source. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

None of those comments address the issue that WP:RS specifies that peer-reviewed journal articles are reliable and that notability is simply not a valid argument when discussing anything other than the existence of a stand-alone article. nableezy - 22:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

None of your comments address the issue that WP:RS says peer-reviewed journal articles are generally reliable, that reliability is not a binary attribute, that the issues raised here are WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, and that in the case of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, the notability of the author is without doubt an important factor. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I was confused by this discussion. The comparison of islamophobia and anti-semitism is quite well established in academic discourse. Some of the references in that article's section on links to other ideologies are relevant to this discussion, and establish that the two phenomena are closely related. Also, a fresh article on the Norwegian spree killer reiterates this bond specifically in the context of Eurabia,[17] and the position has occured in mainstream, non-academic publications as well.[18]

In my opinion, the material cited in this discussion is really a firm basis to include this link in the article itself - and this is where I was confused the first time, because there it is, and in my opinion, there it should remain. The requirement in WP:Seealso is merely that (...) links in the See Also section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the See Also links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. And this is where this discussion came to confuse me the second time, because the guideline also says that As a general rule the See Also section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Since the links are already in place in the article's body, I don't really see why it should be included in the less prominent "See also"-section.

Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is in the article now because of this edit. Prior to that edit, and during this discussion, it had not been in the article. nableezy - 20:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was, but I ended up summarizing the absurdly WP:UNDUE amount of space devoted to the musings of freelance journalist Matt Carr, per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed something in your summary of the peer-reviewed article published by a company specializing in academic works. I see that has been restored, per policy of course. nableezy - 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything important or notable, just some WP:REDFLAG stuff, so it will have to be removed again, per policy. The easy thing to do would be to find actual scholars who make this connection, and thus remove the issue of WP:UNDUE weight to WP:REDFLAG claims, but no doubt editors here would rather just edit-war to retain a bad source, rather than attempting to find a good one. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Jay, I ask this sincerely. Can you please tell me what you would consider a good source? nableezy - 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought that would be obvious - an academic who studies these topics would be a good source, for example. "Freelance journalist" is just one step above "blogger", and sometimes not even that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It would have been obvious if this freelance journalist was not writing in a peer-reviewed journal. WP:RS clearly says that such sources are reliable. Quoting from WP:RS: If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. Do you argue that Race & Class is not a peer-reviewed source published by a well-regarded publisher? Because if it is, then regardless of the author the content has been vetted by the scholarly community and it is a reliable source. nableezy - 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, "reliable/not reliable" is not a binary choice, with sources being either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable, and nothing in-between. Rather, reliability is a spectrum, and depends on many things, including the author, the publisher, the subject matter, when the material was published, and other factors. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal generally indicates that a source is reliable. "Generally" is the word specifically used in the WP:RS guideline, and "generally" means "not always"; that one should also assess various other factors. In this case, a respected academic writing in his field of expertise in a respected peer-reviewed journal would be at the high end of reliability; a freelance journalist writing in a journal that while peer-reviewed, has a specific agenda, would be significantly less so. More importantly, though, you've failed to address the salient issue raised, that of giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:REDFLAG claims. It's hard to get around the WP:UNDUE issue, because when all is said and done, Matt Carr is still a freelance journalist who does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and the views of notable authors (e.g. recognized experts in their fields) inevitably carry more weight and get more space in articles. However, one could easily show that the concept is not a WP:REDFLAG claim - for example, by providing various examples of reliable sources that make it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

liz fekete, the executive director of the institute of race relations and author of "a suitable enemy: racism, migration and islamophobia"(pluto, 2009), states that "this muslim conspiracy bears many of the hallmarks of the ‘jewish conspiracy theory’, yet, ironically, its adherents, some of whom were formerly linked to anti-Semitic traditions, have now, because of their fear of islam and arab countries, become staunch defenders of israel and zionism." the source is the new article from race&class referred by user benjamil above. is this good enough?-- mustihussain 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything about "Zionist Occupation Government" there - does she mention it anywhere? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

no, but combined with carr this should be enough to include the zog-wikilink in the see also-section. wp: see also states: links in the see also section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the see also links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant.-- mustihussain 06:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't "combine" things this way - see WP:SYNTH. There are, unfortunately, all sorts of conspiracy theories about Jews, and it's not clear she's referring to ZOG. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

i'm sorry if i was unclear. what i meant was the two sources do justify the inclusion of the zog-wikilink in the see "also-section" as per wp:seealso.-- mustihussain 08:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the second source nowhere refers to ZOG, it cannot possibly be used to justify the inclusion of the ZOG in the See also section. This method of editing is exactly backward; an editor wants to equate Eurabia with ZOG, and now various other editors are trying to find a way of justifying that edit. If it's that hard to find reliable sources tying the two together (and it quite obviously is that hard), then you shouldn't be trying to make the edit in the first place. Find reliable sources, and then summarize what they say, rather than what is going on here. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive raised both issues (REDFLAG and UNDUE) at WP:RS/N and WP:NPOV/N. nableezy - 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

eurabia

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

hello,

i have checked the sources in the origin-section and none of them speak of "political neologism". hence, your edits constitute original research.-- mustihussain 06:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They variously state that the word is of recent origin and refers to a theory either political (Bat Ye'or) or social (Mark Steyn and other proponents) and thus (per the dictionary definition, which I also referred to you) is a neologism. If I were to make claims not present in a source, that would be original research, using synonyms is not. --Dishcmds (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

i disagree. you're inferring that the term is recent enough to be called neologism. that is original research.-- mustihussain 06:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And conversely you are suggesting that 2005 is not recent enough, while pages about words from 2005, the late 1970s or even 1871 are categorized as such. --Dishcmds (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

my suggestions do not matter. what matters is what reliable secondary sources state. none of the sources in the origin-section mention the term "social-political neologism". this is clearly original research and also synth. i have taken the issue to the no original research noticeboard.-- mustihussain 08:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here in response to the request for a third opinion. Please hold tight while I read what has gone on and I'll get back to you. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also moved the discussion to the article talk page, which is a better place for it if there is a 3O request. --FormerIP (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I should declare an interest which I didn't know about before taking on the request. I have previously edited the article on Bat Y'eor's husband WP:BLP violation removed David Littman, regarding the question of whether or not it is correct to style him as an historian for the purposes of his WP article. So I don't think I'm the right person to take this case. You may wish to re-advertise.

For what it's worth though...the footnotes are poorly formatted. Note 1 should have a page number and, really, an English translation of the words being cited. Note 2 should have a page number. Note three should have something more than a list of people's names - how is anyone supposed to verify it as it is?

On the substantive issue, clearly the term Eurabia is political and clearly it is a neologism. Musti, I think you should consider whether your request for sources is reasonable. It doesn't take much to work out that it is an uncontroversial statement.

On the other hand, because it isn't directly sourced, perhaps it is not the correct phrase to use in the first sentence of the article. But, since the concept of Eurabia is one for the fringes of political thought, this should be made clear at the very start of the article. The Shooman source uses the phrase "anti-Muslim contruct". Perhaps that could be used instead.

Also, I reminder that the lead is supposed to fairly summarise contents in the rest of the article - ideally it should not need any cites. --FormerIP (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

the request was reasonable as confirmed by this administrator, User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#original_research.3F. i'll make the fixes, and use the "anti-muslim construct"-phrase instead of "political neologism". thanks for your advice.-- mustihussain 07:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although there don't appear to be many reliable sources that describe it as such, "Eurabia" is obviously a neologism, and obviously political, and there's nothing remotely objectionable about describing it as such. On the other hand "Anti-Muslim construct" is a fairly meaningless phrase used, as far as I can tell, in exactly one source, a book published in 2010. It's unclear why you would object to "political neologism", but your proposed change is clearly worse. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, i will not use "anti-muslim construct" but "political neologism" also has to go as per 3o.-- mustihussain 08:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that's it's quite obviously a political neologism, why exactly do you object to it being described as that? Not the policy, but the actual reason you object? For example, do you not think it is a neologism? Jayjg ^(talk) 09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

i have already mentioned that my personal views are irrelevant (see the 5. reply). what matters is what reliable sources state. i also compromised by not using the phrase "anti-muslim construct" as suggested by the 3o. -- mustihussain 17:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But given that it's obviously a political neologism, and that everyone has told you it's obviously a political neologism, I'd really like to understand your personal views on this. I'm well aware of what policy says, but I'd like to understand your reasoning here; perhaps, for example, you have a different understanding of what the word "neologism" means than the rest of us. Do you think it is a neologism? Please just answer yes or no. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

« "Eurabia" is obviously a neologism, and obviously political » (Jayjg) +1 Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please answer the question: Do you think it is a neologism? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory"

Latest comment: 12 years ago45 comments6 people in discussion

I strongly urge that editors stop attempting to label as fact the idea that "Eurabia" is a conspiracy theory. Certain pundits/analysts/etc have labeled it such but it does not make it a fact. Eurabia is a controversial political view. According to NPOV, we can say that some people label it a "conspiracy theory" and dispute the political data points and arguments asserted by Eurabia proponents. But ultimately it is a controversy, not a conspiracy. It is a violation of NPOV to assert otherwise. It is not like other (proven) conspiracy theories that are based on out and out falsehoods. This is a question on how certain data is interpreted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Seriously? The first sentence of the article says that this is about, in part, European leaders' alleged capitulation to Islamic influences. You really want to say that theorizing a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory? nableezy - 01:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Gates of Vienna, three day ago: "The current generation of Swedish leaders will earn themselves a dubious place in history [...] as the rulers who betrayed their country, who destroyed their homeland, who deliberately obliterated more than a thousand years of proud Swedish history." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

the conspiracy theory category was removed by administrator jayjg in this edit [19]. fortunately, visite fortuitement prolongée put it back in.-- altetendekrabbe 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy, saying that people are "capitulating" to something is not the same as saying they are conspiring. @Visite, Wikipedia is not interested in WP:NOR based on your analysis of blog postings. @Mustihussain/Altetendekrabbe, please Comment on content, not on the contributor, and please answer the question you have been avoiding in the previous section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

not the contributor, eh? WP:BLP issue/User:Cincinatis.-- altetendekrabbe 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Administrator's noticeboard is exactly where one should discuss behavior issues. Article Talk: pages are not. Do you have anything to contribute here? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To everyone: while I admit I don't know a huge amount about this whole "Eurabia" term/theory, what I've read in the past couple of days indicates to me that most of it centers on the belief that because of demographics (immigration and birth rates), Europe is becoming increasingly Muslim, and that European leaders are (for various reasons) accepting this. All of this is, according to proponents, happening fairly openly, so it is not a conspiracy - conspiracies must, by definition, be secret. That said, my analysis of this doesn't really matter, nor does anyone else's; we must rely on the analyses of reliable secondary sources.

In addition, regardless of what reliable sources say, Wikipedia articles must adhere to NPOV - that means trying to adopt an impartial tone (see Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone). Look at the lede of Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is, without doubt, a conspiracy theory, and all sorts of reliable sources describe it that way. Nevertheless, the article lede first explains what it is and what are its key claims, then describes why that term is used, and only at the end states that it is "generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory", giving the reasons why. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

bat ye'or does in fact speak of a secret subversion of europe, as does her followers like daniel pipes or oriana fallaci. eurabia is, like zog, a conspiracy theory. see the lede on the zog-article. mr. spoiler has yet again removed sourced material + the conspiracy theory category. this is beginning to look like an issue for the an/i-board.-- altetendekrabbe 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the part about relying on sources and adopting a neutral tone? As for removing a specific item, that's a content dispute. The article still notes that it is viewed as a conspiracy theory. However, it may well be time to bring this to AN/I, particularly your behavior. By the way, please answer the question: do you consider "Eurabia" to be a neologism? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

please go ahead because i haven't done anything wrong, and i really don't care. it will also increase the attention to your own immature behavior, administrator.-- altetendekrabbe 18:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jay, the article gives the following as Ye'or's definition:

Eurabia is a geo-political reality envisaged in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between, on the one hand, the nine countries of the European Community (EC) which, enlarged, became the European Union (EU) in 1992 and on the other hand, the Mediterranean Arab countries. The alliances and agreements were elaborated at the top political level of each EC country with the representative of the European Commission, and their Arab homologues with the Arab League's delegate

That seems to pretty clearly allege a conspiracy among the European states and the Arab states, even specifying those conspirators as being members of the top political level of each EC country. Can you explain why you feel that this is not a conspiracy theory? Also, the article Holocaust denial is in Category:Conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israel, which itself is a sub-cat of Category:Conspiracy theories involving Jews, which is a sub-cat of Category:Conspiracy theories. nableezy - 18:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, to begin with, I brought up the Holocaust denial article as an example of how to introduce the notion of a conspiracy theory in the lede in a neutral way. In addition, I also noted that "Holocaust denial is, without doubt, a conspiracy theory, and all sorts of reliable sources describe it that way." Is that the case, however, for "Eurabia"?

Bat Ye'or gives one definition, but her understanding of the word appears to be fairly unique to her - and even in her view, much of this happened openly or informally (i.e. not as part of a formal conspiracy). However, she doesn't own the term or its meaning, and many others use the term, or discuss it. Let's go to a more mainstream source, The Economist. It defined Eurabia in one article as "an ever-growing Muslim Europe-within-Europe—poor, unassimilated and hostile to the United States." ("Tales from Eurabia", The Economist, June 22nd 2006.) The Economist describes it in various unflattering ways: a "caricature" and "scaremongering", and goes on to state that the "The concept includes a string of myths and a couple of hard truths." But it does not describe it as a "conspiracy theory", because nothing about what it describes as Eurabia is secret or part of any organized conspiracy.

See also for example, the quote from Ayaan Hirsi Ali used in this article:

The monopoly of force that is now exclusive to states will be challenged by armed subgroups. European societies will be divided along ethnic and religious lines. The education system will not succeed in grooming the youth to believe in a shared past, let alone a shared future. The European states will find themselves limiting civil liberties. Europeans will come to accept the de facto implementation of Sharia law in certain neighborhoods and even cities. The exploitation of the weak, women and children will be commonplace. Those who can afford to emigrate will do so. Instead of an ever-growing union in Europe, future generations may witness an ever-disintegrating one.

Mark Steyn, as cited in this article, describes it thusly:

This is about the seven-eighths below the surface -- the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and that call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are: demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion.

Note that this seems to be the mainstream understanding of the term; "demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion" are leading or will lead to a Europe that is Islamized. This is not in any way a "conspiracy"; rather, it is a prediction of the future, based on an interpretation of current events and trends. Now, it may well be a caricature, scaremongering, bigoted, even Islamophobic - or, perhaps, simply incorrect. However, none of that makes it a "conspiracy theory". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bat Ye'or gives one definition, but her understanding of the word appears to be fairly unique to her" (Jayjg) Can you show a very reliable source backing up this claim? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"in her view, much of this happened openly or informally" (Jayjg) Can you show a very reliable source backing up this claim? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"this seems to be the mainstream understanding of the term" (Jayjg) Can you show a very reliable source backing up this claim? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, and I've provided what I think is evidence for these statements: my comments cite the definitions reliable sources use for Eurabia - the very sources used in the article - and not only highlight what they do (and do not) say, but also highlight commonalities and differences between them. This is vastly different from a personal analysis of a blog posting, and Talk page arguments do not have the same formal requirements for proof or verification that article pages do. In addition, since your comments over the past few days do not appear to actually address the points I've made, or indeed any requirement of Wikipedia or Talk: pages, I'm going to focus on responding solely to Nableezy, who is able make coherent arguments for the opposing view, and with whom dialogue appears to be productive. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg has provided the most sensible argument yet. There is not one "exclusive" definition of Eurabia and the argument is not based on a "conspiracy" but primarily on interpretation of demographic data, Arab oil influence, the weakness of the European social democratic state and European civilization exhaustion. Once again, labeling it factually as a conspiracy is clearly a POV failure. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

<Talk page mode>Bat Ye'or variant of Eurabia is shared by many people. It include an european conspiracy since 40 or 60 years. This is one of the main variants of Eurabia. It as been labeled "conspiracy theory" many time.</Talk page mode> Have you heard Joël Kotek's "I think you should have titled your conference the protocols of the wise of Brussels [...] I think it's a conspiracy theory." at Jerusalem? Have you read The Independent's "Our Man In Paris: France will never be a Muslim state"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Plot Spoiler. To add to what I've said, one of the sources recently added to the article makes this distinction quite explicit. It states:

There are two strands of what is called the ‘Eurabia Theory’. One is a conspiracy theory about a secret agreement. The other is a more general theory. What the two have in common is the belief that Europe is becoming a Muslim state, i.e. a European Arabia. (David Lagerlof, Jonathan Leman, Alexander Bengtsson. ""The Anti-Muslim Environment - The ideas, the Profiles and the Concept"" (PDF). (306 KB), Expo Research, 2011.)

The article goes on to note that the former is promoted essentially by Bat Yeor and various bloggers. However, this article contains none of this nuance, since its purpose is not to explain what Eurabia is, but rather to a) characterize any who use the term as conspiracist Islamophobes, and b) associate all who use the term with mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you now acknowledge that your previous statement "Eurabia is a theory that Muslims will eventually openly take over European societies primarily through demographics" was incomplete? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jay, the column by Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not once mention the term Eurabia, let alone offer a definition, so on the basis of your own edits (like this) it should be removed from the article. But, as the source you just gave notes, at least part of what this article covers is unquestionably a conspiracy theory. On that basis, do you not think the article should be within that category? I actually dont have a problem with how you worded the lead (I do have one with the way Plot Spoiler did), but I still do not understand why, if part of what this article covers what theorizes a conspiracy, the article should not be in the category. I dont dispute that Holocaust denial is unquestionable a conspiracy theory, my response to that point was limited to the fact that despite the lead not saying that in the narrative voice the article is still in the relevant category. I dont know why that should not be done here as well. You seemingly acknowledge that at least a portion of the article is about a conspiracy theory, so is there a reason for it not to be in the cat? nableezy - 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right Nableezy, the column by Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not mention the term, and should be removed - it's not a source I added, I was just quoting it because it was already in the article. I suspect that if we go carefully through this article we'll find it riddled with problems like that, as are most of these kinds of articles, filled with WP:OR. Also, you may have noticed that I didn't remove the Conspiracy theory category in the edits I made preceding your most recent comment, because I too am wrestling with this problem. The question I think we have to answer is how do we deal with something that has two distinct "strands" - one, a conspiracy theory promoted by a specific author (and echoed in various unreliable sources), and a second a "non-conspiracy" theory, which is the way most other authors use it. When, say, Mark Steyn uses the term, he's referring to "demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion", not any sort of conspiracy. Yet when one slaps the label "conspiracy theory" on the term, one tars those who aren't arguing for a conspiracy with that same conspiracist brush. Now, for some of the editors of this article, that is indeed their intent, merely to smear people with whom they disagree. But for intelligent editors like you, this would, I think, be more troubling. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We have precedents for how to deal with two-stranded conspiracy theories, because most conspiracy theories do have a derivative version that doesn't posit a centralised conspiracy. I don't see how this is an unusual case. --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What would consider to be precedents? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are some exceptions (e.g. moon landings, 9/11 was an inside job) but, generally, pick any conspiracy theory you like. Since you have said here that Holocaust denial is "without doubt a conspiracy theory", it should be noted some of the most prominent Holocaust deniers do not suggest any organised conspiracy. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's use Holocaust denial, since that what you've picked. Which of the "most prominent Holocaust deniers do not suggest any organised conspiracy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess David Irving would be the single most prominent, but AFAIK he doesn't posit any conspiracy, just bias. Let's face it, if a conspiracy theory can be elaborated without the conspiracy, someone will have done it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Irving has written a whole chapter on the Jewish conspiracy to suppress his writing and talks; he has a version on his website. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish conspiracy to what? Is that the closest you could find? Does he believe in a conspiracy directly connected to the Holocaust? --FormerIP (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know exactly what he is claiming at any given time regarding the Holocaust, because his positions seem to change regularly. However, quoting Roni Stauber's "From Revisionism to Holocaust Denial - David Irving as a Case Study"

[Irving's] antisemitic attitude, and especially his strong belief in a Jewish conspiracy ("our traditional enemies") in general, and its role in the "myth of the Holocaust" in particular, are well reflected in some of his books, articles and speeches.

Irving, like other Holocaust Deniers, believes that there is a Jewish conspiracy to lie and/or suppress the truth about the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How about Area 51? That article covers the factual existence of a US military base, as well as the various conspiracies that have been alleged about a government cover up of alien landings, and is included in Category:Conspiracy theories. nableezy - 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The mention of Area 51 has become synonymous with conspiracy theories. That is not the case with Eurabia, even if a bunch of cherry-picked articles are provided for reference. Many disagree with Eurabia but they don't label it as a conspiracy theory--because arguably the thrust of its argument has nothing to do with any conspiracy. 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This article covers something that is unquestionably a conspiracy theory. Several sources say so, and even the source that Jay brought to show a distinction between arguments says that one of the views is a conspiracy theory. But, just to satisfy your objection about Area 51, tell me why New Coke should be in that category. Is the mere mention of New Coke synonymous with conspiracy theories? Or is it because the article covers conspiracy theories, just as this one does. nableezy - 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disregarding your "its my way or the highway" demands, I don't think "New Coke" should be listed under conspiracy theories at all given that the conspiracy element is marginal to the subject as a whole. The entire cat and related template has been seriously abused. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny you would choose that phrase. Especially given the fact that of the two of us, only one is demanding that it is his way (the highway doesnt seem to be an option with you). There are a host of articles in the cat that are not only about a conspiracy but cover conspiracy theories. This is such an article, it covers what is unquestionably a conspiracy theory. Setting aside the silly assertion that opened this section, that it is a controversy, not a conspiracy, do you actually dispute that Bat Ye'or's thesis is a conspiracy theory? nableezy - 22:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your hateful attitude and specious logic is getting tiresome - especially when you keep arguing that Eurabia is "unquestionably a conspiracy theory." It appears there are conspiratorial elements to Bat Yeor's thesis but she does not "own" the issue and the political arguments rely much more on the demographic issue, failure of multicultural policies, civilizational exhaustion, etc. Just take a deep breath before you respond this time big guy... Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A stunningly refreshing respite from absurd accusation and illogical arguments. Wait, no, that isnt what this is. Again, this article covers something that is unquestionably a conspiracy theory. As such, it belongs in that category. You are the only person arguing against the inclusion of the category, and are doing it on plainly specious grounds. To crib a quote from somebody else, I'm going to focus on responding solely to Jayjg, who is able make coherent arguments for the opposing view, and with whom dialogue appears to be productive. nableezy - 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didnt say you added it, and I cant be bothered to go trawling through the history to see who did; I was just responding to the point. I also didnt say you removed the category. Honestly I dont have much of a problem with your edits here (with the exception of the removal of the comparison to ZOG). I think we have a problem of defining what the article is about. There seems to be several options; 1. it is about a neologism and the article should be focused on that, not supporting or defending the argument that the neologism puts forward. 2. it is about a concept, put forward by Bat Ye'or that the European states are capitulating, in a conspiracy among themselves and with the Arab states, to external and internal forces that are causing Europe to become Muslim. 3. it is about demographic trends in Europe and, in the views of a collection of writers, the danger that those trends pose for European ideals. If it is at all about 2 then the page, in my opinion, belongs in the category as it is covering what is reliably sourced to be a conspiracy theory. If it is only about 1, then much of the article should be removed. If it is only about 3 then the category might not apply, though I am unsure of this. But as it stands the article is covering all 3, and as such I feel it should be within the category. nableezy - 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

administrator jayjg has removed some of content dealing with the supposed demographic threat. if we remove a few paragraphs more then the article would be about the conspiracy theory of bat ye'or only. problem solved. perhaps, it might be a good idea to merge the article with the bat ye'or page.-- altetendekrabbe 20:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just clarifying that I wasn't the source. It would make sense to me to have it deal with all 3 topics, the word itself/etymology, the Bat Yeor conspiracy theory, and the general "Muslim demographic" theory. I'm interested in seeing how similar articles have handled the issue - I'm hoping FormerIP will clarify. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of brevity, let's both assume that unless one of us specifically accuses the other of something, that neither of us is accusing the other of anything. Im interested in how you think the article should be structured if it is to cover all 3 topics. nableezy - 19:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to me to organize it in pretty much that way - etymology/origins, Bat Yeor's thesis, other views. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me as well. I say lets do that. But, back to the point of the section, there are several other article that cover what a conspiracy theory within an article on a wider topic, and such articles are in the category. For example, to use an article that I am sure you are familiar with, see Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Others include New Coke, Red mercury, Charles August, Crown Prince of Sweden, Death of Kurt Cobain. This article clearly covers a conspiracy theory, and on that basis I feel it should be in the category. You yourself acknowledge that Ye'or's thesis is a conspiracy theory, and also say that this thesis should be covered in the article. So, is there a reason why the category should not be included? nableezy - 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All of those articles are about actual things, though - killings, products, individuals, even places. This is the only article that is about a theory. I will look for other theories that have two strands, one conspiracist, one not. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I last edited the Muhammad al-Durrah incident article three years ago, and the last time I made any significant edits was in April/May 2007 so I'm not really familiar with it any more. However, it's probably a good time to take a look at it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

anti-muslim concept

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

the expo article clearly defines "eurabia" as an "anti-muslim concept" (it also states that "one of the anti-muslim driving forces behind this supposed demographic threat is the canadian mark steyn"). in the newest issue of race&class "eurabia" is defined as an "anti-muslim construct" and a conspiracy theory. about time this is mentioned in the text.-- altetendekrabbe 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would need to be done in an NPOV way, and would need to be discussed in the text before being summarized in the lede, the opposite of what you just did. Also, you really are going to have to answer whether or not you think the term is a neologism, as has been asked many times above. If you can't answer this honestly, then it will indicate pretty conclusively that your edits are not intended to add to the accuracy of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

and what about your edits? should they not be discussed or are administrators exempt from normal procedure?-- altetendekrabbe 19:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss my edits, and regularly do so, including on this very page. That said, after over 7 years of editing and over 100,000 edits, which includes writing 7 Featured Articles and 8 Good Articles, I have a pretty good idea about what kinds of edits comply with policy and what kinds don't. Now, the elephant in the room - do you think "Eurabia" is not a neologism? There's no way to wiggle around answering that, because a non-answer means your intent here is not to improve the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

how old are you?-- altetendekrabbe 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, your non-answer is an answer in itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

your boasting and irrational behaviour is worrisome. sorry, you're not suitable as an administrator.-- altetendekrabbe 20:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Long response: Establishing one's qualifications is not "boasting", and your incessant game-playing is becoming increasingly tiresome and disruptive. Everyone here, including you, recognizes that "Eurabia" is a political neologism; but rather than describe it as what it is, in words people can understand, you apparently prefer to use one or two random sources to describe it instead as an "anti-Muslim concept-category". An "anti-Muslim concept-category"? What the hell is that, besides some POV phrase you've invented, and for which Google gets zero hits?[20]

Short response: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

the newest issue of race&class speaks of anti-muslim concept, and the shooman source speaks of anti-muslim category, as also noted by 3o. your first excuse was that the mentioning of the term "would need to be done in an npov way, and would need to be discussed in the text before being summarized in the lede". ok, i agree but now you're making an issue out of the fact i wrote "concept-category" instead of just "concept/category". funny that you want me to comment on content and not contributor while you have no problems labelling others as "yellow badgers" or worse WP:BLP issue/User:Cincinatis.-- altetendekrabbe 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already told you that AN/I is exactly the place one is supposed to discuss user behavior, whereas article Talk: pages are not. Stop wasting our time here please. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Youtube material

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Mustihussain/Altetendekrabbe has added some material about a Youtube video to the article, which I've brought here for discussion:

In 2009, an anonymously-created video proposing the thesis of Eurabia was uploaded to ''[[YouTube]]'', with the title "Muslim Demographics". The video become a YouTube hit with 10 million views. The [[BBC Radio 4]] debunked the YouTube-video by presenting published population figures and statistics in a video named "Muslim Demographics: The Truth".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm|work=BBC News|title=Debunking a YouTube hit|date=7 August 2009|first=Richard|last=Knight}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8189434.stm|work=BBC News|title=Disproving the Muslim Demographics sums|date=7 August 2009|first=Oliver|last=Hawkins}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8189480.stm|work=BBC News|title=Welcome to Eurabia?|date=7 August 2009}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/2009/08/does_muslim_demographics_abuse_numbers.html|work=BBC (Radio 4 Blog)|title=Does 'Muslim Demographics' abuse numbers?|date=7 August 2009|first=Richard|last=Knight}}</ref>

It's not clear to me why this would be added to the article; the Youtube material itself fails WP:RS, and as far as I can tell never mentions "Eurabia", and the main BBC link itself also nowhere mentions Eurabia. It appears that the only reason for adding this material is as a straw man. Is there any reasonable argument that can be made for its inclusion? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

welcome to Eurabia?.-- altetendekrabbe 20:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a tiny teaser article that points to the main article - which, as I pointed out, nowhere mentions Eurabia. Also, article headlines are not written by the article writers, and even this tiny article nowhere mentions Eurabia. Now, please respond to the actual points raised. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, if that's not enough for inclusion then i will not reinsert the material again.-- altetendekrabbe 20:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12 Christmas in Eurabia

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Came to broad media

Latest comment: 12 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

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

The theory came to broad media prominence in 2011, when it was cited by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik as a motive for carrying out the 2011 Norway attacks.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

Best regards

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

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

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

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

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

Citing from Fekete's article abstract:

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

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

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

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

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

Why not swap for:

The theory was cited in 2011 by Anders Behring Breivik as a motive for carrying out the 2011 Norway attacks.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the right to define a political concept

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an essay on conspiracy theories originating in the Middle East, Daniel Pipes notes that "[f]ive assumptions distinguish the conspiracy theorist from more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all."[2] According to West and Sanders, when talking about conspiracies in the Vietnam era, Pipes includes within the fringe element anyone who entertains the thought that conspiracies played a role in the major political scandals and assassinations that rocked American politics in the Vietnam era. "He sees the paranoid style in almost any critical historical or social-scientific analysis of oppression."[14]

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

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

Dear anonymous contributor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me too.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Women-1] Cite error: The named reference Women was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Saunders-2] Cite error: The named reference Saunders was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]