Talk:Counter-jihad

wikiproject fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-09 epic win

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

2011-12 self description

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

Confusion about this movement

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

Islamophobic

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

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

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

"Far-right"

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

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

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

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

Islamophobic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Far right

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

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

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

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

//Liftarn (talk)

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

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

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

Breivik manifesto

Reading through this article, I came across this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing or Incorrect Links

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

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

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

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

anti-Islam or Islamophobic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He goes on to clarify those fears:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, your only English article in the [3] Guardian uses anti-Islamic six times and Islamophobic only once. This suggests that in the English language anti-Islam is the preferred term. However, I still stand by my previous paragraph that the text should discuss the Islamophobic classification. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Counter-jihad movement in general

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

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

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

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

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

Israel

Why is Israel being ignored? It is front and center of the so called 'counter jihad' ideology. Its an open secret that it is spearheaded by right wing zionist (ie liduknik, kahanist) interests mainly based in the united states, who think its imperative to incite hatred against Muslims in order to further Israel's national interests. That includes increasing support for Israel (by portraying it as the frontline in the so called "Clash of civilizations" against the Muslims), making it easier to attack, invade, occupy Muslim nations and steal their resources (oil etc) and perhaps most overlooked, marginalize Muslims in the west in order to stop them from getting a political voice which zionists feel could be detrimental to Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.234 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Centre for American Progress has compiled a list of the ideological and financial interests behind the organized Islamophobia network, viewable here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.234 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope not hate

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

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

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

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

That's a POV statement. Everyone claims to have a bias against hate. Everyone claims to hate "hate". The question is the nature of the source. HnH says "HOPE not hate mobilises everyone opposed to the British National Party’s (BNP) and English Defence League’s (EDL) politics of hate." [4] It an activist group that conducts campaigns against other partisan groups. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not a neutral source. I don't see how it qualifies as a quotable source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Two other sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling out the Eurabia conspiracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, for the specific arguments raised:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do the other editors think?

Best regards

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

i agree with user benjamil. the so-called "socio-demographic prediction" that administrator jayjg keeps bringing up is *always* accompanied by a nonsensical conspiratorial context. the peer-reviewed literature on this subject has grown recently, and by reviewing we find a clear consensus: eurabia is conspiracy theory. you find the same consensus in the media.-- altetendekrabbe  09:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article ends with evidence that population increases and limits to assimilation are exaggerated in the counter-jihadi movement. This seems to be the emphasis and you also emphasize the implausibility of such a growth. Thus, my change seems a reasonable summary. Either [5] or [6] might be better summaries of the Morgenbladet article. Let’s see if we can find common ground to establish a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New lead

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

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

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