Talk:Eurabia conspiracy theory

Rewrite

Hi I've tried to restructure the article in line with some of the discussions we have had on the page. I haven't managed to do all that I hoped, so there are significant parts that are unrevised, have less than optimal references etc. The main idea has been to try to make a framework that allows the sources to be more easily distinguished by their quality. Best regards. --benjamil (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

wow, wonderful work! keep digging up academic sources and continue to re-write!-- altetendekrabbe  09:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you think it's an improvement. --benjamil (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to bring it back into line with WP:NPOV, per WP:BRD. Eurabia denotes a number of different things, not just the "conspiracy theory" of Bat Yeor, and Wikipedia still must conform with NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg edit no consensus for such big changes.Please discuss them in talk first.--Shrike (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:BRD there's no need to discuss them first, but I'll have to expect to see them reverted. Jayjg, you've been asked to provide some sources that are WP:SCHOLARSHIP to confirm that Eurabia is more than a conspiracy theory, and I still haven't seen any. Also, I'm sure there were a couple of NPOV issues, but BRD doesn't mean you can just revert changes and let it be with that. There might not be consensus for my version, but there was support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on that. First, I believe the structure in my version was better, because it allowed sources to be framed in context. Second, I added substantial amounts of new text with perfectly good sources, and it would be nice to know which specific parts you consider to be POV. In hindsight I can probably think of a few. For further work: How about trying to agree on structure first? --benjamil (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my previous quote of Carr 2006, I can show scholars, quoted in WP:NEWSORG, dismissing the demographic-prediction-only eurabian thesis variant, but whitout calling it a conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. However, I still have to ask: While they do not explicitly use that label, do they comment on the nature of the claims? --benjamil (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometime: "exaggeration", "absurd", "foolishness", "unlikely", "nightmare"... See below. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out which part of Benjamil's change that you disagree with. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Eurabia denotes a number of different things, not just the "conspiracy theory" of Bat Yeor" (Jayjg) You do not anymore claim that Eurabia denotes two things and only two things? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

About demographic prediction

Several sources about the demographic-prediction-only eurabian thesis variant (I tried to sort them from less reliable to more reliable):

• Mark Steyn, U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode, Chicago Sun-Times (and other syndicated newspapers?), 2005-02-27

  By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025.

• Adrian Michaels, Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent, The Daily Telegraph, 2009-08-08

  Another forecast holds that Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in France and perhaps in all of western Europe by mid-century.

• The power of private prayer, The Economist, 2007-11-01

  the imminent arrival of Eurabia can be dismissed as poor mathematics. Muslim minorities in Europe are indeed growing fast and causing political friction, but they account for less than 5% of the total population, a tiny proportion by American standards of immigration. Even if that proportion trebles in the next 20 years, Eurabia will still be a long way off.

• John Esposito, Sheila Lalwani, Debunking the myth of a 'Eurabia', San Francisco Chronicle, 2011-02-07

  Such scaremongers claim that Islam is a demographic threat, warning of an impending "Eurabia" within a few decades. [...] This paranoia - based more on fear and misperception - fuels anti-Islam and anti-Muslim hysteria across Europe and North America and undermines our multicultural society. [...] Muslims will remain a relatively small minority, but they will make up a growing share of the total population. According to the study, Europe's Muslim population is projected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030.

• Brian Grim in Maren Olsen, Anders Bisgaard, Eurabiske vers, Morgenbladet, 2011-08-19

  I løpet av de neste 20 årene ser vi bare to prosent økning i andelen muslimer i Europa. Vi kalkulerer med at vekstraten flater ut. Så denne økningen er veldig, veldig beskjeden. Det er en relativt liten andel av den samlede befolkningen i Europa. Vi har ikke sett på noe reelt scenario hvor Eurabia kan bli en realitet, sa senior researcher Brian Grim i Pew Research Center til Reuters da studien ble lansert.

• Brian Grim in Richard Greene, World Muslim population doubling, report projects, CNN, 2011-01-27

  "There has been a lot of speculation about the growth of the Muslim population around the world, and many of those who speculate don't have good data," said Brian Grim, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum. For example, the report undermines the notion that Europe is heading toward having any country with a Muslim majority. The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, it projects. "The data that we have isn't pointing in the direction of 'Eurabia' at all," Grim said. "The Muslim population is growing and slowing. Instead of a runaway train, it's trending with the general global population," he said.

• Bernard Lewis in Europa wird am Ende des Jahrhunderts islamisch sein, Die Welt, 2004-07-28

  Nach den aktuellen Trends wird Europa spätestens Ende des 21. Jahrhunderts muslimische Mehrheiten in der Bevölkerung haben.

• Bernard Lewis & Jytte Klausen & Jocelyn Cesari & Jonathan Laurence & Justin Vaisse in Simon Kuper, Head count belies vision of ‘Eurabia’, Financial Times, 2009-10-02

  Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, cited the immigration from Muslim countries and relatively high birth-rates of immigrants as trends that mean “Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest.” Most academics who have analysed the demographics dismiss such predictions.

• Jytte Klausen & Grace Davie & Carl Haub in William Underhill, Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong, Newsweek, 2009-07-20

  "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University. [...] given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."

• Michèle Tribalat in John Lichfield, Our Man In Paris: France will never be a Muslim state[1], The Independent, 2004-02-03

  Mme Tribalat described the figures as "une sottise" (a piece of foolishness). "One wonders," she said, "where such figures come from and why."

• Charles Westoff & Tomas Frejka in Douglas Todd, Do Muslims seek to dominate the West? And could they do it?, Vancouver Sun (and other syndicated newspapers), 2009-08-15

  They go on to say it's possible that the Muslim percentage of Europe's population could rise to six per cent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, Westoff and Frejka say the percentage of Muslims in Europe could rise to 10 per cent -- a century from now. Then again, the demographers say, even these scenarios are unlikely.

• 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.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is quite a piece of work. I'd say this gives a good foundation for giving a representation of the views on the demographic scenarios. I'm not up to writing anything right now, and think we should settle the structure dispute first. I believe the current structure makes it difficult to achieve WP:BALANCE, because all the views are portrayed as coming from participants in a debate. There are several discourses that involve Eurabia, and this needs to be reflected in the article. Also, Jayjg, I thought there was consensus on keeping the Islamophobia template, where did that go? Best regards, benjamil (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We should stick to reliable sources, and ones that deal directly with Eurabia. I wouldn't consider Mark Steyn to be very reliable.VR _talk 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He's reliable enough for this article. And without question we should stick to WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts, Prefer nonjudgmental language, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-05 no refutation

(for the record) Fjordman wrote yesterday that "not a single journalist to [his] knowledge has ever managed to pinpoint any factually incorrect information in what Bat Ye’or writes about relationships between the Western world and the Islamic world." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(for the record) Fjordman wrote yesterday that "those wri[ti]ng about this subject [Eurabia] can back up every single claim using publicly available sources". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Hi. We've had some trouble settling on a lede for this article. I suggest the following:

Eurabia is a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia and a political neologism. It commonly denotes either a set of conspiracy theories, alleging that Europe is being arabised and islamised,(References) or demographic scenarios involving a Muslim majority in Europe.(References) While the conspiracy theories are frequently described as islamophobic(Fekete etc.) and extremist,(Zuquete etc) and have failed to be taken seriously by academics and policy makers,(Economist, Kuper) the demographic scenarios are widely held to be exaggerated and extremely unlikely.(PEW, etc.) The term is commonly used in claims that European leaders collude with or are unwilling to confront a totalitarian Islamic threat.(References).

This should take care of the NPOV-related issues that Jayjg has pointed out. Of course, the pertinent references should be used. I would, however, like to point out that I believe the current reference 1 is quite WP:UNDUE, in that it, in contrast to most other references, quotes the contents of the referenced material quite extensively. In my opinion, the most relevant of the quotes should go into the main body of the text. The reference is also poorly formatted, and as such stands out (although the current references 21, 34, 43, 44 and 47 have some related issues). Best regards --benjamil (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

imho, your first re-write of the lead was the best.-- altetendekrabbe  21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there is an edit war on-going. I don't actually know what kind of an article the other side prefers, but I agree that this article shouldn't be based completely on the idea of just two users (benjamil and Altetendekrabbe). This article has too broad history and scope for that. Especially Altetende has a block history, so I believe it is rather controversial that he rewrites a whole article of this importance without discussing the edits on talk page beforehand. --Pudeo' 18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Pudeo. Estlandia (dialogue) 19:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To call other edits as vandalism when they are not its violation of WP:NPA also there apparent POV push in this edit because it gives opinion of one author in Wikipedia voice--Shrike (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

wanna try an administrative venue and fail again, shrike? your stalking is becoming annoying.-- altetendekrabbe  12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reported Altetendekrabbe's edit warring [2]. Estlandia (dialogue) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of opening this section was to have a conversation in stead of the every other day reverts that was the rhythm in May. If more people want to join that conversation, please do. I've written a proposal. You can give input on that, as Altetendekrabbe did, and act on it as he did, or write your own. Plain reverts and no discussion does not become laudable simply because one is marginally more polite than other people engaging in the practice. Cheers, --benjamil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Kuper's "The end of Eurabia" is an opinion piece that can't be used as a source in the way it is used now (see WP:RSOPINION). Your suggestion, Benjamil, still reads biased. While "Eurabia" surely denotes an Islamophobic conspiracy theory in the belief system of the scholars cited, this belief system is not (yet) largely shared. The concept of Islamophobia and the term in itself are rejected by many (see the "Criticism" section in Islamophobia). The term "Islamophobic" is derogatory. The term "conspiracy theory" is derogatory, too. WP:LABEL applies. A moral judgement made by a scholar still is a moral judgement, not an encyclopedic fact. "Eurabia" is rather "a word that provides a concise shorthand for an array of cultural and ethnic nightmares" (Philip Jenkins, Gods Continent, Oxford University Press 2007, p. 4). Many people use it for all kinds of dystopic views, some of those people may suffer from a phobia and/or promote conspiracy theories, others very probably do not. Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, fine. this issue has to be dealt with on an administrative noticeboard. suggest benjamil to take this issue to either the npov/n or dr/n or both.-- altetendekrabbe  17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the persistent reverts and re-reverts are entirely unfruitful. How about we ask an administrator to lock the article for a week or so?

I'll grant one point, the one regarding the use of Kuper. That phrase should go. As for the other points, I believe that WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives academic research a primacy of sorts when it comes to belief systems. Still, I don't have a problem with making the framing clear: I wrote the current structure to make it possible to distinguish between the nature of the sources used. Now, when it comes to Islamophobia the argument is more or less the same: This is the predominant word used to describe anti-muslim sentiments in the most serious texts about that subject. Other connotations are not really very interesting. The same is the case for conspiracy theories. The most commonly used phrase for the concept "a notion of people scheming in secret to achieve a goal" is "conspiracy theory". WP:LABEL is not the end of the line, 9/11 Conspiracy theories is an article that is live and well. If a standard that disqualified academic opinion containing the faintest hint of moral judgment was to be applied, Wikipedia would have to use inline citations for most of the content on any topic that has to do with Humanities or the Social Sciences.

Although not specifically pointing at the conspiracy theory - demographic transition theory continuum, as Jenkins writes further down, "Though jeremiads about Christian decline are not necessarily linked to dark visions of Eurabia, the different concepts become linked," making it hard to agree on where one should draw the line. As long as conspiracy theories that are on par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and ZOG are a significant part of the Eurabia discourse, I feel that it would be quite misleading not to use this term in the lead, not the least because such use has significant academic sources to back it up. The encyclopedic ideal of neutrality does not allow for total relativism. I feel that using the phrase "frequently described as" is almost going too far down that path. But as long as we have a discussion that might be going somewhere, I don't see the need for taking it to a noticeboard yet. So how about we remove the Kuper passage, like so:

Eurabia is a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia and a political neologism. It commonly denotes either a set of conspiracy theories, alleging that Europe is being arabised and islamised,(References) or demographic scenarios involving a Muslim majority in Europe.(References) While the conspiracy theories are frequently described as islamophobic(Fekete etc.) and extremist,(Zuquete etc), the demographic scenarios are widely held to be exaggerated and extremely unlikely.(PEW, etc.) The term is commonly used in claims that European leaders collude with or are unwilling to confront a totalitarian Islamic threat.(References).

Cheers, benjamil (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly prefer that the lede start with "Eurabia is a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia and a political neologism." The next sentence should read like "Proponents of the theory..." Currently the lede kinda reads as if Eurabia was a fact. This isn't neutral.VR _talk 03:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

bat ye'or, the inventor of the term "eurabia", needs to be mentioned as well. suggest to remove weasel words like "frequently", "widely", "commenly", "mostly", "some" and so on and so forth.-- altetendekrabbe  06:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to put Bat Ye'Or in the lead, it follows logically from the amount of space she is given in the rest of the article. However, when it comes to WP:WEASEL, I'd like to point out that the last sentence of that policy reads "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." (my emphasis). --benjamil (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

no prob bob, if you have attribution that is.-- altetendekrabbe  11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Following another bout of unproductive reverts, I've written another attempt at a lead. Comments? --benjamil (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, you claim that following Littman's lead, several writers and right-wing politicians, many of them affiliated with the counterjihad movement, have used the word to describe theories implying that Islamic influences are overtaking Europe.... the sources do not support this. and it is littman's conspiracy theory that is denoted as "islamophobic".-- altetendekrabbe  22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Point noted. I will check the sources. If you could expand on the interpretation of the sources, it would be quite helpful. --benjamil (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

yes, please check the sources. especially, the articles from race&class. the "eurabia"-conspiracy theory is described as a dangerous islamophobic fantasy.-- altetendekrabbe  00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your latest edits[3], Benjamil, are very good. Altetendekrabbe's position that Bat Ye'or is islamophobic is not credible. Labeling someone as having hatred for foo when that someone does not agree with foo is not a valid criticism. -- Frotz(talk) 23:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of lead template

Would someone please explain to me why the lead template for this article is Islamophobia? It would be more appropriate to put Islamophobia as a criticism of the Eurabia theory. A more neutral lead template would be the Islamism template. Comments? Frotz (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that the main issue is for whom the term/concept is most relevant. The term is rarely used in a context where Muslims aren't considered a threat. To me, the Islamism template would lend Eurabia credibility, whether as a conspiracy theory or demographic scenario. --benjamil (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an Islamism template (namely Template:Islamism sidebar) would be misleading. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil explained why the Islamism template would be ideal. What's your reason against that? Frotz (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read much of what I've written on this talk page, have you? To be more precise: Linking Eurabia to the Islamism template would mean to lend the Eurabia conspiracy theories credibility. I should probably have been more precise in pointing that out.

Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Because Eurabia and Islamism are lightly related. The eurabian theories were not made by islamists, are almost never supported by islamists, and are not focused on Islamism (but on Europe, European people, Arab countries, Muslims). The Eurabia wiki page is NOT "Part of the Politics series on Islamism". On the other hand, you can see Template:Conspiracy theories at the bottom of the page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed views on the issue. Conspiracy theory definition is "social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." If someone says that European leaders like Merkel are somehow involved in some Islamization process, it will fall in the conspiracy theory category indeed. But, if Eurabia is only a term coined for high demographic estimates of the propotion of Muslims in Europe in the future, is it a conspiracy theory? Those demographic estimates can be debated, some are overestimated, some are not valid, but I don't see how a demographic estimate, even a rigged one, can be called a conspiracy theory. So, Eurabia can be a conspiracy theory but it is not one necessarily, depends on the use. Also, remember that the term Islamophobia is not a fully scientific name - Islamofascism isn't either. Anti-Islamic sentiment is a more neutral term - I debated this back in 2007 about Russophobia vs. anti-Russian sentiment. Not entirely sure at all that the main template of Eurabia should be Islamophobia, but it should definitely recognise that many or most factions supporting Eurabia are Islamophobic or anti-Islamic. It is not our duty to decide what gives Eurabia credibility and what not, we just try to state the facts and be very neutral. --Pudeo' 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"If someone says that European leaders like Merkel are somehow involved in some Islamization process, it will fall in the conspiracy theory category indeed." (Pudeo) I concur! (for your information: "The truth is that for 30 years the Europeans were with the terrorists. They can’t fight the Arabs; they have allowed the Arabs to dictate their policy since 1974."; "Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel."; "Europeans are [...] conditioned by Palestinianism to hate America and Israel"; "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.") Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see how a demographic estimate, even a rigged one, can be called a conspiracy theory" (Pudeo) See my previous sentence "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. [...] 20 April 2012" The Pew Research and every state-owned demographic institute claim that Muslim will rise to 10 % of European population by next decades, altough several eurabian articles/books claim that it will certainly rise to 25 or 50%. That's why I think it is somewere a conspiracy theory. But this is not a direct inference, and this personal opinion seem to be not shared by other. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Not entirely sure at all that the main template of Eurabia should be Islamophobia" (Pudeo) Me too. But I am sure that Template:Islamism sidebar should not be the main template. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter are that Template:Islamophobia should not be there. Template:Islamism might be appropriate, but I detect objections on account of OR. Visite seems to imply that it's not our place to be the first to decide what sidebar should be there. I agree. Perhaps the best action is to remove the sidebar entirely for the time being. Frotz (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

nope. take it to dispute resolution if you want.-- altetendekrabbe  09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia is an Islamophobic fantasy - a bit like Hitler's Jewish conspiracy nonsense. The only reason for having an article on the Eurabia fantasy is within the context of anti-Islamic prejudice and hate campaigns. The template helps the user put the article in context. it should stay, if the article stays.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i fully agree with toddy1.-- altetendekrabbe  10:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. Why Islamophobists would fantasize about an Islamic Europe, they'd rather have nightmares about it don't you think? Anyway, Wikipedia doesn't have to add templates to put things in context, for example al-Qaeda terrorists aren't actually called terrorists in Wikipedia, it's up to the reader. Ultra neutral point of view means that you don't label articles based on your own morals. But perhaps the template should exist in this template, though, if it stays in WP. The template Islamophobia has been nominated for deletion before, and is the only anti-religious sentiment template besides Template:Antisemitism. This further discussion, belongs to Template_talk:Islamophobia. --Pudeo' 13:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the inclusion is fully supported by reliable sources.-- altetendekrabbe  13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How reliable are these sources? Without solid facts and figures, an assertion is about as valuable as a blind opinion. There are solid facts and figures about demands that Europe adopt Islamic values as well as threats of and actual instances of violence when Europeans refuse. Recall the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which spawned rioting, assaults, and murderous threats in Europe. What do you have, besides sensationalism, as proof that the Eurabia theory is bunk? Before you mention Anders Behring Breivik, I need to remind you that this was an isolated incident by a narcissistic nut reacting to Islamic outrages. Yes it was spectacular, but in the grand scheme of things is overshadowed by the multitude of incidents of Islamic intimidation and violence. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but one cannot legitimately point to isolated instances like this to counter a continuous pattern of violence and intimidation. Frotz (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read some of them and make a specific criticism, rather than criticising unnamed sources in a rather unspecific manner. Most of the sources currently saying that the notion of Eurabia is Islamophobic are peer-reviewed review papers. I keep most of them on record, and can probably help you if you want to look into anything specific.

The allegation of sensationalism, however, has a rather boomerang-ish effect, in my opinion. I don't know how closely you follow the European integration debate and reports of ideologically motivated violence, but there are clear signs that islamophobic violence is a very real issue, and that, although extreme, the Breivik case is not an isolate when it comes to motive, for instance:

• Germany's "Brown Army Fraction" case is almost as spectacular in its weird implication of secret service personell.[4][5]
• The Swedish "Laser man" is the second case of a terrorist sniper targeting immigrants in Sweden.[6]
• In Greece, a political party condoning violence[7] has won parliamentary representation.[8]

In my opinion, this is not a central point, but I'll still take the time to discuss it: While it is quite fiercely disputed that Islam or even Islamism, as understood by most users of those terms, have anything to do with terrorism or threats against European society (specific extremist interpretations of Islam, fringe islamist organisations etc., may have - that would need to be further defined), it is not at all controversial that the issues above have a connection to narratives implying that Europe is overrun by Muslims. As the very thorough Pew report and several scholars cited in the article and in Visite's list above, state, this is a highly unlikely scenario (as indicated by scholars using such terms as "hallucinatory"). Furthermore, as is also discussed in several of the sources this article cites, even if (and that is a big if indeed) there were to be a Muslim majority in Europe, the prospect of Eurabia would need some kind of common, extremist program among them, continuously observed over at least a century, in order to come true. The existence of "a continuous pattern of islamic violence and intimidation" (my clarification in small text), in the way you claim it exists, is in my view a misguided statement, on par with a claim that the "War on Terror" proves the existence of a Christian Crusade against Islam. The Devil's in the details, and in this case the details are the precise meanings of the words. I'd agree there exists a continuous pattern of violence and intimidation inspired by extremist salafis. But they constitute a minute fraction of European Muslims.

You cite three examples of anti-islamic violence making a total of four being discussed. Are you saying that these are more serious than the multitudes of violence coming from Islamist sources? I'm talking about riots, assaults, murders, and the like. Do you have any more examples? Frotz (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I might not have made myself clear. I am certainly not going to attempt to make an exhaustive list of violence or defense of violence with anti-islamic motives. I mentioned three well-documented instances to counter your allegation that Breivik is an isolate. If we go a little beyond the contemporary issues, how about the Srebrenica massacre? And this is still a sidetrack, confer the point below. --benjamil (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The mess in the Balkans is exceedingly complex with offenders on both sides. I don't consider that a good example of anti-islamic motives. At most it's an end result of hatred built up over a few hundred years. In any case, the {Islamophobia} sidebar was introduced unilaterally by Altetendekrabbe[9] who was subsequently dinged for editwarring. That alone is reason to return the article to the way it was with a much more neutral {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}}. Frotz (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar suit better in Eurabia than Template:Islamism sidebar in my opinion, but I don't see "conspiracy theories criticising Islam" in the former or in Criticism of Islam. I am afraid that Eurabia would not fit/suit in the "series on Criticism of Islam". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who started talking about anti-islamic violence. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The central point, in my opinion, is that I don't know of any reliable sources that frame Eurabia theories as a real (in the sense that it really exists), islamist (or even salafi) program or support your allegation that the issue of islamophobia is generally considered to be "overshadowed by the multitude of incidents of Islamic intimidation and violence." Some of the largest and most influential islamist movements in the world are the Turkish government party, Justice_and_Development_Party_(Turkey) and the Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt. Although I certainly do not approve of their politics, they have no connection to Eurabia whatsoever.

Best regards, benjamil (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why Islamophobists would fantasize about an Islamic Europe, they'd rather have nightmares about it don't you think?" (Pudeo) Because those people are Europeanophobist. Many prefer a Muslim Europe rather than a socialist, social democrat or christian democrat Europe. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Frotz's edit

The following two statements have different meanings. Claiming that changing from the first to the second is "rewriting to eliminate POV language" is astonishing:

• It has been described as an Islamophobic conspiracy theory, and it secondly refers to demographic scenarios. Both the theories and scenarios have failed to be taken seriously by academics and policy makers.
• The term also refers to demographic scenarios. Some authors describe Eurabia as an Islamophobic conspiracy theory, and do not take it seriously.

In the first statement, academics and policy makers are not not taking Eurabia seriously. The the second statement it is the authors who describe it as an Islamophobic conspiracy theory who fail to take it seriously.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

yes, he is misrepresenting the sources and should be banned. just revert him and report him.-- altetendekrabbe  21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone really should be banned, it is rather you. You almost broke the 3RR again and are constantly edit-warring against all others to enforce your POV. Not constructive at all. Estlandia (dialogue) 21:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have introduced a complaint about Altetendekrabbe at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. He subsequently removed the required notification about this from his talk page. Frotz (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifically "It has been described" is what I consider POV. That phrase implies that the subject is nigh-universally accepted. The notion that Eurabia is false is nowhere near being universally accepted. The term "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term that implies falsehood and therefore is POV. Frotz (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Estlandia's 19 June edit

There has been dispute over Estlandia's 19 June edit.[10] Key differences are:

• "alleged" instead of "imagined"
• "It has been described as" instead of "It denotes"
• Inserted "and it secondly refers to demographic scenarios."
• "Both the theories and scenarios have" instead of "The theory has"

I do not have a problem with these edits. Altetendekrabbe, please could you explain which of these do you disagree with and why?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

the academic sources are clear, eurabia is a conspiracy theory. the sources also mention the demographic scenarios that are derived from this theory. as far as i can see there are no sources that claim that eurabia is a conspiracy theory and a set of demographic scenarios, or just a set of demographic scenarios. the current lead is a result of original research. it somehow infers that the so-called demographic scenarios are something different from the theory itself. in addition, there are some sources that just discuss these scenarios and not the underlying theory itself. i suspect that some editors interpret this as if eurabia is a demographic scenario... hence original research -- altetendekrabbe  21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Here I reply to both Altetendekrabbe and Toddy1) Is the citation "the Eurabia literature relies on two major (...) assumptions. The first is demographic. The literature holds that Europe will be Islamic at the end of the century "at the very latest," with Muslim majorities in some European countries "in the foreseeable future," in the words of Bernard Lewis in his 2007 pamphlet, "Europe and Islam." (...)" (Justin Vaïsse, Eurabian Follies, Foreign Policy, 2010-01) sufficient or helpfull? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

i've checked the bernard lewis pamhlet and it does not seem to mention the term "eurabia" at all. please, correct me if i'm wrong. the pamphlet is available to download. secondly, your quote clearly states that, the "eurabian literature rely on two assumptions. the first is demographic".

now, what is the definition of "eurabian literature"? please read chapter 5 of the strømmen's newest book. the "eurabian literature" rely on bat ye'or's book, "eurabia: the euro-arab axis" where the eurabian conspiracy theory is outlined. as professor mattias gardell from uppsala university puts it: "the mother conspiracy theory".[11] professor gardell also lists different versions of this conspiracy theory, all of them induced by the mother conspiracy theory. matt carr calls this "outlandish conspiracy theory" a "dangerous islamophobic fanatsy" and notes:

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.

the demographic predictions are part and parcel of the bat ye'or's "mother conspiracy theory". in the article you quoted from, it is clear that the main authors of the "eurabian literature" are indeed *followers* of bat ye'or:

despite their europe-focused content, these books are a largely north american phenomenon. bat ye'or (or gisèle littman), an egyptian-born british author, wrote one of the first of the genre in 2005, with eurabia: the euro-arab axis, which argued that political subservience to a muslim agenda was turning europe into an appendage of the arab world. but most of her recent followers, including 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.

not to mention people like daniel pipes. if you read daniel pipes you'll notice he always writes about demographic scenarios, like here, europeans fleeing eurabia. now, does this mean that eurabia is only a "demographic prediction" according to pipes? check what pipes writes about bat ye'or

bat ye'or has traced a nearly secret history of europe over the past thirty years, convincingly showing how the euro-arab dialogue has blossomed from a minor discussion group into the engine for the continent's islamization. in delineating this phenomenon, she also provides the intellectual resources with which to resist it. will her message be listened to? [12]

in other words, although pipes writes about "demographic predictions" it is *clear* that these predictions are derived from bat ye'or's conspiracy theory where the euro-arab dialogue is the engine for the continent's islamization. hence, the term "eurabian literature".-- altetendekrabbe  23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing the literature, and I'm inclined to support altetendekrabbe in this. I might have been too oriented towards making a peaceful (<-- that's intended to be humorous) agreement. Reading Vaïsse's article in FP, I believe that the passage that Visite uses to support the assertion that the Eurabia literature has a separable, solely demographic component doesn't really support such a claim. Vaïsse is analysing the components that make up the framework of the theory and finds two claims, that together make up the Eurabia myth: A claim that Muslims overtake Europe by demographic transition and that Muslims have an unchanging Muslim identity:

Beyond all the sloppy anecdotal evidence, the Eurabia literature relies on two major false assumptions. The first is demographic. The literature holds that Europe will be Islamic at the end of the century "at the very latest," with Muslim majorities in some European countries "in the foreseeable future," in the words of Bernard Lewis in his 2007 pamphlet, "Europe and Islam."

and

Caldwell makes a point of highlighting the second and most crucial false assumption of this literature. The British cover of his book asks, "Can Europe be the same with different people in it?" For most of these authors, Muslims are "different people," and Muslim identity is incompatible with anything else -- an assumption they share with Islamists.

Now, if this means that the answer to Visite's question whether Vaïsse's article is sufficient or clarifying is no, where does that bring us? I actually believe that Vaïsse's article is quite clear that there isn't a demographic-only set of Eurabia theories.

Quite unrelated to this: After reviewing altendekrabbe's claim that I've misrepresented some sources in the current lead, I've found some errors in the referencing. I'm sorry for this sloppiness on my behalf. When the article's protection expires, the lead needs to be changed.

Best regards, benjamil (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See my reply to altetendekrabbe, below. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

With or without "demographic-only set of Eurabia theories", the eurabian theories do have demographic sides.

Actually, I am afraid that if "it secondly refers to demographic scenarios" is deleted, then the lead would not emphasis enought on the demographic, politic, linguistic, religious change among european population claimed by most of eurabian theories. Your last change of the lead has also deleted "arabisation and islamisation of Europe".

This is a matter of WP:DUE, please understand my request. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that eurabia is only a demographic prediction and I never wrote that eurabia is only a demographic prediction. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't remind Bat Ye'or ever forecasting a specific/explicit percentage of Muslims in Europe. When Carr 2006 claim that "the worst-case Eurabian scenarios predict that the muslim population of europe will have reached 40 per cent by 2025", he obvioulsy do an indirect reference to Mark Steyn (who is explicit mentionned as forecaster of "Muslims will make up 40 percent of Europe's population by 2025" in William Underhill, Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong, Newsweek, 2009-07-20). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

« what is the definition of "eurabian literature"? » (altetendekrabbe) According to Justin Vaïsse, L'Europe islamisée : réflexions sur un genre littéraire américain[13], Esprit, 2010-01, published the same month than his article Eurabian Follies, the eurabian literature include (huge quotation deleted; see the list in the article). Several of those books do not relies on Bat Ye'or (Bernard Lewis's Europe and Islam "does not seem to mention the term "eurabia" at all" according to you, Mark Steyn's America Alone does mention Bat Ye'or only one time and does not mention the euro-arab dialogue). So it depend of which definition of eurabian literature is used, of which books and article are used as representative of the eurabian theories. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It also depend if the demographic sides, the demographic variants of eurabian theories, are mentionned as conspiracy theories in the article or not. If they are, then writing that "Eurabia mainly denotes a conspiracy theory and secondly refers to demographic scenarios" would be misleading (instead of "Eurabia denotes several conspiracy theories"). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See also my reply to benjamil, above. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Benjamil for this change which add "The theories describe a spectrum of driving forces, ranging from explicit conspiracies [...] to demographic transition". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

There is a wealth of scholarly sources calling Eurabia a conspiracy theory. There is no absolute ban on using the term conspiracy theory in articles due to WP:NPOV. See for instance 9/11_conspiracy_theories. The appearance of being well-documented in Ye'Or's works has been shown to be a facade by several scholars and analysts. Please provide analyses in reliable sources documenting why it should not be described as a conspiracy theory. benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Although well-sourced, I'd say that Mattias Gardell's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict are quite off-topic in the lead. benjamil ^talk/_edits 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now edited the lead and removed this information. With regard to the conspiracy theory-part, please see the references in footnote 9. Gardell is not alone in his assessment. If the other editors believe that it is important, I'm fine with rephrasing the part about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to antisemitic scares of the 1930s and add 4-5 academic sources claiming that. benjamil ^talk/_edits 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the current summary gives undue weight to Gardell - please could we put all of the mentions of Gardell in a section and not mention his name in the summary. Such a section could then have incorporate the stuff Wikiflyer tried to add attacking Gardell (though subject to biographies of living persons rules).--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the current lead mention Gardell too much. I think that we could get rid of any mention of Gardell in the lead. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The position that Eurabia is not a conspiracy theory is an extremist fringe theory, and unsupported by reliable sources. The NPOV thing to do is to describe it as a conspiracy theory. Cf. the introduction of Zionist Occupation Government (permanent link) JonFlaune (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a matter of undue weight given to the history of the term in the introduction. The term is primarily known through Bat Ye'or's writings, and only Bat Ye'or's usage makes it into a theory (worthy of its own article). The fact that it was once used as a name for a newsletter is worth mentioning in the history section below, not as the very first thing in the lead. Cf. The Holocaust, where the lead does not first deal with original uses of the term (Armenian Genocide). The article deals with the theory of Eurabia, which is exclusively a conspiracy theory as described/advanced by Bat Ye'or. JonFlaune (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That woman is hardly the only person who advances the idea. People like Professor Neil Ferguson and various European newspaper journalists are far less obscure.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Red Scare

The term "Eurabia" seems to have a lot in common with the phenomenon of Red Scare. Comments? -- Frotz(talk) 09:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if WP:RS make such analogy.I propose you do the check.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it does. This view, although not explicitly connected with the term 'Eurabia' has been noted by some groups critical of Islam, such as the British think-tank Civitas, in their report The ‘West’, Islam and Islamism Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy?

In this century, Islamism has emerged as a comparably dangerous threat to Western societies. Like the Marxists before them, Islamists are using the fundamental values and freedoms of Western societies to attack and to seek to destroy them.

This has been noted by opposing advocacy groups opposing, such as Spinwatch, which calls a report of theirs The Cold War on British Muslims

I'm not sure whether this perspective has found its way into academic texts (I have not prioritised to use these less reliable sources). It's a good idea to look into this.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 10:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not have thought that the Eurabia idea has anything much in common with the so-called Red Scare. The Eurabia idea is a mad fantasy. The communist threat was real, and the communist party went to a lot of trouble to undermine and discredit those who brought public attention to it - in the case of Gareth Jones (journalist), discrediting him was not enough - NKVD murdered him.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on the premise that it was hugely exaggerated, which is true in the context of my peaceful corner of the world, where one of its results was unlawful surveillance of most of the radical left, including leaders of the governing party, as documented in the Lund_Report, and also as seen in the hysteria of McCarthyism. Besides that, I agree that while there was some truth in the threat from Soviet subversion, the threat of Eurabia is, as you put it, a fantasy.

Now, noting that this is not a forum, I'll let that be my last post in this thread. I've still failed to let this be my last post in the thread.

Cheers, benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing some sources, I stumbled upon this passage in Justin Vaïsse's Eurabian follies, where he discussed the reasons why the Eurabia literature is a predominantly American phenomenon:

In this sense, many of these books offer a variation on the conservative Cold War vision of Europe as vulnerable to the spread of communism -- only now, Muslims have replaced Soviets and Euro-communists as the enemies. The continuity in clichés with the Europhobic literature of the 1970s and 1980s is striking: In both periods Europe is described with terms like appeasing, impotent, asexual, feminine, post-nationalistic, irreligious, apologetic, self-loathing, naive, decadent, and so forth."

Also, I hope that I didn't come across as arrogant in my last post. Reading it again, I see that it could have written something a bit more positive.
Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this source be enought to replace, in the current lead, the sentence "Eurabia is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory" by "Eurabia is an Islamophobic and Anti-European conspiracy theory" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be put in the lead. But using Aktürk and Vaïsse, there should probably be a sentence in the impact section describing this.benjamil ^talk/_edits 20:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons with anti-semitism

Hi again. Regarding the comparisons of Eurabia theories with classical anti-semitism, here are some sources showing that although the Gardell quote is pointy, this is a theme that is well-represented in scholarly accounts.

• Mattias Gardell in Eurabiske vers (Eurabian verses)

"[Gardell] notes clear similarities between these theories and the theory that was flourishing before WWII, of a Jewish world conspiracy."

• José Pedro Zuquete in The European extreme-right and Islam (...) (pay-walled)

"Recently a few voices in academia have argued that ‘Muslims’ have replaced ‘Jews’ as the new transnational Other in exclusionary discourses in the European Union. (...) A recurring theme of transformation of Europe into a new geo-political entity dominated by Muslims called Eurabia emerges in many of the discourses. The work of Jewish historian Bat Ye’or,72 is becoming a reference, and such concepts as Eurabia and Dhimmitude (referring to the subjected status of Christians and Jews under Islamic governance) have entered the vocabulary of the extreme-right (and, one might add, some sectors of the mainstream right as well)."

• Liz Fekete in The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre (pay-walled)

"This Muslim conspiracy bears many of the hallmarks of the ‘Jewish conspiracy theory’"

• Arun Kundnani in Blind Spot? Security Narratives and Far-Right Violence in Europe

"Hence the indispensability of the Eurabia conspiracy theory, outlined in Bat Ye’or’s 2005 book Eurabia: the Euro‐Arab axis. Her claim is that the Euro‐Arab Dialogue – a programme initiated by the European Community’s political establishment following the 1973 oil crisis, to forge closer links with Arab nations – was actually a secret plot by European politicians and civil servants to facilitate Muslim immigration, subjugate Europe and transform the continent into an Arab colony, Eurabia. Like the Jewish conspiracy theory of the Protocols, no evidence is offered."

• Aktürk, Sener in September 11, 1683: Myth of a Christian Europe and the Massacre in Norway

"One of the consequences of September 11 has been the meteoric increase in Islamophobic pseudo-scholarly publications on the theme of “Eurabia,” referring to the imaginary takeover of Europe by Muslims, mostly written by Americans on the Islamic threat facing Europe. (...) is this a historical misrepresentation, a popular lie, which is at the very foundation of an age-old propaganda that produced hatred and violence against non-Christians in Europe for centuries?"

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead claims U.S. and Israel control Europe?

Not sure whether this was intentional or not (I'm inclined to think the latter), but I found this sentence in the lead to have a slight wording problem. "In Littman's use, it denotes a conspiracy theory, where European and Arab powers aim to Islamise and Arabise Europe, undermining previous allegiances to the U.S. and Israel."

"Previous allegiances" can mean a few things:

• It may be the legit terms used by Littman (in that case, can anyone point to the exact quote?)
• It may claim that Europe is controlled by the U.S. and Israel
• It may simply be saying that Europe is friendly with the U.S. and Israel, and the term "Eurabia" refers to the exact opposite.

Even if it's the third option, the wording just seems weird and confusing. Especially when I read the second paragraph of the lead, which says the theory has been "sometime explicitly compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Zionist Occupation Government," which both claim that Jews control the world or specific countries.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

--Activism1234 22:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you being a little strict in your definition of the word "allegiance"? To have someone's loyalty does not necessarily mean that you control them, or does it?

In my view, Littman is generally so vitriolic in her characterisations that it is difficult to use her own words, such as "The three most apparent symptoms of this fundamental change in European policy are officially sponsored anti-Americanism, antisemitism/anti-Zionism and 'Palestinianism'," yet the use of phrases such as this "As strange as this may have seemed in the years immediately following America's rescue of France from Nazi tyranny, French hostility toward America ran high," implies that she supposes the existence of an allegiance in the form of a moral duty of gratefulness for freedom, or when Israel is concerned, a moral duty of support as reparations. But it goes much deeper than that, as she writes that "This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad (...)", which must be interpreted as a claim that Europe is giving up its allegiance to "Western civilization", the flag-bearers of which, in her view, are Israel and the U.S.

Substituting "alliances with" or "friendly relations with" for "allegiances to", could be a solution, but that would mainly cover foreign policy and not the broader value-based construction of Western civilization. Another solution could be to substitute "Western civilization" for "the U.S. and Israel", but that would remove important information about the specifics she derives from this.

Those were my initial thoughts. I personally think that your delineations are too strict, and that there is a fourth option, that it covers her claims of a kind of obligation. As I'm not a native English speaker, there may be more precise terms or better ways to put this. Feel free to suggest something. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page by accident (I think I saw a report about a user edit warring or vandalizing the page on some noticeboard?). I was doing just a quick read of the lead, and the sentence just struck me as odd. I wasn't looking for anything specific or to push an agenda (I have never edited this article and don't have any agenda about it, and don't plan on editing it either), I just wanted to clarify that. Now, I'm not all that interested in a discussion about her views, since I can read that on the article itself. But the important part of what you said is "which must be interpreted as a claim that Europe is giving up its allegiance to 'Western civilization.'" So is "allegiance" the word that she uses, or is this something that must be interpreted? Because if it's the latter, then as you said above, we could definitely find ways to make it less controversial, if other editors are OK with it like you and I. You mentioned some very good points about the pros and cons of changing it to different text, so I'll see if other people comment here, and if not, I'll try to think of something and discuss it here. --Activism1234 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good.benjamil ^talk/_edits 20:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil, I've been going over what you said. To me, the best term to be used is "alliances." I noticed what you said above about that covering foreign policy only, but I don't perceive it that way. An alliance means that countries share similar views and similar characteristics or similar values, and therefore typically in an alliance. But allegiance, on the other hand, means that a country is loyal to another country, as in a hierarchy, and doesn't mean similar values of Western civilization. I also do recommend that we put in "Western civilization" rather than "U.S. and Israel," since Eurabia does appear to be a term used by other people, and I'm sure that they would consider Canada or Australia in the same group as "U.S. and Israel" as a Western civilization, and have used "Western civilizatoin" in their terminology as well. It just seems odd to me, as though only the "U.S. and Israel" are non-European Western countries, and countries like Canada or Australia don't apply at all. Your thoughts? --Activism1234 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. When it comes to the word for the bond, I'm sure we can sort something out. To me "alliance" speaks a bit too much of written agreements, such as NATO, or ad hoc-arrangements such as "the coalations of the willing". I believe we are looking for something a bit more abstract, perhaps "alignment" could do the trick? "Moral fellowship" is maybe a bit over the top? However, when thinking through the specific mentions of the U.S. and Israel, I think we will be misrepresenting the source if we substitute that for the overarching "Western Civilization", as I initially overstressed this point. The book is very specific about this, see for instance Littman's own summary here, or this quote from a review by David Warren in Commentary. 119.4 (Apr. 2005): p75.:

From the beginning, Bat Ye'or shows, the Arabs tossed the existence of Israel onto the table. The essential condition for Arab participation in the dialogue was for Europe to recognize the "legitimate grievances" of the Palestinian people, pledge itself to the creation of a Palestinian state, and acknowledge Yasir Arafat's PLO as the sole representative of Palestinian aspirations. It is thus no coincidence, according to Bat Ye'or, that, around the same time, Europe's former sympathies with a beleaguered Israel began to evaporate. (...) Along with this came a common Euro-Arab stance against the United States, Israel's chief defender. Anti-Americanism, more and more explicit, was written into the structure of European policy, gaining momentum with the collapse of the Soviet empire when Europe found itself suddenly freed of the necessity of U.S. military protection.

So, to sum up: I prefer something more value-oriented than "alliance", but it's not terribly important. I do, however, think that it is important that the U.S. and Israel are mentioned specifically, because it is so central in Littman's book.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely be fine with "alignment," if you want to go ahead and change it to that. As for what you said about U.S. and Israel, thanks for showing that to me, very useful for this conversation (yes, I think it'd be fine to keep it, as you showed). Hope everything is resolved now. Thanks for the cooperation. --Activism1234 00:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I changed the wording to alignment. Thanks for your cooperation, very much appreciated. --Activism1234 01:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I also appreciated your approach to the question and found the discussion to be very constructive. Regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 06:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted two words from the opening paragraph:

• "Several" - this very imprecise word adds no meaning to the sentence it is in.
• "Mainly" - I do not know whether the source cited says "mainly", but I would not trust it for such a judgment. I would guess that the source is reliable for a statement that the term is used by far-right people. However, some mildly prominent people who have popularised the term in Western Europe would not be described as far right by reasonable people (though they might be so described by people who are just as bonkers as the the people who use the term).

--Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - if you feel this should go on the talk page, I recommend creating a new section just for that, rather than putting it in here. Certain people will click on the page if they see a new section is created, as opposed to seeing the same section that they weren't involved in being edited. --Activism1234 22:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of religion/islam

Frankly, I think putting the criticism of religion template on the page is unfair to serious critics of Islam and religion. That being said, if we're going to put on more templates (which I don't think is a good idea), I think these might be just as appropriate, if not more:

• Template:Politics_of_the_European_Union
• Template:Reach_of_the_European_Union
• Template:Arab–Israeli_conflict_(topics)
• Template:Foreign_relations_of_Europe
• Template:Immigration_to_Europe

I list these for illustrative purposes only, as they follow the proponents' contextualisation of the topic in the same way as the criticism of religion template does. I believe the question should be: In what framework do the sources that are reliable for analyses (not opinion) discuss the issue? Does most of the scholarly literature treat the topic as a matter of Criticism of Islam? My impression is a definitive no. Social and political scientists mainly discuss it in the context of the islamophobic turn seen in the European (and American) far-right, so if islamophobia is already covered, (national) conservatism should be the next step, first by including the article in [European New Right category], and secondly by putting in the conservatism template. I still think that's unfair. It would be like putting the Template:Anarchism_sidebar on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, because most of its adherents identify as anarchists (<--my prejudice, I can't source that).
Regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Related categories nominated for deletion

Also, several other Islamophobia categories are encompassed in the nomination. __meco (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Muslims and jews uniting against religious discrimination

From the article: "...a conspiracy theory, where European and Arab powers aim to Islamise and Arabise Europe, undermining previous alignment with the U.S. and Israel." Now with the discussion on the attempts to prohibit circumcision in some Central European countries, the muslim and jewish communities of those countries unite forces to protest, prevent and where necessary, revert those prohibitions. Will this help develop the article? Who knows, as every morning there is a new world... --E4024 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What does Jewish-Muslim assistance have to do with Eurabia? --Activism1234 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Eurabia is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory".

Sounds real neutral that does. Nice one-source cherry picking too! The article on the Quran doesn't have hate speech in the lead even though a lot of people honestly think it is [14]. Eh? --Τασουλα (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't even begin to describe to you what you sound like. Formerip (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinions by Western communists/allegedly former communists

The opinions of western communists (or allegedly former communists) should not be quoted approvingly without qualification. These people joined subversive secret organisations, that instructed them to lie.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. I thought you removed the content for a policy based reason but that does not appear to be the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article still confusing

The article as written is confusing. If it is confusing to someone like me who has some knowledge of the subject, I assume the novice reader will have greater difficulty. After reading the article, I read the “talk” here and I see this has been discussed. Still, the article needs work.

The article doesn’t clearly address the mixing of two separate aspects of the idea of a growing Islamic influence. First, there is the conspiracy of a political alliance between European and Arab nations. Second, there is projection of a growing Islamic demographic that is imagined to be impervious to the assimilation of liberal values. As is pointed out above, the latter isn’t done in secret and can’t be called a conspiracy. No one is saying that Muslims are secretly giving birth in their homes and hiding the children.

The lead gives one the impression that we are about to read of a political and organized conspiracy. The second paragraph introduces demographic growth that will presumably vote for non-European values. Why a projected democratic vote is assumed a conspiracy (secret undertaking) is never explained.

I suggest that article can be improved by starting with the more general notion of “a projection of a growing Islamic influence leading to dominance” followed by the two assumed mechanisms “a political conspiracy” and/or “a cultural change from a projected demographic majority.” The interplay of these two dimensions is author dependent. Bat Ye’or’s theory is a case of this interplay and the original one and should be mentioned immediately after the general introduction.

This will organize the article and prepare the reader for the various dimensions that follow. I hope these general comments and overall impression helps. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

kundnani writes; "her claim is that the euro‐arab dialogue – a programme initiated by the european community’s political establishment following the 1973 oil crisis, to forge closer links with arab nations – was actually a secret plot by european politicians and civil servants to facilitate muslim immigration, subjugate Europe and transform the continent into an arab colony, eurabia." the so-called demographic scenarios are part and parcel of the eurabian conspiracy theories. besides, this issue and the related sources have been discussed more than enough.-- altetendekrabbe  15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Concept vs. conspiracy

Hi there

the reason why i want to chains the words "conspiracy theory" to "concept" in the top of the article is because part 1 of the article is called "Origin of the concept" and because "concept" describes this article in the way it should be understanded. for part 1 to make any sense to the top, this needs to be chainsd. Palli3000 (talk) 12:13, 9 september 2012

I don't understand. A conspiracy theory is based on one or more concepts, right? If we're going to write an article explaining a conspiracy theory, we have to explain the underlying concepts too. It makes sense in the article to explain the underlying concepts first.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The main question if most of the WP:RS describe it as such or there are some WP:RS that don't.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Economist had an issue with a cover story and several articles on Eurabia and not one of them used the word "conspiracy." (see [15]) It appears that the word has evolved into a concept about demographics and assimilation. Common usage in the English language is now dominated by this meaning. The Economist is certainly a well-respected international WP:RS. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC

It's pretty clear that the lead sentence ("Eurabia is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory" - 6 words in total) should not definitively be saying that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory. Surely the lead or elsewhere in the article should say that some consider it a conspiracy theory but right now the page is embarrassingly unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory. See WP:SPADE for encyclopedicity of the term. Instead of finding sources that don't happen to say it's a conspiracy theory, one would need sources that explicitly say it's not a conspiracy theory to be able to change it. There are plenty of sources which say it is. Sources that use the word without saying it's a conspiracy theory can only support the claim that it's not through original research. Here are a few to use, by the way: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] "outlandish conspiracy theory", no less. There are lots more.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not WP:SPADE (which is not a WP policy but an essay) however much you scream it is. As others in the thread note, much of the discussion of Eurabia in reliable sources occurs without definitively labeling it a conspiracy theory -- notwithstanding an opinion piece (not RS for factual statements) in The Independent calling it an "outlandish conspiracy theory." Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

did i scream? i didn't even think i was even whispering...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, alf laylah wa laylah, those prove my point. It is Bat Ye'or's version that is a conspiracy theory. However, the word has evolved into a term of common discourse to refer to a demographic/assimilation concept. The Economist doesn't just use Eurabia in a single paragraph, as most of those articles, but has written several articles and devoted an issue to the cultural theory of assimilation. This has become the main usage of the term by reliable sources. The writers who fear of Eurabia, over the last 8 years and most of the writers mentioned in our article, focus on cultural assimilation, not a political alliance between European and Arab governments. Some basically mention Bat Ye'or's political conspiracy in passing but the main emphasis is cultural. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What would prove your point is a reliable source that said that it wasn't a conspiracy theory. You can find any number of reliable sources that don't say that it's a conspiracy theory and that wouldn't let us say in the article that it's not a conspiracy theory. You can count them all up and say that it's the main usage any more. None of it will avail you, because it's original research. Find a source that says "Eurabia is not a conspiracy theory" and then we can say that it's not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive. The Economist has a suite of articles that is critical of the Eurabia concept. It is secondary research. It is a reliable source. It isn't fringe. Read the articles in the main issue, [22], and you'll see they discuss demographic/assimilationist concerns that they dismiss as overblown. You can read follow-up articles (in the years after) and again it is about demographic/assimilationist concerns. This is now the main usage of the word Eurabia. This proves my positive statement that Eurabia is first and foremost about demographic/assimilationist concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Littman's book was published in 2005. Your economist stuff is from 2006. When you're talking about how the term evolved, you're talking about over that one year? After Breivik in 2011 I think you'd be hard pressed to find sources that don't use it to refer only to the conspiracy theory. I agree with everything you've said about the Economist, except for the fact that your impression of how they use the word lets us draw conclusions about what the first and foremost use of the word is. You could certainly use your sources to write an article about the non-conspiracy theory aspect of the term, or to rewrite this one, but I don't see how it's possible to use them to argue that the term doesn't refer to a conspiracy theory in the face of reliable sources that say explicitly that it does.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The real issue is not to find sources that called it a "conspiracy theory" or "concept".. we need to understand what the words "concept" and "conspiracy theory" means, not if people call it one or the other.

This is from the Wikipedia site on Conspiracy theory.

(A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.)

This is just an issue about demographics and assimilation nothing more, nothing less,, not about some plots from the EU or others. Palli3000 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

All very reasonable, except for the fact that there are reliable sources which discuss the idea of Eurabia in exactly the terms that you describe, e.g. (from the first of my links above):

His views are based on the conspiracy theory set out by Bat Ye'or (pen name of Gisèle Littman Orebi, an Egyptian-born British writer) in her book Eurabia (4): that Europe's leaders have sided with the Muslims and betrayed their citizens in exchange for a guaranteed supply of oil - a fantasy that dates back to the 1973 oil crisis (5). Bat Ye'or claims that "massive" immigration by populations with a very high birth rate is a sign of this secret pact, and that Europe is, more or less literally, at war.(2012)

Now it's possible that there are other concepts denoted by this term, and it's possible that this article should be about all of them, or maybe they're different enough so that each deserves its own article, but saying that the term "Eurabia" is not used to denote a conspiracy theory seems like an untenable position to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Palli, I agree that Bat Ye'or full-blown version involves a conspiracy theory. The others are merely cultural conservatives worried about demographics and assimilation. They rarely if ever talk about the so-called political alliance between European and Arab governments where Europe, allegedly are driven by oil, is throwing Israel under the bus. There's nothing about that in The Economist and most of the references of our article don't have that angle. That's Ye'or's narrative. And it should be in the article. But the article should be about demographics/assimilation fears, which are shared by all the narratives. Bat Ye'or's version is one and the one that involves political conspiracy. And that's documented. But it is more of the exception among those that write about the growth of Islam within Europe. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. Do you have a proposal for how we ought to deal with this in the article? The two possibilities I see are (1) to fork the article (maybe Eurabia and Eurabia (conspiracy theory) and (2) to make the two meanings clear in the lead and then go very quickly to separate sections on the two quite different uses. I'm tending to think that we'd better serve our readers with the second option, since they might not know which of the two they're looking for. If we don't fork, I think it'd be important to have quite a short lead, just enough to let readers figure out which of the meanings they're looking for.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Actually, I think it's far better not to fork, because there is a relationship between the two versions and there are reliable sources discussing the influence of Littman's version on the more mainstream versions. Maybe we should start a new section below to discuss a possible structure for the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

One last thing to add to this section to hopefully convince other editors of the problem. The first paragraph of Main works uses Liz Fekete as a reference. It gives other references to the primary literature but that's original research. Let's stick with Fekete [23]. Liz Fekete distinguishes between advocates of a conspiracy and “intellectual currents within neoconservatism and cultural conservatism ... [who] do not support the notion of a deliberate conspiracy to Islamicise Europe ...” [p31] One page 33 she differentiates between those seeing Europe “incorporated into a new Caliphate” and “the other end of the spectrum [where there] are political commentators who write from a neoconservative or culturally conservative perspective. They do not directly support the idea that there is a deliberate conspiracy theory to Islamicise Europe ... and they certainly do not advocate violence. Rather, they warn that through omission, through naivety, through an unwillingness to act or even recognize the dangers ahead, liberal elites leave Europe vulnerable to Islamisation.” She includes “Melanie Phillips in this category.

Later in the article she states “elements of Eurabia concept have been adopted by mainstream writers such as Melanie Phillips ... Mark Steyn ... Niall Ferguson ... Oriana Fallaci.” But she doesn’t say the element extracted from Ye’or’s writing is a political conspiracy between Europe and Arab nations. Indeed, she has noted earlier that these are cultural conservatives. Given that Fekete is making the distinction. If our article is about the conspiracy theory, the whole list of writers in that paragraph are cultural conservatives who are branded as supporting a conspiracy theory like Breivik. This is a gross WP:BLP violation. If we have an article that separates the two dimensions and discusses the interplay we can keep clear who says what and be fair to the writers involved, fair to the subject matter, and do right by our readers. Let's be careful. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

i was just going to say i think when people just call it an "conspiracy theory" they are oversimplifying it, that does not mean there isn't a conspiracy about it, there is just more to it then that. anyways i think your proposals sounds fair. Palli3000 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On 6 September 2012, Jason from nyc wrote in Talk:List of Eurabia literature#Where's the references? nearly that the Eurabia theory is Bat Ye'or's Eurabia theory and nothing else (which is wrong in my opinion). Today, he wrote above that Bat Ye'or's Eurabia theory is alone among Eurabia theories and that nobody else share her view (which is wrong in my opinion). I am confused. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this quite thoroughly before, but I'll state my view again. All the academic sources that I've seen either call Eurabia a conspiracy theory or deride its factual basis as a demographic-scenario-cum-stupid-willing-or-treacherous-politicians (that is, labels it in essence if not in words). The ultimate lack of distinction between these is covered in Fekete's first quote below. The only real alternative would be to let the first sentence be "Eurabia is an islamophobic myth", and then proceed to discuss each of the fallacies involved separately. However, that use of terms would be more poorly sourced. I also strongly suggest that drafts of the following discussion in the article body be presented before any such edits be made, as changing the text in the lead only smells pungently of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On that note, I support discussing the possibility of a new structure first. As for the question of forking the article, I believe I explain below why I believe that would be a horrible idea, and quite possibly an epic example of a WP:POVFORK.

Regarding the details: When it comes to using Fekete as a source for not calling Eurabia a conspiracy theory, that presupposes a rather selective reading, as she writes:

The Eurabia-ist framework, which was analysed in depth in Race & Class by the journalist Matt Carr, embraces the conspiracy theory that Muslims are out to Islamicise Europe and is, hence, much admired by counter-jihadists. (my emphasis)

Which is to say that in her usage Eurabia is a notion or framework of ideas resting on a conspiracy theory. Most other scholarly writers don't go that deep, and just call this framework a conspiracy theory. For any non-academic these semantics are a case of "pot-ay-toes, pot-ah-toes".

Enlighteningly, Fekete also discusses the Eurabia theory in the hands of cultural conservatives such as Geert Wilders:

The Eurabia theory, in the hands of Geert Wilders, continues the view, articulated in 1968 by Enoch Powell in his ‘Rivers of blood’ speech, that aggressive minorities are out to dominate the majority. Hence, Wilders warns of Islamisation via conquest, and conquest through immigration. In many ways, the descriptions of Eurabia parallel classic criticisms of Jews within anti-Semitism – ironic given that the four frameworks identified here are tied up with unqualified support for the state of Israel, the last line of defence against Islamisation.

Where Fekete describes a spectrum bridging various degrees of believing Europe is succumbing to Muslims, she is discussing the counter-jihad movement, not the proponents of Eurabia (though they return as that as well), and when listing authors as jasonfromnyc quotes above, the phrase is "elements of the Eurabia concept". This phrase quite clearly does not imply full approval, but is a brief characterisation of where some themes in their analyses originate. Supporting elements, even conspiratorical, of Eurabia and distancing one self from the use of violence are not incommensurable positions. It is also not necessary to support Ye'Or's thesis in full in order to support a conspiracy theory. It is quite evident that the "Eurabia" which Justin Vaïsse describes using phrases such as "this alarmist Europe-is-dying category" and Simon Kuper describes, writing "In the imagined 'Eurabia', the Muslims are taking over," is the same as that described by Fekete, although she does not as Vaïsse and Kuper focus on defining the main characters of Eurabianism. She settles for noting the existence of elements among some writers to exemplify how the conspiracy theories taken to heart by Breivik are disseminated into the mainstream. The sources cited for Vaïsse and Kuper are themselves impeccable for the opinion of the authors. What constitutes Eurabia literature and not is a subjective matter, but given two sources discussing the genre and a third discussing authors whose works draw on elements of Eurabia, all with a significant degree of overlap, I believe we're on quite firm ground. Also, no label is applied to the authors - their works are characterised, not their persons. There is caution in abundance. If anyone believes there is a BLP issue here, not the least if it's gross, I strongly urge them to try the case at Wikipedia:BLP/N. Please notify us here when the case is posted.

Furthermore, the fact that The Economist has used the term Eurabia as a point of origin in some editorial comments about integration in Europe doesn't move this debate one inch. The main (2006) piece [24] reads

Is Eurabia really something to worry about? The concept includes a string of myths and a couple of hard truths.

which, admittedly, doesn't say "conspiracy theory", but quite clearly puts the concept in the realm of fantasy. It then, disappointingly, fails to point out the hard truths (the assertions made in the last part are about jobs, which has nothing to do with Eurabia, and a discussion about poor and promising trends in integration, which in its very nature contradicts the Eurabian dystopia). Citing this use of "concept" as a reason to change the fundamental characteristic in the Wikipedia article against the weight of half a dozen peer-reviewed papers would be - shall we say - odd. In my opinion, the characterisation as a "string of myths" does not imply that The Economist has a significantly different viewpoint. Quite to the contrary, in its next comment on the topic,[25] discussing Walter Laquer's works, the following text appears:

Mr Laqueur goes on to echo the fears of some of the wilder American neocons that Europe risks becoming a Muslim-dominated Eurabia, to the extent of adopting sharia law. (...) It is a shame that the tone of Mr Laqueur's book is so hostile that it slips into outright intolerance.

I have reviewed the literature quite extensively (most of it is in the article) and believe that "conspiracy theory" accurately describes the opinion of most scholars on the subject. So far, the material and reasoning presented to support altering the text is unconvincing to me, and harmonises poorly with the sources. What we aim to describe is not what words various authors use to describe the term (notion, concept, theory, thesis), but how they describe the term's content (conspiracy theory, myth, fantasy).

When it comes to the text on "main works", I've made an edit to clarify. There might be some details to sort out after this edit. I've taken too long writing this talk post to get around to it tonight, but there were sources already in the article that defined the Eurabia genre. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me quickly remark that I oppose the "fork." The "demographic/assimilationist" fears are shared by all. I'll return to comment on your extensive summary review and generous comments. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading the whole debate in the talk above and looking at the key works of literature, it still appears that the only commonality between all the academic and public literature is that Eurabia is the projection of a demographic dominance of an unassimilated Islamic majority. The question of whether this is facilitated by an alliance of European and Arab governments (as in Bat Y’eor) or merely the decay of effete European culture (cultural conservatives) distinguishes the “conspiracy” school from the sociological/cultural school.

Now as to Fekete, she does call Eurabia a conspiracy theory ... when she calls it a conspiracy theory. However her leading remarks are clearly meant to insure the readers that she understand the “cultural conservatives” aren’t advancing a conspiracy theory; whether she can keep that straight isn’t always clear and is open to interpretation.

In some of the literature it seems that the word “Eurabia” is reserved for Bat Ye’or’s work and occasionally those obscure counter-jihadi who mumble something about a Swiss villa. However, in other articles “Eurabia” is used in the broad sense to any writer who accepts the demographic/assimilationist fears. This is also the common usage in the public realm. To call a faulty narrative (or fantasy if you prefer) a “conspiracy” is just not correct English usage. If there are academics who insist on using the word in that sense, it has to be explained in the article with reference to the works cited.

I suggest that Eurabia should be described as the projection of a demographic dominance of an unassimilated Islamic majority. This is how the Economist uses the word and how most public intellectuals use the word. One can next explain the two currents: the governmental conspiracy school and the cultural conservative narrative. The literature supports both descriptions. (In the case of Fekete both are present and their cross-current fertilization is investigated.) This approach should include the full literature without the equivocations that ignore the significant differences among authors. Even if “works” aren’t “people” we should be sensitive to the spirit of BLP guidelines. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And of course, criticism is included in the natural course of describing the secondary literature that reviews the Eurabia writers. You appear to share my respect for The Economist on this issue. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

if you read daniel pipes you'll notice he always writes about demographic scenarios, like here, europeans fleeing eurabia. now, does this mean that eurabia is only a "demographic prediction" according to pipes? check what pipes writes about bat ye'or

bat ye'or has traced a nearly secret history of europe over the past thirty years, convincingly showing how the euro-arab dialogue has blossomed from a minor discussion group into the engine for the continent's islamization. in delineating this phenomenon, she also provides the intellectual resources with which to resist it. will her message be listened to? [26]

in other words, he is a firm believer of the bat ye'or's conspiracy theory. although pipes writes about "demographic predictions" it is *clear* that these predictions are derived from bat ye'or's conspiracy theory where the euro-arab dialogue is the engine for the continent's islamization. jason's is guilty of original research when he infers that "eurabia", is also a collection "demographic/assimilationist fears" (what source states this assertion?). that's totally unacceptable and a community wide attention is needed to address this issue if jason insists on making the changes he proposes.-- altetendekrabbe  03:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

2012-09 subsection

"why have a section whose only content is a subsection?" (Alf.laylah.wa.laylah) Because:

• this section did not have only 1 subsection, but 2 subsections;
• most of the content of this section has been moved to page List of Eurabia literature;

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)