 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
"Eurabia"
editI am curious how a term coined in 2005 and not mentioned at all in this article can be justified by WP:CATV as cited to a reliable, secondary source and suitable for inclusion as a category? Elizium23 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's a concept, not a word. It's particularly interesting because this book is written pre-WWI, so before Lawrence of Arabia et al. and any real notion of the general British public paying attention to Islam. Chesterton, of course, is best known as a Catholic apologist.
- There's not a great deal of Chesterton literary scholarship around, he seems to be written off as a bit beneath serious interest (compare C S Lewis, of whom academics will never shut up). However if you read the text itself (there are PD copies linked here) the closeness of his portrayal to the (far later) Eurabia concept is quite clear. He's not so frothingly racist as most modern users of Eurabia tend, but he's right there on the theme of sharia being absorbed through a form of Methodist Temperance (he wasn't all that keen on Methodists to start with). Oddly his sympathies here seem to lie more with a pagan Englishness, as The Rolling English Road, and a sense of bucolic Bacchanalianism as the English birthright. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- My, my, that is a good dose of WP:OR. Thanks for the education. What we're looking for is something to directly correlate the 2005 concept of "Eurabia" with all those points you brought up. Analysis by secondary sources is the typical way this is accomplished on Wikipedia, not by making a checklist and comparing columns on it. Elizium23 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, Oriana Fallaci should go back under Eurabia too. She pretty much invented it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's OR. If you can find some secondary coverage of Chesterton and The Flying Inn, the article could certainly use it. But Chesterton scholarship is thin and I've seen nothing at all on this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- My, my, that is a good dose of WP:OR. Thanks for the education. What we're looking for is something to directly correlate the 2005 concept of "Eurabia" with all those points you brought up. Analysis by secondary sources is the typical way this is accomplished on Wikipedia, not by making a checklist and comparing columns on it. Elizium23 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)