Jump to content

Talk:Eurabia conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Older comments without header

If that first weblink is as good as we can get in NPOV, that would indicate that the whole concept is very ideological (which it seemed to me anyway at first glance) and therefore should be clearly marked as such. Jakob Stevo 11:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Me - I'd be delighted to see this article on VfD. But short of that, what kind of "clear marking" do you suggest? Is this even a term which has been coined in more than the two sources linked to?
Essentially the tone of the piece here suggests that immigration - and specifically immigration of peoples with other cultures - is a "bad thing". It is implying that Europe should not have "United in diversity" as its motto.
It really sounds like xenophobistic rubbish. Not to mention that the concept is nonsense anyways!
Zoney 08:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It's my opinion too that the concept is nonsense, but if it is in use within neo-conservative circles, which I can't judge, than we should have it here. "Clear marking" would mean to start it with "The term Eurabia is used within a Neo-Conservative, often xenophobic, context to support the idea that..." or something of the like. But it's fine by me if you put in on VfD, and by the way, it gave me headache to read Eurabia. Jakob Stevo 13:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. It's not "immigration" which is a problem or being demonized. It's when, due to highly different birth rates, the immigrants threaten to take over as the dominant culture, which is clearly possible in Europe, and that's the concern and/or issue it addresses and calls attention to. Whether or not you personally find this to be a matter of concern isn't relevant, as many do find it of concern when there is such a vast difference in the nature of the inherent culture, as there is between much of Islam and Western Culture as historically predominant in Europe. The issues of free expression and religious and sexual freedom, which lie at the heart of Western Culture are clearly at severe odds with Islamic/Arabic religious doctrine, and the court systems central to Islam and the Arabic world are nothing like the centuries of jurisprudence which have developed in the West.24.250.219.28 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)OBloodyhell

Another "interesting" link I found: [1] Nice quote: "Now that ... Osama bin Laden has effectively become the Spanish Foreign Minister..." (referring to the election victory of Zapatero) Jakob Stevo 15:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Huh. Anti-French, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arabic, and Anti-European Union. I wonder why I haven't heard this term more often in the US?

Would Jakob Stevo like to explain his non-ideological approach? That would be quite interesting. I removed the parenthetical clause about bat-yeor being a "self confessed islamaphobe". Firstly I'm pretty sure that she has not admitted to having an irational fear.What, so she wrote a book warning of the tremendous threat of Islam to European civilisation and the freedom of the whole world and then said in her next breath that her concern over these things is wholly irational? Words like islamophobe are verbal smoke bombs used by people who feel lacking more substantial means of defending their 'ideology'.

Jvb alias Johan Van Vlaams's blog on Wikipedia

... moved HERE for those who are interested, as it does not belong to the article discussion pages themselves. --FvdP 20:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Such as already mentioned before, I won’t do any declarations about the possible link between Johan Van Vlaams and me.
The removed texts are about the actual situation in the Netherlands and Belgium. Very revealing. For the die-hards who want to understand why Mr. Politico-Correct deletes (censors) my text: see at Flemish Interest, the discussion page included.
BTW, I am no member of that party.
--Jvb Jan 26, 2005

whoever keeps posting this text needs to stop:

  1. The article from which it is cut-and-pasted is copyrighted and is not available under the terms of the GFDL, so we cannot simply reproduce it here. Period.
  2. Even if it were licensed appropriately, it is highly POV and is thus not suitable for a Wikipedia article.

—Charles P. (Mirv) 15:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis

===>Clearly overlapping I just don't know which one should be the redirect... Probably the book title. Justin (koavf) 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose merge. the name of this article has a unique worldwide meaning and should not be subsumed. Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a POV

Since the work of the author cited Bat Ye'or is based on solid ground, that is on publications of the European Union and othe governenmental entities, on top level meeting, it seems to me that is is actually history.

If there would be a merge, "Eurabia" should stay as the main title.

The ground may be solid, yet the constructions on top of it be biased and unfactual. --FvdP 22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a joke actually, a satire on conspiracy theories! Some folks don't get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.254 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A few suggested cross references

This article needs cross references to e.g. The Bavarian Illuminati, The Bilderberg Conference, The Trilateral Commission and Black Helicopters. Did I forget anything?

the reptilian humanoids? —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
How funny you are! The difference is of course, that the article is based on fact not fiction, as are the mentioned organisations.

The origins of the term Eurabia

As summarized yesterday in The Fallaci Code by Brendan Bernhard ([2]): "In other words, Europe will be conquered by being turned into “Eurabia,” which is what Fallaci believes it is well on the way to becoming. Leaning heavily on the researches of Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fallaci recounts in fascinating detail the actual origin of the word “Eurabia,” which has now entered the popular lexicon. Its first known use, it turns out, was in the mid-1970s, when a journal of that name was printed in Paris (naturally), written in French (naturally), and edited by one Lucien Bitterlin, then president of the Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity and currently the Chairman of the French-Syrian Friendship Association. Eurabia (price, five francs) was jointly published by Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva) and the European Coordinating Committee of the Associations for Friendship with the Arab World, which Fallaci describes as an arm of what was then the European Economic Community, now the European Union. These entities, Fallaci says, not mincing her words, were the official perpetrators “of the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created,” and Eurabia was their house organ." Larvatus 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Entry reads like a book review

Definitely lacks NPOV, though not conspicuously so. It almost seems to be lifted from an Amazon Review or the back cover of a book (look at the Further Reading section... It could very well be the back cover of several of those books.)

Blatant POV

About half of this article is simply direct quotes from Bat Ye'or. There is hardly any attempt at showing the other side of the story. Ironically the article on Bat Ye'or is much more balanced. Tyronen 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The criticism section should be lengthened and the rest shortened. Clearly it describes the ideas of the book, but come on these are some pretty controversial and anti-muslim ideas, I would like to see the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article given this kind of generous treatment. Dan Carkner 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no comparison. The Protocols is a forged document. This is an academic study, and even if it was just a book it would be ok too. The Protocols is not a book, it's an imaginary protocol. Just because the conclusions of this study are not pro Arabic doesn't mean it's comparable. It's just like one would say that Ilan Pappe's works are similar to the Protocols. Just because the conclusion is one sided it doesn't mean that. You can have a criticism section for both Ilan Pappe on one hand and this on the other hand. Amoruso 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact and fiction on the terms origins

For a journal with such a monumental impact on world history, Eurabia has left very little trace. I could only find one library listing in French online. I found no online evidence for Lucien Bitterlin's editorship. I found a source where Bat Ye'or states her claims on who edited it, but without sources for the international co-editorship. I see nothing which indicates this journal was influential or had a major readership. Bat Ye'or seems to have borrowed the catchy title to describe something else, primarily the Euro-Arab Dialogue. What I did learn is that there are hundreds of websites copying faulty information from each other on this issue, such as Bitterlins misspelt name.Paul111 19:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucien Bitterlin

In the absence of any source for Bitterlin's editorship of Eurabia I suggest this information be deleted.Paul111 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Deleted, can be re-inserted if source available.Paul111 10:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fallaci and EEC sponsorship of Eurabia

I can not find the orignal source online, where Fallaci says that Eurabia (the journal) and the Comité européen de coordination des associations d’amitié avec le monde Arabe were sponsored by the European Economic Community. It sounds like something that Fallaci would say, but that is not sufficient reason to include it here, a source is needed. Equally, it is possible the Committe did indeed receive EEC subsidy, but that too needs a source.Paul111 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Deleted, can be re-inserted if source available.Paul111 10:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comité européen de coordination des associations d’amitié avec le monde arabe

Apart from one reference to its publication in an archive list, Google has no reference to the existence of this organisation, alleged publisher of Eurabia (the journal). All other references to it are from sites quoting Bat Ye'or, including Wikipedia mirrors. Since she apparently got the location and name of the GREMMO wrong - see article - this may be another mistake.Paul111 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Caroline Fourest from list

A priori it would make sense to inclue Fourest in the list of intellectuals under Degree of support for the theory. After all, she authored an article entitled The War for Eurabia and has been active in denouncing fundamentalist Islam. Yet this article does not discuss "Eurabia", nor even use this term. Instead, it deals with millitant islamist networks based in Geneva and London. Furthermore, Fourest says that she did not choose the article's title (which she did not translate into English herself).

"As for the title, I chose neither it nor the illustration. I discovered it at the newsstand and it was too late to rectify matters"[3]

(As a side note, in the newspaper business, headlines are often not chosen by those who write the articles)

Fourest's line is basically the following: religious fundamentalists who hold sexist, homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic views are a threat to liberal societies. She's attacked the National Front, fundamentalist Catholic opposition to civil unions, etc. She sees Islamic fundamentalism as being currently more dangerous than Jewish or Christian fundamentalism, but "this has nothing to do with the religion, but rather with [islamic fundamentalism's] instrumentalisation of the religion". (Tirs croisés, p 514)

Another telling quote:

At the risk of disappointing those who would like to believe in a special barbarism in Islam, the Quran has nothing to do with Muslim countries' being behind in terms of democracy and secularism.(ibid. p404, or 514 in paperback)

So even if it was understandable to include her in the list, a reading of either her latest book la tentation obscurantiste the article on her on FR will show that she does not belong in this litany of names. --Zantastik talk 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From the WSJ article it seems that she does support many of the ideas of the Eurabia theory, and the French Wikipedia article and its sources confirm this too. However she is not as notable as e.g Ayaan Hirsi Ali so a dispute is pointless.Paul111 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. In the WSJ Fourest did not write, and has not written elsewhere about "a dystopian scenario where Europe merges with the Islamic world, and the alleged process of political and cultural Islamisation of Europe" or anything like it. In the WSJ, she attacked islamic fundamentalism, which she sees as being seperate from Islam per se. Yet Fourest has attacked Christian fundamentalism even more than she has attacked Islamism. After all, you don't write a book like Les anti-PACS. Ou la dernière croisade homophobe if you're just interested in attacking Islamic fundamentalism -- opposition to the PACS was right-wing and Catholic. And as a member of the editorial team of Charlie Hebdo's Charlie blasphème -- a scathing attack against Jewish, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism -- she certainly didn't seem too interested in singling out the last group. You say that FR and the WSJ article have her supporting the Eurabia thesis. Yet you cite nothing to support your claim or to refute my arguments. Furthermore, Fourest is very notable, as she won the French Assemblée nationale's book award, the youngest person ever to do so. And her book was the subject of a debate in several of the most important organs of the French press (Le Point, Le Monde, Le Nouvel Obs). --Zantastik talk 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Fourests's idea that Tariq Ramadan is out to Islamise Europe (which may be correct) is the main reason to put her in the Eurabia camp. She does not see that as a utopia either.Paul111 11:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Fourest indeed believes that [[Tariq is a stealthy and clever pusher of Islamism. This much is indeed true. Nor does she see anything utopian about religious fundamentalism, Islamic or otherwise. Yet when she spends so much time attacking religious fundamentalists of all stripes and doesn't worry out loud about Europe becoming an Islamic theocracy, and has left-wing views on immigration and is, like a good feminist, hardly preocupied with birth rates, I think calling her a "eurabist" is just off the mark. She's a general opponent of fundamentalism, and unlike Bat Ye'or, Pipes, or Spencer (who are on the right, while Fourest is left-wing), she does not Islam, as opposed to Islamism, as being any better or worse than any other religion. --Zantastik talk 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation-needed tag

Apparently this refers to Caroline Fourest, but since her name has been removed anyway, why is a source needed? If it applies to anyone else on the list, please say so, otherwise it should be removed.Paul111 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation tags are for the other figures who are still cited in the list. --Zantastik talk 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What sources, if the works of for instance Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are not sufficient? I understand from your comments on Caroline Fourest, that you don't believe that many people advocate the Eurabia thesis - the rest are presumably only opposed to terrorism. But the whole point about the Eurabia theory (and its popularity) is that it rejects this official line "Islam is a religion of peace, it is being misused by a murderous minority". If you want this article to say that the Eurabia idea has no supporters except Bat Ye'or, then it would be distorted and inaccurate. Please clarify whether you do indeed want the list of 'supporters' removed.Paul111 10:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I should have been more clear. I do think Pipes and Spencer are "eurabists". It's just that it'd be nice to have a citation pointing to a quote by each of them backing this up. WP:V, and all. But I'm not contesting their being part of the list, and as you say, claiming that Bat Ye'or is the only supporter of this idea would be distorted and inaccurate. --Zantastik talk 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More context needed

It should be much more obvious that this theory is a/absurd b/very marginal in the european public debate. Anyone interested in contextualizing this absurdity might begin with this pewresearch page http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=50 which shows among many pan-european poll results that the european muslims are in their majority "concerned about the declining importance of religion among their co-religionists"... It might be interesting to remark that while 77% of the general US public has a favourable view of the jews, 86% of the french muslims have judeophile feelings...

BRILLIANT ARTICLE

An absolutely outstanding article shedding light on the true nature of islam in Europe; the first two paragraphs HIT THE HAMMER RIGHT ON THE HEAD!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.108.253 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Erm, the article isn't actually about Islam, it's about some people's view of it. XYaAsehShalomX (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurabia.jpg

Image:Eurabia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Please stop the lame revert war and discuss the links please. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The link seems to be directly to an editorial directly relevent to the article. Porches and several allies and/or sockpuppets have repeatedly deleted the link.(RookZERO 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

See Also section

Fifth Column has no place in the See Also section. It assumes Eurabia exists (against the rules of a neologism Wiki entry).--Kitrus 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It is there because the idea that Muslims are a fifth column in Europe is part of the Eurabia concept. Arrow740 08:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:MOS on unnecessary expansion of see also sections. Hornplease 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitrus' unexplained reverts are basically vandalism. How does one report this? 69.152.89.167 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've never deleted any users comments from any Talk page. You're the exception. You are not a registered user. You have added nothing to this discussion besides vulgarities and an undefended insistence that you are right. Grow up.--Kitrus 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"I have never deleted user comments. I deleted your comment." That is just brilliant. Thankfully Arrow reiterated the point you wanted to delete. 69.152.89.167 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the three revert rule apply to Kitrus on this page? 69.152.89.167 02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New reference

"The comical shrieking about “Eurabia” and such is but thinly veiled Islam-bashing by primitives in the U.S. know-nothing media."

-Andrew Sullivan writing for The Atlantic blog The Daily Dish, September 3, 2007

--Kitrus 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Andrew Sullivan isn't a brain dead moron from the get-go. England is already well on the way to adopting Sharia Law as the standard over classic UK Jurisprudence (They already allow Sharia courts to rule in their stead in some instances). The media already stifle criticism of Islamic behaviors, often refuse to identify Islam as a relevant factor in some antisocial behaviors, and even outright ignore rising violence committed by Islamic immigrants (or, if unavoidable, conveniently "forget" to mention the connection to Islam), including the rising rape statistics in several Euro nations (Sweden, France, others) by young Islamic thugs. Yeah it's just "primitives" and "alarmists" who find these things of concern.24.250.219.28 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Obloodyhell

Is this article just a joke?

This whole "Eurabia" thing is obviously either crazy fanaticism, or war propaganda, and should be described as such... The article is waaaay too generous presenting it. Francesco --213.140.6.126 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a joke it's a Conspiracy theory, they're true ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.254 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist-Millennialism-Propaganda

This "theory" sounds like blatant Millennialist Propaganda to me. Go to any Southern Baptist service on Sunday and you might hear the same argument in the clothing of symbolism from the book of Revelation. \ Carlon (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've added a cleanup tag to the article in hope some of the issues raised above can be addressed. Feer 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rowan Williams

Would it be worth mentioning the comments of Rowan Williams (head of church of England) that some elements of Sharia Law are inevitable in the UK (and Europe) due to the inceasing muslim populations. The response of most Brits was very heavily critical with some calling for his resignation, however i do thinks it illustrates that to a degree some of the bases for Eurabia to occur (in this case Sharia Law in Europe) are already becoming an issue. Also i'm sure more recently the comment was echoed by a Labour politician —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.88.63 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from the Islamic World

The MEMRI TV quote supporting an Islamist view of Eurabia by has been repeatedly deleted with little explanation. Please discuss your objections to this quote before attempting remove it again. Let everyone understand your reasons as it relates to Wikipedia policy.

The only valid objection I can imagine is the remote possibility that the TV appearance is somehow a sophisticated fake, or that the translation is in error. Let us know your rationale, otherwise it stays.Freedom Fan (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello anonymous new Wikipedia user. You are now in violation of Wikipedia core principles regarding civility and avoiding personal attacks WP:CIV. Accordingly, I have reverted your edits. Since you are a new user, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and some time to become acquainted with Wikipedia policies. However be advised that your IP can be blocked if you continue in this disruptive and antagonistic manner. This is a cooperative encyclopedia, not a blog. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia.Freedom Fan (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted content destruction by user Eleland. Quotations by the Bishop of Canterbury and Ali Khaled are properly sourced and meet the Wikipedia standard for verifiability. Also both quotes relate directly to the theory of Eurabia.

If somehow the criterion is that an article must mention the term "Eurabia" specifically, then other content should also be removed, particularly the section entitled "Comparisons to antisemitism". But I am not aware of any specific Wikipedia policy in this regard.

'Eurabia' is the theory that Europe is destined to become more like Islamic countries due to demographics and reluctance of believers of Islam to assimilate into Western culture. Any source which supports or disputes this theory is relevant to this article.

If you believe otherwise please request Wikipedia administrator mediation before attempting to remove content again. Thank you.66.214.6.204 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS. Also note administrators have no special powers over content on Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This content has once again been removed by certain users who are intent on slanting this topic as a conspiracy theory promoted by bigots. Since the article is now unbalanced, I have removed the section comparing the theory of 'Eurabia' to 'Antisemitism'. However, I would prefer to include both this section as well as the balancing sections, in order to present the best possible information about this topic to Wikipedia readers. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Both sections have now been restored, and I have requested Mediation Cabal assistance from the Wikipedia administrators. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is really no need for mediators to swoop in (although I am of course open to the suggestion.) Per Wikipedia policy, and longstanding consensus, the paragraphs you are pushing for are not allowable. None of them mention the "Eurabia" theory; rather, they are being re-interpreted in a new context of "Eurabia," mostly in order to support the claims of the "Eurabia"-ists. That is fine and dandy for a newspaper editorial, say, but unacceptable here. Wikipedia aims to be a compendium of facts and notable, attributed opinions of relevant people. Thus. including the novel arguments of our own editors in the text itself is considered unacceptable.
It is difficult for me to see how the article as a whole is unbalanced. There is no criticism per se in the lede at all, nor in the first two sections. It is an extended explication of the theory as described by its original proponent. The "current usage" section is virtually all critical, but the "implications and response" section is virtually all supportive. The "critique" section is of course mostly critical, and it is fairly long. So, on the whole, the article is roughly 50/50 either way.
Balance on an article like this can be tricky, as the "Eurabia" concept is an emergent one, discussed mainly by highly partisan writers of marginal repute. To take the most obvious case, Bat Ye'or, the most important "Eurabia" advocate by far, is not terribly well-regarded in her own academic field; at best, she's considered a capable polemicist with an impressive command of primary sources, who reaches shocking and unexpected conclusions that deserve further study. At worst she's considered a revisionist, a manufacturer of myths, and a "blatant Islamophobe" whose writings "do not belong to the reality-based community" but "exist to meet emotional needs." Frankly, the "at worst" view appears to be the dominant one, although you wouldn't know it to look at her puff piece of a Wikipedia article.
In view of this, it's hard to see the default 50% for, 50% against format as "unbalanced." It may if anything be too favorable. <eleland/talkedits> 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning: 'Eurabia' Fails NPOV; All Balancing Content Censored

I firmly disagree with Eleland and those editors who refuse to permit any strongly sourced new content unless it smears the theory of Eurabia and those who describe it. Currently this article fails to present a neutral point of view as is required by WP:NPOV and any attempt to present balancing information is immediately deleted by censors.

Eleland's untoward characterization of wildly famous best-selling authors, such as Mark Steyn and Bat Ye'or, as having "marginal repute" confirms my fear that this article has been hijacked by those who insist upon discrediting the theory of "Eurabia" as a conspiracy theory invented by bigoted nuts.

A "conspiracy theory" involves a relatively small group of people who secretly conspire to commit something dastardly. This has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of "Eurabia".

Eurabia addresses extremist religious beliefs held by a significant number of European immigrants; certain of these beliefs appear incompatible with democracy and other liberal values which fundamentally define most European host countries. Eurabia explores whether immigrants will resist assimilation and require that host countries accommodate their foreign values, resulting in fundamental long term changes in those countries.

Eurabia is about interpreting the impact of observable demographics, which are openly celebrated by the Islamic world, a fact which is poignantly illustrated by the content which you insist upon censoring:

---Perspective Of An Islamic Scholar---

Some in the Islamic world envision a future for Europe consistent with the theory of Eurabia. In the opinion of Amr Khaled, featured on the cover of The New York Times Magazine as "the world's most famous and influential Muslim televangelist":[1]

The most important thing is that there are 2530 million Muslims in Europe. This figure has many implications [...] The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans don't. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decisionmaking. This makes other groups very angry, and they consider this to be very dangerous. These are the enemies of Islam, as we know full well. [...] What is sacred in the West – freedom of speech – is their equivalent of the Koran [...] That is what they hold sacred. The West is attacking what the Muslims hold sacred by means of what the West itself holds sacred.[2]

Clearly this content is consistent with the theory of Eurabia. Amr Khaled is hardly of "marginal repute"; his powerful influence in the Muslim world is undisputed. This interview with a prominent Muslim mitigates and balances your attempt to falsely paint 'Eurabia' as somehow 'Antisemitic'.

This content also is remarkably strongly sourced, since it references a transcript from the Middle East Media Research Institute, which accompanies the text with a full video broadcast of the interview with the source. This source is reliable because it includes entire, unedited interviews. The Middle East Media Research Institute does not invent or edit content, it only presents and translates what is widely broadcast on Arab TV. This content clearly meets the Wikipedia requirement for verifiability WP:Verify because it uses a video which is a primary source of information WP:Primary. If you don't believe he said it, you can go watch his lips or try to challenge the translation.

Also since generally 'conspiracy theories' are false, in order to maintain this fictional equivalence, you insist upon censoring any facts which support the notion that it is already happening:

---Status of Eurabia---

Mark Steyn believes that already Eurabia may be occuring because certain Western governments effectively subsidize polygamy and appear ready to begin implementing sharia law.[3] Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the chief bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury, prompted controversy in 2008 when he said use of certain aspects of sharia law "seems unavoidable".

According to the BBC, Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said the Archbishop had been misunderstood but agreed that there was no reason sharia law principles could not be used in Britain. However Phillips cautioned that "severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable." [4]

By censoring this strongly-sourced content and pushing your personal beliefs that 'Eurabia' is just some conspiracy theory invented by nuts, you are doing Wikipedia readers a grave disservice in understanding the meaning and impact of this important concept. You are also failing to adhere to Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

I submit that authors who subscribe to the theory of 'Eurabia' generally are thoughtful folks who have a reasonable basis for their beliefs; Eurabia is NOT a 'conspiracy theory'. Your bogus "conspiracy theory" idea is pushed at the user throughout the article, even in the introductory section! The term "CONSPIRACY" appears EIGHT times throughout the article and a link is even provided to other conspiracy theories! This is an unacceptable, outrageous display of bias.

In order to build consensus as is encouraged by Wikipedia policy WP:Consensus, I am submitting this issue for further discussion before opening a request for mediation to evaluate whether this article has become a target of serious abuse.

Meanwhile I encourage other intelligent editors to contribute to this discussion in order to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards of objectivity. Thank you. Freedom Fan 07:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • "Eurabia is about interpreting the impact of observable demographics" Indeed. Some weeks ago I added the number of Muslims in European union: 16M = 3%. "It's the demography, stupid." 89.2.243.42 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The relatively small percentage of total Muslim immigrants is irrelevant because:

1) The percentage is much higher in certain countries such as France

2) The percentage is much higher if you focus on younger people of child bearing age

3) A relatively low percentage is significant if the population is resistant to assimilation into the host country and is determined to change the host country according to their beliefs and becomes politically important

4) This point does not change the verifiability of the text suggested to balance the article, and does not address the fact that this article totally lacks a neutral point of view as evidenced by the fact that "conspiracy" is mentioned EIGHT times in this article. Since only one anonymous editor has bothered to discuss these points after one week, I have placed a neutrality tag to warn reader of the bias inherent in this article until these concerns are adequately addressed. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We've gotten off topic. A Wikipedia article is not about what any editor believes is true, but what can be verified by reliable sources. You may think the Eurabia is "a conspiracy theory" I may think it holds merit -- both viewpoints are irrelevant.
The article needs to be balanced -- not because I think so, but because that is Wikipedia policy. Pushing the idea that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory eight times without allowing any balancing information clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:Undue policy. Your position is "so what" -- that is an unacceptable answer.
Currently a handful of editors are deleting material and just doing whatever they want without bothering to defend their actions on the talk page or attempting to build consensus as required by WP:Consensus. So far you are the only one to discuss this.
These editors arrogantly act as if they own this article and are above compliance with Wikipedia policy. Obviously these editors want to delete the sections I created, because the material totally eviscerates their bogus "conspiracy theory" meme.
Informal mediation has now been requested. If no one wants to participate in an informal solution, we can take it to the next level. Your choice. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fjordman and french demographic

  • Added by me (/w/index.php?title=Eurabia&oldid=231087827&diff=prev 2008-08-10) and removed by Eleland (/w/index.php?title=Eurabia&oldid=232989161&diff=prev for Wikipedia:SYNTH) (89.2.243.42 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)):

    In an August 2008 article<ref>Fjordman, [http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3450 France: Can a Wounded Nation Heal Itself?], Brussels Journal, 2008-08-09</ref>, Fjordman stated that "[France] has a worse demographic profile than any other Western European nation.", altough the [[Demography of France|2007 France]] [[total fertility rate]] was the highest in (whole) Europe (Azerbaijan excepted) and the third in [[OECD]]<ref>[[CIA World Factbook]] [http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/download/download-2007/ 2007 edition]</ref>.

notability of Fjordman

Edit War Is Unacceptable

This is simply outrageous. Relata refero's repeated, unilateral removing of the neutrality tag while rejecting any attempt at discussion or consensus is unacceptable and constitutes edit-warring. This editor doesn't even bother to participate in the talk page or the moderated discussion, yet continues to blatantly violate Wikipedia policy. If this continues I will request that this user be blocked, as he does not appear to have the temperment to be a Wikipedia editor. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

From my usertalk, one of the places this notice was spammed: "There are already excellent points made by an IP on the talkpage, which you have not replied to. Further, you have not replied to repeated requests to explain why adding things that you think are relevant to the conspiracy theory is an activity not ruled by our core policies on original research. Till you do that, the material will continue to be removed. I see no reason for mediation at this time." --Relata refero (disp.) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I have now replied to the anonymous user whose most articulate argument is: "So what?".
My contributions do not constitute original research because they are well sourced and relevant in accordance with WP:Verify; they just don't happen to support your insistence that Eurabia is a "conspiracy theory" in violation of WP:NPOV. It appears that you are desperate to remove any information which might balance this article, which you seem to consider your personal soapbox WP:Soap.
You don't seem to find it necessary to address the point that EIGHT references to "conspiracy theory" violate Wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight to one point of view. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Unless it is mentioned specifically as an instance of Eurabia-ing, it falls under this clause of one of our core policies and must be removed. Unless a reasonable explanation is provided as to why I am wrong, I will remove it in 24 hours. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are claiming that a supporting source must specifically mention the title of the article, then please describe in detail a specific Wikipedia policy in this regard. (Just throwing out a policy reference hardly constitutes an argument.)
The section which cites Mark Steyn, author of a bestselling and strongly researched book, America Alone, is specifically about Eurabia. The source cited is his column in MacLeans magazine, one of the largest and oldest magazines in Canada. Mark Steyn is also relevant since already he is described (disparagingly of course) in other places your highly POV article; you can't really discuss Eurabia without talking about Mark Steyn.
The source counters the critique of his book about Eurabia as "alarmist"; he cites the willingness of European leaders to begin to implement Sharia law and provide subsidies for polygamous families, both of which are circumstances predicted in a Eurabia scenario.
His observation is supported by additional strong sources which quote the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom Steyn specifically mentions. This section is clearly relevant and strongly sourced in compliant with WP:PSTS.
Maybe you could try to defend your extensive POV characterization of Eurabia as a "conspiracy-theory". I see you have ignored this criticism so far, for obvious reasons, but I need something more than "so what" as an basis for consensus. Mentioning this EIGHT TIMES in the article clearly is in violation of WP:UNDUE.
I also advise you against unilaterally reverting this well-sourced information while a mediation is in progress, as it will only escalate this dispute into another level. However, I applaud your willingness to finally engage in a discussion of the matter. Freedom Fan (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Freedom Fan. If you really think that the Steyn source is suitable, please consider: he wrote it in response to a large number of reviews pooh-poohing his Eurabia claims. He explicitly acknowledges that most sources don't agree with him and call him alarmist: "Our media confreres [...] usually feel obliged to deplore my exercise of it [free speech] in particular [...] Okay, enough already. I get the picture: alarmist, alarmist, alarmist."
Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that points of view on an issue be represented in rough proportion to their prominence. That is to say, if a small band of critics come up with a new idea and publish it, and it is put down by most reliable sources, our article on that idea should give some room to the small band, while reserving most of its column inches for the put-downs from the mainstream.
Above, I have noted that the article seems to be about 50/50 between proponents and critics of the Eurabia concept. Thus, if we accept Steyn's own evaluation of what the sources say - and he's a controversial, fringey proponent of the Eurabia theory - this article clearly violates NPOV in favour of the "Eurabianistas." If we write Wikipedia articles the way we're supposed to, by focusing on mainstream sources like The Economist, this article is clearly even worse.
If you really believe that this material from Steyn ought to be included, it should be balanced by two or three times as much material from Steyn's critics. However, you have still not explained why an article written by Steyn that doesn't mention "Eurabia" is a useful source for an article about "Eurabia." Please do so. I am losing patience with the use of bombast and threats in lieu of reliable sources and policy-based arguments. <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Eleland, I strongly disagree with your attempt to censor this section, and I am offended by your disruptive tone. You incorrectly state:
However, you have still not explained why an article written by Steyn that doesn't mention "Eurabia" is a useful source for an article about "Eurabia."
Apparently you have not read what I have already written, so I will restate it for your benefit:
If you are claiming that a supporting source must specifically mention the title of the article, then please describe in detail a specific Wikipedia policy in this regard. (Just throwing out a policy reference hardly constitutes an argument.)
The section which cites Mark Steyn, author of a bestselling and strongly researched book, America Alone, is specifically about Eurabia. The source cited is his column in MacLeans magazine, one of the largest and oldest magazines in Canada. Mark Steyn is also relevant since already he is described (disparagingly of course) in other places your highly POV article; you can't really discuss Eurabia without talking about Mark Steyn.
The source counters the critique of his book about Eurabia as "alarmist"; he cites the willingness of European leaders to begin to implement Sharia law and provide subsidies for polygamous families, both of which are circumstances predicted in a Eurabia scenario.
His observation is supported by additional strong sources which quote the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom Steyn specifically mentions. This section is clearly relevant and strongly sourced in compliant with WP:PSTS.
As for bombast and threats, I was expressing frustration at a certain editor who flaunted Wikipedia policy by repeatedly removing well-sourced text and even the neutrality tag without bothering to debate or attempt to reach consensus, even after I requested mediation! Apparently you think that is acceptable. I do not.
I note that you also have also failed to discuss this until now, and in your edit of my section you state:
"holy gee-dash-dee, that was a shoddy frame-up job on lord phillips. one more like this and you'll likely be blocked for BLP violations."
Your threat is without foundation, and "shoddy frame-up job" obviously is a violation of the WP:NPA. You have falsely accused me of violating WP:BLP and removed this strongly sourced, verbatim quote from the article:
"Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable", he said.
Why did you remove that sentence and threaten me in such an unprofessional manner? Did you even read the source? I am willing to assume for the moment that this was an "oversight" on your part. Unless you can identify a reason for removing it, I will restore it in 24 hours.
Your attempt to marginalize Mark Steyn as a "fringe view" is ludicrous. Steyn's book about Eurabia, America Alone -- one of five books he's written -- has been on the NY Times bestseller list for months, and sold millions of copies. Steyn is a syndicated columnist whose articles appear in hundreds of newpapers and magazines throughout the world. He often guest hosts the Rush Limbaugh radio show and appears regularly on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. Steyn is a mainstream Conservative who was a featured speaker at GOPAC this year. Furthermore, you have already used Steyn in a negative way elsewhere in the article.
There are millions who read Mark Steyn's well-researched book, demonstrating there is mainstream concern about Eurabia. Just because a few critics consider his work "alarmist" does not mean that we have to suppress material contrary to your "conspiracy" canard. His position is strongly supported by the reference to the article in BBC News, in accordance with WP:Verify.
This section is relevant, well-sourced, and necessary to balance the article in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. Even with this section, the article is still biased, because the POV term "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory" is mentioned EIGHT TIMES in violation of WP:Undue.

Freedom Fan (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "The source counters the critique of his book about Eurabia as "alarmist"" (Freedom Fan) In this article Mark Steyn try indeed to counter the argument that he is alarmist about Eurabia, but I don't see him countering the argument.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "he cites the willingness of European leaders to begin to implement Sharia law and provide subsidies for polygamous families, both of which are circumstances predicted in a Eurabia scenario." (Freedom Fan) In this article he quote British peoples and British anecdoctes. There is a huge difference between dhimmified Great Britain and dhimmified Europe.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "His observation is supported by additional strong sources which quote the Archbishop of Canterbury" (Freedom Fan) He quoted a religious man who is uneducated in demographic matters. And "It's the Demography, Stupid". If this quote is the only support of the theory, then I am OK to let it the article, because it show how poor suported the theory is.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "your extensive POV characterization of Eurabia as a "conspiracy-theory"" (Freedom Fan) The Eurabia theory is a conspiracy theory (that's why the article is categorized as a conspiracy theory and include the Template:Conspiracy theories). Please read the "Critique of the Eurabia theory" section, especially my mention of the percentage of Muslims in European Union (3%, hell!) and User:Andreas Kaganov's quote of Adam Keller about Bat Ye'or following Edouard Drumont's footsteps.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "I need something more than "so what" as an basis for consensus." (Freedom Fan) I have already added this article in a <ref>, and I have added 2 other Mark Steyn's articles, several Bat Ye'or article and a link to a list of her translated articles, four ref for Bernard Lewis, a Filip Dewinter speech, a Raphael Israeli's article, and many other reference/link/source (supporting or critical) in the article. Please also notice that me and User:Ashley_Y have removed a quote of Greg Djerejian althought it was critic toward the Eurabia theory.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Apparently you think that is acceptable." (Freedom Fan) I am not a wikipedia administrator accountable of Wikipedia.org policy.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "There are millions who read Mark Steyn's well-researched book, demonstrating there is mainstream concern about Eurabia." (Freedom Fan) Yes, it seems the propaganda work (very) well.89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So you concur that implementing sharia is an indication of dhimmification" (ie "Eurabia") as stated in article lead. However, you question whether England is technically in Europe proper. Please note that Britain is a member state in the European Union. Otherwise you appear to support inclusion of the article. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the dispute here is about, describing non peer-reviewed material from a non academic author as "well" or "strongly" researched strikes me as wishful rather than established.

I would also like to point out that the word "conspiracy" appears in the article in quotes from or representing the point of view of various critics of the Eurabia "scenario", not as the point of view of wiki-editors involved here. Equendil Talk 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Peer-reviewed"? That inappropriate term applies to hypotheses suitable for testing using scientific method. As far as I know there is no scientific way to test educated speculation into what social attitudes will occur in the future. This theory is speculation which rests upon projecting two things: 1) Demographics and 2) Willingness to assimilate.
In this case, certain editors are trying to suppress evidence supporting the most popular book ever written about "Eurabia", by a mainstream author who has been already quoted elsewhere in this article. Specifically, the evidence is the willingness of Western leaders to embrace the Islamic legal system, which threatens human rights, especially for women.
Perhaps you could tell us which of the other sources, in the article, have scientifically determined that "Eurabia" is a "conspiracy theory"? Freedom Fan (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer review is merely a process by which scholarly work is "reviewed" by "peers", ie, experts in the same field. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", "academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued" while "self published sources" (such as blogs and their bloggers mentioned in this article) are "largely not acceptable". Also, as per the policy "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Now I have no problem with less reliable or "fringe" sources being used for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not however as statements of fact (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). That's an important distinction, Wikipedia should not turn "speculation" into facts (it should instead make it very clear that it *is* speculation).
Agreed. Be certain to clarify for the reader that Steyn does not have a reliable crystal ball and therefore can not scientifically prove that his educated guess, about a population's future attitudes, definitely will transpire. Just don't censor current events which already support the theory. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Popularity is not relevant as far as reliability of sources goes.
Possibly true, but it speaks to the "fringe" argument. Steyn's opinions are well received and highly regarded by many. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody, I believe, tried to overstate the reliability of the "other sources" as you are doing with Mark Steyn's book, giving emphasis to its popularity and claiming it to be "strongly" researched even though it has not undergone academic scrutiny (known as "peer review"). Equendil Talk 16:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
True. Just as nobody has tried to remove other portions of this article supported by those "other sources" for the same reason. The obvious point is that my sources are just a strong as any other in the entire article. So your point about "peer review" applies to testable scientific hypotheses and is entirely inappropriate in the realm of social conjecture addressed by this article. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Getting slightly off track here, however, peer review is *not* limited to testable scientific hypotheses, for a start, there's all sorts of papers in natural science that don't advance hypotheses, but for instance report on observational work. I didn't react earlier to your mention of the scientific method, but it is a process mostly related to natural sciences, it has little place, for instance, in mathematics, where logic and proof (in the mathematical sense) are employed instead. Peer review is in no way limited to fields where the scientific method applies and social sciences are most definitively not exempt from scrutiny by peers. Now, the subject here has no apparent scientific basis, as outlined by the lack of peer reviewed material, and that I believe is relevant to how this article should be built. While we need to outline the major claims made by proponents of the "Eurabia" scenario (so the reader knows what the subject is about), we should not give implicit weight to arguments put forward to support those claims and *most* definitively should not imply material here has academic value or use it as such (which is why I reacted to that "strongly researched" statement not knowing where that was going).
Anyway, I have two immediate concerns about the article. The first one, admittedly minor, is the mention of Fjordman in the article. Fjordman is merely a blogger amongst many within the islamic-doomsday-is-coming blogosphere, and I fail to see what makes him particularly worthy of mention here. My second issue is the last section "Response to criticism": should we also have a section "reponse to response to criticism" ? As for its content, the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury is 1) anecdotical 2) has been misrepresentated by Mark Steyn (and the media at large who thought they had a nice boogeyman story going). What is the purpose of that section ? It doesn't provide additional information about the subject, it just seems to give weight to an isolated argument put forward by Mark Steyn. Equendil Talk 15:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "This theory is speculation which rests upon projecting two things: 1) Demographics and 2) Willingness to assimilate." (Freedom Fan) Those two point are not proven by the theory or its supporter, as showed in the article, which show also several counter arguments. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
True. Also irrelevant. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

Source must refer to "Eurabia" to be relevant. —Ashley Y 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree per the above. Please support with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've kept the Macleans article, because Steyn is talking about his book, which is relevant. What is not allowed, per WP:SYNTH, is to adduce sources that do not explicitly relate themselves to the subject matter. —Ashley Y 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary Of Dispute For BountyHunter2008

Hi BountyHunter2008. The Eurabia article has been taken over by editors intent on aggressively pushing the idea that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory, and they will not tolerate any information which does not support that characterization, resulting in an article which is highly POV. Specifically:

1) The word "conspiracy" or "conspiratorial" appears at least EIGHT times in various places throughout the article, including twice in the lead. This is highly POV word does not belong in the lead, and should be used in only one or two places in the article, not EIGHT. To this concern, one editor has responded "So what?".
2) The lead states that Oriana Fallaci believes that Eurabia is "the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created", misleading the reader with the distinct false impression that she dismisses Eurabia as an unfounded "conspiracy theory". However, the same article states: "...Europe will be conquered by being turned into "Eurabia," which is what Fallaci believes it is well on the way to becoming." So Fallaci believes the precise opposite of what the lead implies!
Any attempt to clarify the lead, or fix the broken link to its source, have been repeatedly reverted.
3) Astonishingly, a certain editor repeatedly removed the POV-Disputed tag and deleted content before ever engaging in debate to achieve consensus, resulting in an edit war, even after Wikipedia mediation had been requested!
4) Any attempt to balance the article with strongly-sourced information will be instantly reverted, if it is contrary to the canard that Eurabia is a "conspiracy theory" advanced by fringe nutjobs. Eurabia has a great deal of compelling support, but a single section citing a current example by Mark Steyn is repeatedly reverted, for weak reasons which keep changing, as you can see in the discussion above.
As it currently stands, the quote by Archbishop of Canterbury that it "seems inevitable" that Britain will adopt certain aspects of sharia law, has been replaced with another statement where he appears to deny ever having said anything similar, and links to his original quotation have been removed.
5) Eurabia is characterized as an "antisemitic" idea. However any statement by Islamic leaders, who also recognize the demographics which are the very basis for Eurabia, will be removed. For example, in one famous quote (from the broken link in the lead above) we have:
Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo, informed the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that Muslims would change Norway, not the other way around. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes," he said. "By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim."
These editors hold that because Krekar never said the specific word "Eurabia" that this statement is tantamount to "original research", even though this and similar statements are relied upon for support by mainstream proponents of Eurabia such as Oriana Fallaci and Mark Steyn.

Strongly sourced statements such as these have been instantly reverted, resulting in a clear pattern of biased POV throughout the entire article, and failure of certain editors to act in good faith. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Right I see whats going on here it is basically one editor disagreeing with another about what should be placed in the article. From what I can see the above statements are legit and I have just been onto google to look at them. These should have stayed in the article even though he didnt say anything about Eurabia I can clearly see from the statement that he is trying to get this point across. I feel from what I have seen that an editor is acting in accourdance with what ever they want to do and the other editor is just simply reverting good sourced infromation for which I would block if I was an admin. Removal of proper sourced information isnt very fair and puts other users down. I can see both sides of the story and will bring both parties to the discussion in the Mediation case. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 'misleading the reader with the distinct false impression that she dismisses Eurabia as an unfounded "conspiracy theory"' (Freedom Fan) Maybe English language is not your mother tongue? The complete sentence is currently 'Eurabia is used by some to denote a conspiracy, and their version can be described as a conspiracy theory: Oriana Fallaci referred to those behind the Eurabia strategy as "the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created"' 89.2.243.42 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If you think describing something as a "conspiracy theory" means you believe it, then perhaps it is yourself who struggles with the English language; go read the Wikipedia article on Conspiracy Theory.
First of all, the loaded, POV term "conspiracy theory" does not belong in the lead, which should be kept fastidiously neutral.
Second, the article should not imply that someone believes the exact opposite of what she really believes. You have repeatedly reverted a verbatim quote from the same source which clarifies what Fallaci believes.
Third you have repeatedly broken the link to the source, why? So no one can check the source to read what she really believes? Or did you just never bother to check the source, so you don't realize the link is broken?
Finally, your sentence is an interpretation of a complex sentence by Fallaci, whereas my sentence is a verbatim quote from the same source. Who has the stronger case? Freedom Fan (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think that the (now deleted) sentence was "misleading the reader" or "imply that someone believes the exact opposite of what she really believes", and it was not my goal. If you would quote her in order to show that she believed that it was a real conspiracy (which is what I understand), how would you do? 89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I did not "repeatedly broken the link to the source". 89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The article contains an 18-line section devoted entirely to this smear of those suggest Eurabia is likely. Your response: "No" with a repetitive personal attack. What am I missing?
Please use your incredible command of the "English language" to tell me why you get an entire section to push this point of view, but any information challenging this is routinely censored. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Islamic leaders, who also recognize the demographics which are the very basis for Eurabia" (Freedom Fan) Islamic leaders who are of course uneducated in demographic matters. "It's the Demography, Stupid!" If Bin laden claim there is 123456 million Muslims in Europe or "recognize" that homosexuality is a sin, would you thrust him? 89.2.243.42 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
How can you say the article is balanced when you use a large section to smear authors who describe Eurabia as "antisemitic", yet simultaneously you block any quote from any prominent person in the Islamic community who agrees with the same demographic trends and its probable result? Freedom Fan (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo" (Freedom Fan) I support the add of such testimony (if Wikipedia:SOURCES), since it show that not only the only support for the theory (outside the circle of fear-monguer book-sellers and theirs readers) are from muslims fundamentalis (especially, no demographist support the theory), but also those muslims fundamentalists are thrusted by the defensors of whiteness of Western World. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing with yourself, but good; I'll put it in. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Demographers deal with demography, "prominent persons in the Islamic community" do not, "muslim supermacists living in Oslo" do not, this is *not* a blog folks, just piling quotes of random people who agree/disagree to give weight to or discredit the subject is not doing the article any good. Equendil Talk 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are arguing to change this into a purely scientific article about demographics, and ignore its impact upon social values, then fine. But that means that the section about "antisemitism" needs to go. Also, you must remove any demographic sources that don't mention the specific word "Eurabia" to be consistent with earlier arguments. Kinda silly isn't it? Freedom Fan (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* What I argue I write in plain text, and you would do well to discuss points others have made with them, not me.
We do have a subject to cover here, since what we are dealing with is anything but academic stuff or mundane matter, we are left to present claims made by proponents as well as critics and whatever facts are relevant, and leave it at that. With all due weight. It is not our role as editors of Wikipedia to editorialize the article, dig up elements for or against or brandish scarecrows. Bat Ye Or coined the term in its rough meaning here, there's a section on that, that's fine. The meaning has been somewhat altered and expanded by other authors, there's a section on that, fine. The next section is at best poorly labelled ("Implications and response") and just seems to legitimize the subject. Not so fine. Next is a section on critiques: you seem to object to comparisons that have been made to antisemitism or that "Eurabia" has been labelled a "conspiracy theory" by some, I myself object to the ideas of Bat Ye'or and Co, that's not a basis for hiding it all under the carpet. The last section (now "Quote of religious peoples") is adding nothing of value I can see and borders on original research (I'm being kind). Just why do we quote religious people ? Why *those* people ? If it's just to give weight to the "Eurabia" conjecture through anecdotical evidence, I'm sorry, but that's what blogs do, not Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I do not object to a single, well-sourced statement about Eurabia being a "conspiracy theory", especially after reading that Fallaci considers there to have been a conspiracy. But I do object to poisoning the well with similar statements in the lead, or to having "conspiracy" appear EIGHT times throughout the article; see WP:UNDUE.
Statements by prominent people in the Islamic world are necessary in order to balance the very large section devoted to characterizing proponents of Eurabia as anti-semitic. Obviously if both sides are observing the same events unfolding, then there is more to Eurabia than just a conspiracy theory being spread by intolerant whackos; see WP:NPOV.
Freedom Fan (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • "Demographers deal with demography" (Equendil) I quoted real demographers such Randy McDonald and Mary Mederios Kent. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • "just piling quotes of random people who agree/disagree to give weight to or discredit the subject is not doing the article any good." (Equendil) I did not add random quotes. I added (or taked back) quotes copied and published in many webside and article by partisans of Eurabia theory, 5 for the quote of Mullah Krekar. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • If you agree to be called "neutered", then it's fine for you. Howewer I don't agree to be called such. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Please drop the conspiracy thing, in its present form, "conspiracy" appears a grand total of three times in the body of the article, not eight.
That "very large" section about antisemitism has a grand total of two sentences, a small paragraph, and a sentence followed by a quote, sorry that's not what I call "large" let alone "very large". As for justifying quoting these people so it shows, as you put it "that there's more to Eurabia than just a conspiracy theory being spread by intolerent whackos", *that* is both pushing a point of view and original research and that is *not* acceptable. WP:UNDUE by the way, refers to minority views being given undue weight, and I don't see how the archbishop of whatever or muslim fundies represent majority views within their "communities", but that's besides the point really. Also WP:NPOV is not an excuse here: 1) *Much* of the article from the introduction down to the critique section + sub section presents the "Eurabia" thing from the point of view of its proponents, 2) NPOV is not an "Equal-time rule" (WP:NPOV#Balance, "NPOV weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence")
I have my axe ready for that section. Equendil Talk 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
One last thing, the lead section is not the property of a single POV. Equendil Talk 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Wikipedia articles need to be properly sourced WP:RELIABLE, and that applies particularly to articles which involve controversy. For instance there is a quote in the introduction sourced to Oriana Fallaci, that is sourced to an article written by Brendan Bernhard (who may not be a reliable source for this article), and published in LA Weekly which might be notable for entertainment subjects, but is not for this article. If the quote is to be in the article, there must be a source to a book (with page number) published by Fallaci herself, or to a newspaper article with her own name on it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we can quote a primary source (eg. The Force of Reason) then lose the Fallaci material. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking over the article, I have notice that there is some use of blogs as sources. Usually blogs are not considered reliable sources [4], and it may be necessary to change them for other sources that are not self-published unless a particular reason exists to justify them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. All the statements which use blogs as sources need to go. If MEMRI, which accompanies its transcripts with unedited video, is not a reliable source, then blogs certainly are not reliable. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably they need to be replaced with other sources. It would be better to avoid hacking out sections of the article without any discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: sourcing requires citing an exact location where the source of the material put into in the WP article can be found, either in a book, or website. Self published sources should be avoided. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity_of_sources say currently that "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources avaliable should be used." Please do not more Wikipedia:Vandalism in the future. If you see a quote from a secondary source that you wish being replaced by a primart source, please do not delete the whole section and instaed add (between comment) a such wish. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

89.2.243.42 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Peters

This statement does not appear to be exactly what Peters is saying:

On the other hand, writer Ralph Peters has expressed doubt that there will ever be an Islamic majority in Europe, nor does he think that there is reason to believe that Islam will exert a harmful influence on European ethical standards.

Peters says "Eurabia" is a myth, not because the forces are not building to make it, but because the Europeans will violently push back. This is consistent with how Steyn and others have described a possible result, hence the "genocide" comment in the anti-semitism section.

Also I did not find the word "ethics" or "standards" anywhere in his source, nor an implication. Please read this direct quote and tell me how your interpretation above is supported:

The Europeans have enjoyed a comfy ride for the last 60 years - but the very fact that they don't want it to stop increases their rage and sense of being besieged by Muslim minorities they've long refused to assimilate (and which no longer want to assimilate).

Peters seems to be confirming at least one of the two premises of Eurabia, and ignoring the other. He clearly believes that Muslims probably will not assimilate for whatever reason. Although the word "besieged" could imply a demographic shift, demographics are not specifically addressed anywhere in the article. Most of his article seems to be devoted to bashing Europeans for their own violent and intolerant past and suggesting "we're going to see Europe's history reprised on meth."

At any rate, I don't think your sentence accurately represents what Peters is saying. On the contrary, Peters seems to believe that there will be a clash of civilizations, but that Western civilization will reject Eurabia by means of violence. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you think a summery of his view should read? I would be happy to have it improved. Or if there is another source that would be better than Ralph Peters, that would give balance to the article for NPOV, that is certainly okay. I wanted to remove the text sourced to Brendan Bernhard because there was no way to verify the accuracy of the Oriana Fallaci quote in it, and it seemed to distort Fallaci actual viewpoint. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that Peters actually believes in the Eurabia scenario, but believes that it is the Europeans' fault and wants people to stop talking about Eurabia because it could ignite the Europeans to violence. It seems very odd that, in an article dispelling "Eurabia" as a myth, he doesn't address the demographics at all.
A summary of his views might be along the lines of the following, although I still don't think it belongs in the lead due to POV:
Peters believes that Muslim immigrants' failure to assimilate and adapt European values has been largely the fault of Europeans themselves, who allegedly have an intolerant and violence-prone history. Although Peters considers a violent clash between traditional European and Islamic cultures likely, he rejects Eurabia as a dangerous "myth" because traditional European culture will eventually predominate.
Freedom Fan (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

Look, I'm going to explain this one more time, although certain users seem to favour a kind of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT position. You can't just add some quote from a Muslim yahoo because you think it relates to Eurabia. You need a reliable source which directly ties it to Eurabia. Anything else is, yes, unpublished original synthesis of published reports. This is a really basic, straightforward application of policy and not as far as I can see open to compromise. <eleland/talkedits> 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Commented on that already, it's been ignored, and it's time for action. "Views of certain religious leaders" is gone. The article strays far enough as it is from the subject which is "Eurabia" a term coined by Bat Ye'Or in its meaning here, the section is original research from primary sources, these "religious" people were not commenting the subject or refering to it, it is *bad* original research due to the anecdotical nature of it (or deformation of truth in the case of the Arcbishop of Canterbury), and it's attempting to push a point of view. Furthermore some editors here seem to think plain ignoring comments on the talk page is perfectly fine if they're not followed with edits. See WP:POV, WP:OR and my previous comments. Equendil Talk 07:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And while I am at it Enough with blogs, fringe sources, think tanks or web forums. Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch, the Brussels Journal, Free Republic, a random webpage [5], Front Page Mag, Fjordman, and many others. I understand they are being used as primary source and not secondary sources, but that just makes the whole article smell of original research. Several references are footnotes rather than references as well, or only vaguely point to sites instead of specific content. Equendil Talk 07:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Fjordman is *not* one of the "main" authors of the "Eurabia theory". As stated above and in the article, Bat Ye'Or is. Fjordman is one of many bloggers harping on a loosely related subject (one given the most weight here for some reason), that of an envisioned take over of Europe by muslims through means ranging from birth rate to immigration to terrorism to lobbying depending who you ask and when. He is also an anonymous blogger, which is pretty bad in itself, for all I know he's already named as another person in the article.
  • No I will not nominate the Fjordman wikipedia article for deletion, he might or might not qualify for inclusion, I don't care, this is the talk page of Eurabia not Fjordman. If he gets a book published in relation to the subject, I *might* reconsider, however Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and we already have a number of people named here, at some point we have to ask ourselves who of those people are prominent in relation to the subject instead of trying to name as many as a paragraph will hold disregarding readability and weight.
  • I know about Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, that's why I haven't removed half the refs with an axe. However we do have slightly better source material, if only marginally so, so let's keep the noise to a minimum. That the subject qualifies as a fringe view is also not an excuse to link as many blogs/forums etc as we can find to make that fringe view seem more legitimate. As a side note, at least one editor here doesn't seem to agree we are dealing with fringe views (Freedom_Fan). Equendil Talk 08:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No objection from me, that's in line with the rest of the footnote. Equendil Talk 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Equendil wrote in comment of [/w/index.php?title=Eurabia&diff=240846374&oldid=240844141] "links to danish wikipedia don't do the trick either"; on the contrary, it's allowed by Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Inline_interlanguage_links, wich currently state that "Ordinary interlanguage links are only suitable for linking to a corresponding page in another language. However, if a topic does not have its own page in the English Wikipedia, but has in another language version of Wikipedia, then linking to that is useful" 89.2.243.42 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "...from a page that mentions the topic, and/or covers a more general topic.", I don't believe the Danish wikilinks are particularly relevant here, they are neither topic nor sub-topics. Anyhow, that's not the reason I removed the paragraph, or I would only have removed the links. Equendil Talk 09:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think mundane links should go to other languages, there are cases I might find alright, like linking a detailed article on the history of a given country, provided the link is in the language of that country, and the article a subtopic of the english page from which it is linked, but those links should be few. Red links do serve a purpose. Anyway, I'm not going to make a fuss over this. Equendil Talk 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(Would be better to create the page in English, write a short stub, and request a translation of it. {{Translation}} tag on the talk page / request translation). Equendil Talk 00:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion of unrelated references

These references are unrelated to what is quoted.

and [http://legalalieninny.huibs.net/2007/07/pepperdine-conference-3-european.html huibs.net]{{Dead link|date=November 2008}} (she also [http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html gave an interview] to the [[libertarian]] magazine [[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]); see also "[Mark Steyn] argues for dissolving Europe's welfare" and "Steyn's wider response to Islamism is to make democratic societies more like the one the Islamists want to build." in [[Johann Hari]], ''[http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1082 'America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It' by Mark Steyn]'', [[The New Statesman]], 2007-03-12 <!--(see also "Mark Steyn opines that [islamization of Europe] will surely lead to a ban on Gay marriage, the end of feminism, de-secularization and an end to the European welfare state. His solution? Ban gay marriage, end feminism, de-secularization and an end to the European welfare state." in a [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080920.wreckoning20/CommentStory/International/home/#comment2533558 comment to ''The 'Eurabia' myth deserves a debunking''])-->, Bruce Bawer claiming that european "big-government, welfare-state social democracy" is a "kind of fundamentalism" in ''[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=22563 While Europe Slept interview with Bruce Bawer]'', Front Page Magazine, 2006-05-23; in [[Johann Hari]], ''[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ship-of-fools-johann-hari-sets-sail-with-americas-swashbuckling-neocons-457074.html Ship of fools: Johann Hari sets sail with America's swashbuckling neocons]'', July 2007, are quoted some conservative (presumed supporting Eurabia theory like most people in the cruise<!-- "everyone thinks it" -->) claiming that "[[Pinochet]] is a hero. He saved Chile." and "Exactly [...] he [[privatization|privatised]] [[social security]]"

--tickle me 01:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How "dissolving Europe's welfare" and "big-government, welfare-state social democracy [are a] kind of fundamentalism" are unrelated with "reduce government, where government is unnecessary, and especially the welfare state" ? 89.2.243.42 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WP references source quotes, in this case Hirsi Ali's. They are not intended as containers for essays or link lists users feel to be related to the subject. --tickle me 21:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail, particularly if the explanation would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to cite the reliable sources that support an assertion in the main article." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Footnotes&oldid=250291440 . 89.2.243.42 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Steyn and Bawer are mentioned repeatedly in the article, so sources on what they say can move to where it's pertinent. Information on unnamed NR readers may be moved to National Review, if deemed pertinent there. Pinochet supporters on cruise ships don't illustrate Hirsi Ali's quoted statements on economics. --tickle me 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How "dissolving Europe's welfare" and "big-government, welfare-state social democracy [are a] kind of fundamentalism" are unrelated with "reduce government, where government is unnecessary, and especially the welfare state" ? 89.2.243.42 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claims the contrary. --tickle me 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. 18:27, 15 December 2008 DBachmann (talk · contribs) (non-notable outside the context of the 2005 book.) diff
  • Strong support. There is too much proliferation of not very notable concepts associated with political writers of right or left. It only leads to interminable NPOV debates. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I agree entirely. Wikipedia gets used to create notability at times, and this looks like one of them. dougweller (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The present article is messy, the subject is vague with no clear boundaries and just seems to be an invitation for all and any opinion piece regarding Europe and Islam. The term "Eurabia" comes from Bat Yeor's book, merging content there would keep the subject within clear bounds. (edit: also goes for other pages where content here would be relevant, Islam in Europe, Islamophobia...) Equendil Talk 13:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Question: where is the proposal? I don't understand what is being voted on. I have occasionally done some editing on the article, but not for quite a long time, and seemed to have missed something. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:FTN.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject is more than enough WP:notable to deserve its own article. Additionally, I do not understand how this vote, essentially known to no one but editors active on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, can be considered fair. I think an RfC would have been a more approprate, logical, and fair choice at this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What the "subject" is is entirely unclear, the lead currently claims the term refers to muslims becoming a majority in Europe in the first sentence immediately contradicted in the second sentence where the term refers "to joint Euro-Arab foreign policies". I fail to see how a subject that is not even properly identified is "more than enough notable". Oh and I do not belong to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, thank you very much, not that I can see what's wrong with editors on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard showing up here. Equendil Talk 23:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Split discussion

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles entitled Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis and Islam in Europe, accessible from a disambiguation page. diff

I still don't get it. Eurabia is a notable subject. How can you justify merging or splitting the article? Editing problems can not be used justify removal of a notable subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • this is precisely the question. "Eurabia" is a neologism, and a book title. Is there any evidence that "Eurabia" is a notable subject separate from "projections on the future development of Islam in Western Europe"? I do not think it is. --dab (𒁳) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or, has gotten plenty of discussion, and the term is now widely used. You may think it is a conspiracy theory, but Dennis Prager thinks it important: Eurabia is one of the most significant books of the current generation. -- Dennis Prager, KRLA, February 22, 2005 [6] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For example [7]. The term is now very widely used. Also, please get it off the fringe theories noticeboard. It may be controversial, but it is not fringe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's been used by two (2) American commentators of the same political hue as the originator of the phrase. No way has it caught on widely. I have never heard it used in the UK media; in fact I would never have heard of it at all if not for editing WP. And while I'm perfectly happy to have the discussion brought here instead of FTN where Dieter raised it, please note the definition of fringe: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories..." The category Eurabia should be deleted asap, and I'm not at all convinced that the book of that name is notable enough for its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Strange that you never come across the word. I see it frequently. As for a "mainstream view", I would think it is the prevailing view with the current US government -- even if you (or I) don't like that. If you try to merge the article, there will certainly be a fight over that. I see this as an attempt to enforce political correctness, not notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing remotely strange about it. Itsmejudith lives in Britain, as I do. This term is not used in political or journalistic culture in Britain. It's almost entirely non-visible. I see Melanie Phillips is mentioned. I hear her on the radio regularly. I've never heard the term used by her - which is not to say she never has. As a prominent right-wing Jewish journalist with well known anti-Islamic views it would hardly be surprising if she did. But the term is simply barely visible in Britain. It's hardly surprising that statements like this see very fringe to European contributors: "Europe's economic greed was instrumentalized by Arab League policy in a long-term political strategy targeting Israel, Europe, and America [...] Through the labyrinth of the EAD system, a policy of Israel's delegitimization was planned at both the EC's national and international levels". The idea that it is somehow "greedy" for Europe to compete economically against the richer and more powerful USA is frankly utterly solipsistic. That's not to say that the concept is not notable. It's to say that it seems both alien and very bizarre from a European pov to portray some sort of grand alliance with the Arab world when France suffers riots and other countries bombings. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Figure it however you want. What I see happening here is some editors descending on this article from the fringe theories noticeboard, and (without bothering to give a link to discussion there) start to discuss dismantling an article, even though it is obviously notable. They have decided on their own account that this article needs to go. If you think that the subject is not notable, do a You Tube search and see if it has gotten a significant amount of attention, a substantial amount of views. considering just these points, can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with what Dougweller and Itsmejudith were about to do here? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with the existence of this article. It's informative about US paranoia and cultural narcissism at the least. I do have a problem with the category "Eurabia". Paul B (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why there is a category "Eurabia", and certainly do not oppose removing it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article may remain standing separate. A placement of a merge tag is a call for discussion, not a declaration that "I will shoot down this article no matter what", so let us relax. It was the existence of the Eurabia category that made me post to FTN. If we can properly integrate this article with Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Islamophobia and Islam in Western Europe, it may certainly be salvaged. Probably most of the articles now in the Eurabia category could be merged here. If this article does remain, it should ostensibly be, as Paul put it, about narcissism and solipsism in US conservativist paranoia. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I just add my voice to those other British editors who have pointed out that the term is simply never used in this country, or as far as I can tell in Europe as a whole, at least in mainstream discourse? Im not sure I've ever seen it even in fringe sources (not that I go there often, although Melanie Phillips is always good for some light amusement). I'm also extremely sceptical about Malcolm's view that it is the "prevailing view within the current US government", especially if the suggestion is that the word "Eurabia" itself is attached to that view. See WP:SYNTH of course. It seems we have consensus on removing the category. As for this page, I'm kind of undecided about what should happen to the material here, although my instinct tells me the phrase doesn't deserve a page it its own right, other than for the purpose of highlighting the idiocy and offensiveness of its use. We already have a page on the book, and a more general page on Islam in Europe. Why a third, devoted to an extremely marginal neologism? The reliance on Prager and Pipes does not confirm notability - if anything it confirms the marginal nature of the topic. --Nickhh (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that "Bat Ye'or" is British, but it also appears that the only people that would take here seriously are US crackpot conservatives. This kind of reminds me of British Israelism which originated in Britain, but has also only survived in mad US Bible-thumping circles. So yes, this is another article illustrating just how far removed some US groups have become from reality during the Bush years. But of course, we look at "notability, not truth", and if we can have a whole series of articles on "Intelligent Design" I suppose we can also have one on "Eurabia". --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that terms like "crackpot conservatives" belongs in this discussion. It rather suggests that some editors think it okay to enforce their political biases on WP. Please do not use such terminology. Just for the record, I am a life-ling Socialist, and I think that it would be possible to find writers associated with to political left who have taken the concept of Eurabia seriously. Oriana Fallaci is one such who comes to mind (...she imagined a Europe of the future that was an Islamic colony she dubbed Eurabia.[8]). Sure it is a very hot topic, and disputed with very accusational language being used on both side (no one would call "crackpot conservatives" a thoughtful, reasoned, criticism), but it is WP:notable even if some editors don't like what it says. Look guys, stop trying to make it seem as though your POV is WP policy. You might want to refer to WP guidelines on censorship. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Baty Yor's rants in no way deserve an extensive presence in Wiki let alone a separate article. They should only be included in reference form, as in so and so said such and such, not in toto --Xenovatis (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Your not liking is of no particular interest. The subject is WP:notable, if you like it or not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It is also WP:FRINGE. In any case I never suggested that the article be drpped. Rather that Baty's rants were. There is no reason to quote so extensively since it only amounts to giving a biggot free air time with no gain for a reader since the SNR of the passage is 0. You could just write Doesn't like Muslims and that would carry exactly as much usefull information as the rest of the quoted passages. --Xenovatis (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If you think there are quote farm problems, certainly remove excessive quotes. But, not just the quotes on one side of this hotly disputed subject. Doing that will result in WP: undue weight. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
By all means feel free to remove any other quotes you think unduly burden the article.Xenovatis (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with liking/not liking anything, POV or censorship. It is, quite simply, about notability and whether this phrase warrants an entire article. The "Eurabia" neologism is obscure and virtually never used, even in fringier discourse. There are I think three references above to people who have supposedly used it or noted it (all of whom are highly controversial individuals, or became controversial due to their views on Islam and Muslims), and one piece of coverage has been added below. Other than that it's simply been asserted on this talk page that it "is a very hot topic" - at which point it is also not clear whether you are confusing the issue (Islam in Europe) with the specific term (Eurabia). Sure, mention the neologism in a wider article, but a whole page all to itself? I'm really not sure. By contrast I think the Londonistan (term) article is entirely valid - the phrase itself is equally scare-mongerish and silly, but it is in genuinely wide use from time to time, at least in the UK. --Nickhh (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It is determined how notable a subject is by WP:reliable sources discussing it, not by how often you happened to hear the term. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I know. Nor is it established by how often you say you've heard the term. That's why I pointed out that you'd only supplied two sources, and had mentioned a third. Show me that the only reason I rarely hear the term is because I've simply missed the 1000s that are out there, then I'll cede the point. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not noticed, but the entire article is built on reliable sources that discuss Eurabia -- both pro and con. If it were not for the sources, there would be no article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it appears to be built on a large number of sources, not all of which are WP:RS and not all of which necessarily use the specific term "Eurabia" as opposed to being more general discussions about Muslims and Arabs in Europe. Now please stop patronising me, not least because I have not called for this article to be deleted - I simply stepped in, as a relatively educated and well-read individual, to back up the observations of those editors who had said that they rarely see the word used in Europe. And then as a result I simply added my voice to those raising legitimate questions about this page, you know, to add to the discussion and hopefully share informed views about what might need to be done with it. I'm gone. --Nickhh (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If there are sources that are not reliable, they should be removed from the article. I have never suggested otherwise. I am not interested in your POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


"Islam is Europe" is a serious topic. "Eurabia" is a WP:FRINGE notion that may or may not be notable. Malcolm is still trying to conflate the two. Malcolm, if you want "thoughtful, reasoned, criticism", stop insisting on the term "Eurabia" and come to edit Islam in Western Europe. This article is abotu cheap polemics, and not about thoughtful or reasoned discussion of the actual problem. --dab (𒁳) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia is notable as a term. Your not liking it does not mean that it is fringe. Anyhow, there are plenty of articles that I consider fringe, but do not bother to argue about the category. For instance, Gush Shalom within Israel is considered nothing more than a group of fringe extreme left-wing nuts. It is enough that the article mentions that. I would be very surprise to find you fighting to put the fringe theory category on that article. It would certainly be worth putting Islam in Western Europe under Also See in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

let's cut the WP:OTHERCRAP. I am not trying to delete this article, or I would have put it up for deletion. We have seen plenty of sources now that establish that this is a marginal anti-Islamic propaganda term, and the article and the article lead will treat it as such. --dab (𒁳) 17:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not "marginal", and the concept has gotten a lot of traction. It is, obviously, strongest in the area of popular (rather than academic) thought, but it has gotten academic attention also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

you still fail to establish that the topic is separate from Islam in Western Europe. "Eurabia" seems to be short for "naive US views of Islam in Western Europe". What you have shown is that "Islam in Western Europe" is a notable topic even in the US. What you have not shown is that "Eurabia" is a topic in its own right. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Economist article from way back

This is a sober treatment of the Eurabia meme from the Economist that can give new impetus towards a compromise on the article.

Tales from Eurabia

Contrary to fears on both sides of the Atlantic, integrating Europe's Muslims can be done

Jun 22nd 2006

THIS week George Bush was in Vienna, doing his best to mend relations with his allies. The list of disputes between the United States and Europe remains long and familiar: Guantánamo, Iraq, Iran, the common agricultural policy. Less easy for Mr Bush to talk about, let alone fix, is the equally long list of different attitudes from which so many transatlantic tensions seem to spring—opposing prejudices on everything from capitalism and religiosity to Mr Bush's “war on terror”.

These underlying emotions—what a British historian, Sir Lewis Namier, once called “the music to which [political] ideas are a mere libretto”—occasionally converge around a particular issue, such as Guantánamo Bay or Hurricane Katrina. This can be unhelpful: Katrina made America look like a failed state, Guantánamo is not a typical example of American justice. Now a similar caricature—this time about Europe—is forming in America (see article). It is known as “Eurabia”, and it represents an ever-growing Muslim Europe-within-Europe—poor, unassimilated and hostile to the United States.


Two years ago, the White House's favourite Arabist scholar, Bernard Lewis, gave a warning that Europe would turn Muslim by the end of this century, becoming “part of the Arab West, the Maghreb”. Now there is a plethora of books with titles like “While Europe Slept” and “Menace in Europe” (see article). Stagnant Europe, goes the standard argument, cannot offer immigrants jobs; appeasing Europe will not clamp down on Islamofascist extremism; secular Europe cannot deal with religiosity (in some cities, more people go to mosques each week than to churches). Europe needs to study America's melting pot, where Muslims fare better. Londonistan calling

Such advice gets short shrift from European leaders, who often blame Muslim militancy on American foreign policy. But something similar to Eurabia scares many Europeans too. Terrorism is part of it, thanks to the Madrid and London bombings (as well as September 11th). But it goes wider than that: the past two years have seen riots in France's banlieues, the uproar about Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, the murder of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, and now the virtual exile (to America) of his muse, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Fears about “Londonistan” and so on have helped Europe's far right; on the other side of politics, a bizarre alliance has sprung up between the anti-war left and Islamic hardliners. But the respectable centre is split between France's strict integrationist approach (banning Muslim children from wearing head-scarves in state schools) and the more tolerant multiculturalism of Britain and the Netherlands. The debate about Turkey (and its 71m Muslims) joining the European Union is increasingly a Eurabian one. Meanwhile, at the centre of all this fuss Europe's Muslims are themselves riven by inter-generational arguments on everything from whether there is a European version of Islam to which cricket team to support.

Is Eurabia really something to worry about? The concept includes a string of myths and a couple of hard truths. Most of the myths have to do with the potency of Islam in Europe. The European Union is home to no more than 20m Muslims, or 4% of the union's inhabitants. That figure would soar closer to 17% if Turkey were to join the EU—but that, alas, is something that Europeans are far less keen on than Americans are. Even taking into account Christian and agnostic Europe's lousy breeding record, Muslims will account for no more than a tenth of west Europe's population by 2025. Besides, Europe's Muslims are not homogenous. Britain's mainly South Asian Muslims have far less in common with France's North African migrants or Germany's Turks than they do with other Britons.

Arguments about alienation are also more complicated than they first appear. Many European terrorists were either relatively well-off or apparently well-integrated. The Muslims who torched France's suburbs last year were the ones who seldom attend mosques. First-generation immigrants (with the strongest ties to the Muslim world) seem to be less radical than their European-educated sons and daughters. And the treatment of them is far from uniform either: for all the American charges of “appeasement”, the FBI is a downright softie compared with France's internal security services. Give us jobs, education and a seat on the city council

Given these subtleties, perhaps the most dangerous myth is the idea that there is one sure-fire answer when it comes to assimilating Europe's Muslims. In some cases, integrationism goes too far (France's head-scarf ban was surely harsh); but multiculturalism can too (Britain is now reining in its Muslim schools). America's church-state divide and its tolerance of religious fervour are attractive, but its fabled melting pot is not a definitive guide either: many American Muslims are black, and many Arab-Americans are Christian. In some ways, a better comparison (in terms of numbers and closeness of homeland) is with Latinos—and nobody in Europe is (yet) talking about building a wall to keep Muslims out.

Yet amid all this hyperbole, two hard realities stand out. The first is the importance of jobs. In America, it is easy for a newcomer to get work and hard to claim welfare; in Europe the opposite is true. Deregulating labour markets is a less emotive subject than head-scarves or cartoons, but it matters far more.

Second, the future of Europe's Muslims, no less than that of America's Latinos, lies with the young. For every depressing statistic about integration—France's prisons hold nine times more young men with North African fathers than ones with French fathers—there are several reassuring ones: a quarter of young Muslim Frenchwomen are married to non-Muslim men; Muslims are flocking to British universities and even popping up in white bastions like the Tory party. In 50 years' time, Americans may be praising this generation of European Muslims for leading the enlightenment that Islam needed.

Europe's Islamic experience will be different from America's: geography and history have seen to that already. Integration will be hard work for all concerned. But for the moment at least, the prospect of Eurabia looks like scaremongering.

--Xenovatis (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now a similar caricature—this time about Europe—is forming in America (see article). It is known as “Eurabia” -- this says it all. The subject of this article isn't Islam in Europe, it is a "caricature forming in America" regarding Islam in Europe. Not the same thing. --dab (𒁳) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop complaining. The subject is notable, if you like it or not. Moreover, you said yourself that the premise of Eurabia is true [9]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

did you know that just repeating "the subject is notable, if you like it or not" a dozen times on end is not actually an accepted way of proving WP:NOTE? You are not helping. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fjordman 2008-12-17

I don't think that "frowning" is necessary. WP guidelines recommends against using self-published sources. I know users who have advocated against that. My own view is that, in most cases, "if you want to ride you gotta ride it like you find it", to quote the famous song Rock Island Line. WP rules don't actually require frowning....as far as I know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
*raises an eyebrow and frowns* Equendil Talk 13:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

is there any point to this section? --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I added this quote here because it may be interesting as an anecdote (to begin with, it imply that Fjordman know existence of wikipedia), and obviously does not meet the requirements to be in the article itself. From me it is not at all a point for deleting, keeping or changing in any way the article (wikipedia don't have to obey to such guy imho + I already added mention of Defeating Eurabia in the article). Sorry if I was annoying. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia

We have three different things here:

They are three different things, and they are all notable, as we have reliable sources addressing each. —Ashley Y 10:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" (to use the derogatory term) is the book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.
This Eurabia article (as I understand it) deals with the popular culture view that Islam will demographically overwhelm the Christian population of Europe due to immigration and high birth rates, and in process replace democratic governments with governments base on Islamic law. This article should simply describe that view, as can be seen, for instance, expressed here [10] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, so this is an article on popular culture now?? Based on youtube videos? Then we'll have to recategorize it, to Category:American pop culture and Category:Internet memes, and avoid any suggestion that this is in any way serious. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a description, not a WP category.
Do you actually talk like this to people when you are off line (if you ever are), or is you kvetching, belligerence, and smug know-it-all attitude just for here? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty rich coming from a guy who likes to carry on about WP:CIV and WP:NPA whenever he gets told off for something... <eleland/talkedits> 02:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Tiamut wrote on an edit summery: there is nothing on the talk page that indicates why this information should be removed - stop deleting sourced info that provides balance and NPOV)

To explain again, my objection is material added to the lead which amounts to editorializing. I have not deleted any criticism added to the body of the article, even when it is actually criticizing the book rather than the popular culture theory which focuses on demographic change and is not much concerned with government conspiracies. At this point the largest amount of material in the article, by far, is criticisms.

Also the (apparently unsupported) statement about "American conservatism" distorts the fact that this popular culture view has its roots in Europe, and apparently has considerable support in Europe, judging by the many European blogs on the subject and that the American blogs actually seem fewer in number. Putting a statement in the lead that is not well supported in the article is highly problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

see WP:LEAD. If the body says the theory is crap, the lead needs to reflect that. Reverting. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Implications and response

Under this heading, it really only poses two scenarios: inevitability or confrontation. This seems more like prejudicial propaganda than factual scholarship. It's telling people that if they want to protect their way of life they have to fight against Islam. More emphasis should be placed on the fact that it is an opinion, not an inevitable outcome.

  • Even better, he could actually identify what he fantasizes is the alternative. Because the fact is, Islam isn't about compromise. It's about subjugation. And that's one of the meanings of the word "Islam". It takes two to have peace. It only takes one to have war. 24.250.219.28 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article seems to be mostly unsourced, and entirely pointless. If no one objects, I will soon remove it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

by all means. along with the rest of the article, moving whatever parts are pertinent to the Eurabia book to Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. --dab (𒁳) 16:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this is enough. I've been working on this article for quite a while and I'm tired of dealing with an editor who refuses to accept that a fringe extremist buzzword is going to be presented as a fringe extremist buzzword. I suggest that discussion has gone far enough, we need to revert his edits, and he can demand admin action or mediation, or whatever, but this has gone on long enough. <eleland/talkedits> 00:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
And the more I look at this article and its history, the more I'm convinced that the 2-way merge to the article about the book Eurabia and the article Islam in Europe is the way to go. <eleland/talkedits> 01:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You have reverted the article to a version that had a multitude of sourcing and POV problems. I am restoring the changes I made to the article, all of which are explained in my edit summaries. Your referring to my good faith edits as vandalism is a violation of wiki-etiquette, please review of WP:civil, and WP:no personal attacks. If you would like to request am RfC, I am quite willing to agree to that. In the mean time I am restoring my edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm I wasn't going to say any more here, and in any event I have better things to be doing right now given the time of year. But two points do need making here I think -
  • The term Eurabia: Malcolm this point has been made several times, but you still seem to be missing the distinction that most other editors here are trying to stress, between the term Eurabia and the underlying issues relating to demographics and Islamic/Arabic influence on Europe, which a minority on the right choose to discuss (in alarmist terms) under the Eurabia heading. The problem as I see it is that you see this as a page for looking at those broader issues, rather than merely at the use of the term itself. By contrast my view, and the view of seemingly every other editor here, is that this page - if it is to exist at all - should simply be about the term itself, and will inevitably have to make clear that it is a fringey, minority term, and that the alarmist thesis underlying its use is not accepted by most mainstream commentary or analysis. The Islam in Europe page is the place for more general content about these complex issues themselves. This again is nothing to do with editors here liking or not liking the term, and nothing to do with whether they agree or disagree with the underlying thinking. The point is simply that Eurabia is not a serious, mainstream term in the academic or political worlds. This page should treat it for what it is - a politically loaded neologism.
  • Recent deletions: a lot of the material you removed related to criticism/rejection of the term. Per the above, I am not sure this has left us with a more accurate representation of the balance of the debate (such as it is) on the use of the term. Furthermore the edit summaries mostly claim you were removing links to blogs, but as far as I can see links to and material from, inter alia, the London Review of Books, The Independent, The Economist, The Financial Times have all been wiped from the page.
It's the season of goodwill or something like that after all, so I'm not going to edit anything back (especially not the mis-spelling of "Conservativism" [sic] in the alternate lead), but I really would urge you to re-think where you are coming from here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What Nickhh said. The time for patient and good faith explanations has come and gone. This is apparently about Not Wanting to Get It at this point. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann. No more Mr. Nice Guy? I won't be able to notice any change. What you really seem to be saying is that you don't want to bother to find good sources. Everything I removed was crap that you, and others, put in to push a POV. Find some sources that are WP:reliable sources and then you will see if I leave them alone or not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

.. and, er, any response to the points I made above? Other than to call some of the leading news, literary and financial publications in the UK "crap", and to make threats about what you might or might not do to others' edits? I'm on holiday for a while now, so you know, whenever you get round to it. --Nickhh (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The Economist source was unsigned, which is not good for a source. Another source was a sports writer...how is that a good source for a non-sports article? Others were blogs, which are not considered WP:reliable.
I really do not care if strong criticism is in the article (and, in fact, it needs to be there), but it should be from reliable sources. I do not think that is asking too much. I will add such criticism to the article myself if no one else does, but I have work in the real world -- with a deadline approaching -- and it might take a few days for me to get to it. I want a good balanced article, which means that relevant criticisms must be represented. (What I do object to is Dbachmann treating anyone who disagrees with him like shit. Bad boy, Dbachmann.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it was a few days after Dbachmann made additions to the article before I even started to look at the sourcing because I assumed that an editor as experienced as he is could be counted on for reliable sourcing. When I did look I was actually surprised at what crap he had put into the article. I would be ashamed to add crap like that. He knows better, but does not seem to care. Strange, really strange. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, Malcolm. One of the reasons you're being ignored here is that you're continually saying things which, frankly, should embarrass you. Above, you claim that "The Economist source was unsigned, which is not good for a source." The Economist generally doesn't publish signed articles. And when an article is published without a signature, this conventionally means that it represents the view of the publication as a whole. <eleland/talkedits> 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I am going by WP:reliable sources, which says

Statements of opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed collumns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.[11]

If there is a statement of opinion that can not be attributed to its author, that seems a problem. Capice? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The Economist is well accepted as a reliable source, on a par with first-rank newspapers and magazines. The lack of author attribution is irrelevant, since the guarantee of reliability comes from the publisher, not the author. —Ashley Y 08:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, blogs are not generally reliable sources unless they're blogs of people or publications already established as reliable sources. And who is Justin Vaisse? —Ashley Y

Ashley Y, your view on this seems contrary to WP guidelines, that specifically says that in matters of opinion (which this is) the name of the author must be included in the text of the article (not just in the ref). If the Economist source involved, for instance, British auto sales figures for the year 2006 -- a matter of fact, and not an opinion -- the name of the author would not be so important. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a news story, not an op-ed column. —Ashley Y 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
M.S., you are digging into WP guidelines, pulling out quotes out of context, and trying to shoehorn the situation here into them. It's not getting you anywhere in the long run, but it is pretty effective in stonewalling discussion here. Bottom line, you've made an enormous number of deletions with a clearly underlying tendency. You've done things like identify Johann Hari as "left-wing" - how can you label Hari as such, while failing to notice that every one in the list of supposed Eurabia believers is right-wing? You are still adding material that doesn't have a direct connection to Eurabia absent your own WP:OR, such as a newspaper article reporting on a poll about Islam (for bonus points, you mangled the objections of a critic you quoted, while identifying her as Muslim - do you really want to get into the yellow badge game on a page about the views of Bat Ye'or and Daniel Pipes?)
If you're going to play this game of "policy 1138, section E, subsection 5 CLEARLY SUPPORTS my position," please show some respect for basic policies like WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS. <eleland/talkedits> 00:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling Eurabia "scaremongering" is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and in any case it doesn't matter. It's in a news story in a highly respected magazine (or "newspaper", as it likes to call itself). —Ashley Y 05:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the author of one of the articles that was originally cited (under the 'Skeptics' heading). I only have experience with Wikipedia as a user, and I wish to make clear that I did not put in the original reference to my article. However, I would like to express my surprise at the fact that all references to skeptics' opinions have now been removed. The heading is the only thing that remains. Neither does it make sense to delete a reference to The Economist, a highly reputed newspaper, on the basis that it doesn't reference an author. That argument seems irrelevant since all articles by The Economist represent the publication's views. The entire entry for Eurabia now seems to be very unbalanced. In general, I don't understand why references to blogs are not allowed insofar as they clearly reference to opinionated articles. For factual information, I understand why blogs are not regarded as trustworthy sources. But why is it not allowed to refer to skeptic opinions if they constitute blog entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.150.228 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Economist articles without a byline cannot be used is obviously a little off-beam. It misunderstands both basic real-world editorial policy, and WP rules. As to the first issue, as has been pointed out, unsigned reports or editorials can be assumed to represent the views of the publication as a whole. In fact they've probably been subjected to more discussion, oversight and amendment that individual op-ed pieces. On the second, it is of course a deductive leap too far to say that because WP rules require attribution when citing individual columnists, that pieces without a named writer cannot be used. If we want to be clear about attribution, we can always say "according to the The Economist, New York Times" or whatever.
Beyond this, Malcolm's changes seem to have been returned, and lengthy quotes have been bunged into the lead now as well. There is no consensus for any of these changes. In fact these changes clearly go against the consensus on this talk page, and when points are raised against them they are simply dismissed as "crap" or ignored. This is quite clearly disruptive editing. --Nickhh (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you apparently did not read what I wrote above, I am copying it again here:
I am going by WP:reliable sources, which says

Statements of opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed collumns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.[12]

If there is a statement of opinion that can not be attributed to its author, that seems a problem. Capice?
Yes, I read and understood exactly what you said first time, and nothing I said in response indicated that I did not. I also understand exactly what you've said this time (not surprising because it's the same point). You on the other hand do not appear to understand what an op-ed is, or indeed how The Economist is put together. An op-ed is a comment piece by an individual, named writer. Hence why WP policy requests that the writer is identified when material from op-eds is referred to. Furthermore, since I acknowledged that when we have a "corporate" report or editorial, the publication should be named as the "author", I do not see why you are still beating this horse. --Nickhh (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I have a suggestion to deal with the Economist references. In its Nov 1st 2007 edition, the Economist ran a 'special report' about religion and public life. The entire special report was written by John Micklethwait, as noted here. One example of a quote by Mr Micklethwait that can and should be used in order to balance this Wikipedia article: "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." I leave the rest to you guys. If you click on either of the articles, you will see all the material in the special report mentioned in the right column. There's tons of material to go through.
This leaves that problem that I formulated earlier about all Skeptic sources having been deleted. I would still like an answer to that question, or else I think restoration of the previous version is in order. This Wikipedia entry is completely unbalanced, and it reflects badly on those who contributed. I say that as a user. I do not want to get involved in editing myself, since I do not want to be accused of putting in my own material. I leave it up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.150.228 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion re the Economist (I hadn't actually read the piece in detail, I was just commenting more on the basic editorial principle and how it would relate to WP rules). As for the removal of the sceptical notes from the article, Malcolm of course did that despite every other editor who was commenting on the talk page being against it, and then edit-warred his preferred version back each time someone tried to sort it out. No-one could be bothered to join in a long edit war and/or a circular debate on the talk page so they've all given up and gone off. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. What this article needs - if it is to exist at all - is realy a complete re-write to simply note the existence of the term "Eurabia" in a few minor, mostly right-wing sources, and then to note that mainstream opinion and analysis rejects both the term itself and the underlying thesis. It doesn't need to give a huge and favourable platform to proponents of the theories or users of the term, or to discuss broader Islam in Europe issues (any more than we would discuss French Military History on the WP page about the phrase "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys"). Those issues of course need to be covered under a neutral and mainstream title, as they are elsewhere. Maybe if I had more time I would bother. --Nickhh (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also deleted material supporting Eurabia that was sourced to blogs, or had other problems. It is a lie that I deleted material on one side only. As for the lead, I do not think that should do more than describe the theory and explain the existence of support an opposition. It was Dbachmann who expanded that, not me. In my view, the criticisms and supporting material should be in the body of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The material and content removed related to criticism of the theory. Indeed you deleted the entire "Criticism .." and "Skeptics" sections (although did retain and move about 3 sentences from the first, to be fair, and some of your deletions did remove secondary links to "pro-Eurabia" blogs), while leaving in all the information that supposedly buttressed the theory and the term in the "Current usage" section. I have never lied about what you did or exaggerated it - I merely said you had "removed sceptical notes" which is undoubtedly true; by contrast you are now trying to suggest that you were engaged in some even-handed improvement of the article, which is a far more dubious statement.
To illustrate the point, let's pick out a few of your edits. The following (incomplete) sample were all from critics of the theory, and all referenced - despite several of the edit summaries - to reliable sources: David Aaronovitch in The Times; this material sourced to the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter; this section which included information sourced to The Economist; this material sourced to Ralph Peters in the New York Post; here material sourced to, among others, the Institute of Race Relations and to The Independent newspaper; here you remove material from a published letter to the London Review of Books, claiming that august publication is "not a reliable source"; here you strip out a book review from the Financial Times, on the basis that the writer the paper thought qualified enough to be published on the topic is supposedly a mere "sports journalist" etc etc. Yet here you add apparently supportive material - which nonetheless makes no specific reference to Eurabia whatsoever - sourced to one of the UK's bottom-end tabloids.
As for the lead, you of course reverted Dbachmann's original additions to the lead (and also reverted similar changes by AshleyY & Eleland) ... and then expanded it yourself with large quotations from random commentators. Your expansion is in the current version, Dbachmann's is not. So can we leave that red herring to one side? --Nickhh (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is I removed material from both sides when there were sourcing or other problems. I have just now moved supporting and critical material from the lead. If you want to expand the criticism section (or other sections) by adding properly sourced material, there is nothing to stop you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm. I am afraid that when one's edits are subjected to a specific and detailed critique, complete with diffs, it doesn't do to make blanket statements of the form "the fact is [that my edits were all good]" without deigning to respond in detail. We understand that you believe your edits we're all good. We're asking you to discuss specific objections to your edits, such as excluding critical sources on grounds that they do not have specific professional qualifications in a very narrow field of research, while including supportive sources from tabloid ragsheets that don't even mention the topic of the article. If you choose not to answer these specific arguments, then observers are likely to conclude rightly or wrongly that you aren't answering because you don't have an answer - ie, you are on the wrong side of the argument. And if you carry on refusing to provide specific answers, eventually people are going to see your edits in article-space as worthless and disruptive. <eleland/talkedits> 22:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Just what WP guideline or rule do you think I have violated? If you think there is something I have done wrong, then take it to AN/I. Otherwise stop making personal accusations against me. I am trying to improve this article, which is what WP editors are supposed to do. If you think material I have neglected needs to be added for balance, then add it. No editor alone can create NPOV on a subject that is complex, such as this subject. So make what additions you think are necessary, and if I have any objections I will let you know. I hope that you and all the editors have a happy, healthy, and productive New Year. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this as a question of bureaucratic niceties, nor do I see how my comment above constitutes or contains personal accusations. It is disingenuous to resort to a chain of repeated large-scale reversions of content while entreating those with whom you disagree to add content. We have no confidence that you will not simply resort to another mass deletion. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you just complaining, or is there something in your edit that is intended as a question for me? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There was an implied question, I'll make it explicit: Do you accept that the "Eurabia" concept is not taken seriously by the vast majority of relevant reliable sources, that those sources which do discuss it are mostly hostile and dismissive, and that this means inevitably that a properly written, neutral Wikipedia article on the subject must present the critical view of Eurabia prominently? <eleland/talkedits> 17:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
All I know for sure is that Euabia is notable, and much discussed. I do not know if its premise is mostly true, mostly false, or something between. The argument itself is valid. Truth is another matter. If you have a published survey showing that attitude of academics (or others who might be considered reliable sources) toward the ideas in Eurabia, please put it in the article. To me it appears the some editors who consider the concept of Eurabia to be not-nice want to make it disappear because they find it disagreeable. Doing that is contrary to WP policy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify as well whether you accept the distinction between the term itself, and the broader issues that might be said to underly its occasional use? I am agnostic about whether this article should exist or its content be merged - but if it is to stay, content has to be strictly limited to material which references the term "Eurabia", and the page as a whole has to make clear that it is a marginal and much-criticised term. We should not be discussing broader issues about European demographics and/or Europe's attitude to the Middle East under this contentious, politically loaded and fringey neologism. Any more than we would have substantive material about Israel on the page Zionist Entity; or (again) details of French Military History under Cheese-eating surrender monkey; or details about New York's ethnic/religious populations on a page Jew York; or material about British people on the Limey page. Where the latter pages in each example exist, they should simply be about the phrase or term and its use, and cover the extent to which they are marginal, offensive or whatever. They are not the place for an objective examination of the underlying issues, such as they are.
This is nothing to do with whether people like or dislike the term or the "theory", it's about being objective and having conceptual clarity about what we are looking at. As noted, Islam in Europe is the appropriate venue for hosting any detail on about 50% of what is currently in this article. Beyond that, I think this page needs a full re-write, and much of the criticism you took out returned, where it specifically references "Eurabia". However I have neither the time to do that, nor the inclination to do it given that everything would no doubt be reverted, going on recent form - even though I would almost certainly be editing in line with the clear consensus of comments on this talk page. Also some of us are wary of doing anything that might resemble the act of polishing a turd. --Nickhh (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The term Eurabia is notable. Very notable. Stop trying to censor WP. That is contrary to WP guidelines. As for "Jew York", I would have no objection to such an article. NYC was, when the Jewish population was at its height, the largest Jewish community that ever existed. Maybe I will buy one of these [13]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
good idea. Wearing tshirts is definitely a more commendable way of showing your pride than disrupting Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Dbachmann, you continue to imply that I am in some way invested in this article. Actually the issue for me is fairness. If you don't understand that you will never understand why I put why I am putting effort into this -- or another article you know of. I consider your attempt to suppress a notable article, because you think it is not-nice, to be unfair censorship [14]. If you continue to make make insulting personal comments about me, we may finish discussing that issue on AN/I) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have again simply missed or ignored the points I made in quite a long post and simply parrot-repeated your "the Eurabia term is notable", and also accused me of trying to censor WP. My comments above did not, apart from one brief aside, dispute notability and certainly did not call for the page to be deleted - the point was about what exactly should be covered under the heading "Eurabia", or equivalent terms. In addition I was calling for more (critical) information to be included on the page, and for other content from here to be moved to a different page - so there was quite clearly no censorship call, and in fact of course I was calling for the reversion of many of your sweeping deletions. --Nickhh (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You say I have "ignored" your points. I am only interested in explaining, and defending, my view of the article. A comparison of my view, and your view, will make it clear where we differ. I hesitate to say I am right and you are wrong (although you seem to have no equivalent doubts) because I assume other points of view than my own do contain some truth. As for criticism of Eurabia, I have invited other editors to add sourced criticism in the criticism section....but not in the lead. The lead makes it clear that there are detractors, and that should be expanded further in the criticism section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger Discussion


There was discussion and voting without proper notification here. I would rather that there first be an RfC, with a chance for open discussion. It is a question of fairness. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I see. That is very old discussion. Too old to be meaningful now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC article

The subject of that source is European attitudes towards its Islamic population, exactly the subject of Eurabia. I would be interested in seeing a WP rule that says sources must use the title of the article. But if there is continued opposition I will move that content to Islam in Europe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole debate about this general point above, where you persistently avoided addressing this issue - ie that this article should be specifically about the term Eurabia, not a dumping ground for random content which-might-vaguely-be-said-to-have-something-to-do-with-it-possibly-in-one-WP-editor's-eyes. Otherwise we have a classic example of WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE etc problems (are these the rules you are looking for?) You are continuing to edit war against consensus and to display clear WP:OWN habits, while removing critical material which does actually refer to Eurabia but adding supposedly supportive material which doesn't even mention the word. The neutrally titled article for content of this sort, if it belongs anywhere, is of course Islam in Europe. As I've said, we do not discuss everything to do with British people in the Limey article - we simply note that it is an occasionally used, slightly dated and mildly insulting term for British people.--Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Eurabia is about a set of perceptions held by Europeans toward their Islamic populations, which is designated by the term Eurabia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
...and the way to determine which perceptions by which Europeans are designated by the term Eurabia is to read sources which call these perceptions "Eurabia." <eleland/talkedits> 19:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain why (leaving aside the wiki-lawering) you think the BBC article was not relevant to the article? It actually supplied important information, although I understand that it is not particularly good news. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could stop pretending WP:IDHT. <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering that I agree to the removal of the material that does not seem to apply. I think that the material was useful for understanding the subject, and you have not explained anything to the contrary....aside from the wiki-lawering.
Well, I think that a line going something like, "Eurabia is a fanatical devil theory promulgated by nativists, racists, Islamophobes, and ultranationalists, substantially derived from 1930s-style racial antisemitism" would be useful for understanding the subject. So, let's put that line in. I think it's useful, and that's enough, aside from the wiki-lawyering, right? <eleland/talkedits> 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Eurabia is about a set of perceptions held by Europeans toward their Islamic populations". Is it now ? The term as coined by Bat Ye'or does not refer to that at all as far as I know, as used now, it is largely the perceptions of various "authors" inside *and* outside Europe who do not, together, use the term in a consistant manner, anything related to Islam and Europe goes basically, as long as negative feelings are involved. "Too many musulmans in Europe" ? Eurabia! "Europe sucks" ? Eurabia! "Musulmans breed like rabbits and are going to take over Europe through the womb" ? Eurabia! "A mosque is being built in country X, Y or Z in Europe" ? Eurabia ! "Muslims are emigrating to Europe" ? Eurabia! "A muslim commited a crime somewhere in Europe ?" Eurabia!.
Perceptions held by Europeans toward their Islamic populations should be addressed in Islam in Europe anyway, we don't do POV forks. Equendil Talk 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, it was honest of you to say that. In other words, you feel justified in POV pushing, and feel it is justified to removed the BBC poll because it contradicts your POV on the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. If only I hadn't slipped up. But you tricked me into it! Well done. I've clearly lost this argument. <eleland/talkedits> 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict. Eleland and Equendil, the fact that you find the concept of Eurabia distasteful is causing you to to oppose the article. But a lot of people believe it, and your denying and badmouthing it it are not effective counter measures. It needs to be depicted as it really is. Without that first step, nothing good can be achieved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

?? Pardon my french, but what the holy *fuck* are you talking about ? I explicitely stated my reasons. That I find or do not find the "concept of Eurabia" distateful is not one of them. In fact, my main problem with the article is that "Eurabia", ie the subject is extremely vague, hardly a "concept" to find distateful. I'll reiterate: either the content is relevant to Islam and Europe and we do happen to have an article on that, or it is relevant to a certain book by Bat Ye Or and we do happen to have an article on that too, or relevant to Islamophobia, and guess what ? we do have an entry for that too. The present entry cannot be a repository for *everything* under the sun that you or anyone else think should go under "Eurabia". "Eurabia" is a neologism, *that* is the subject of the article, not everything that has ever been written on the subject of muslims in Europe. Did I mention we do have an article for that ? Equendil Talk 19:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
While I'm at it, would you be so kind as to focus on what people write as opposed to what they do not ? Reading other messages above, you seem to systematically dodge every message left on this talk page and address imaginary points that were not made. Equendil Talk 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Some editors might find this [15] a useful source, which I would not oppose in the article (as long as its not in the lead), even if it does not use the word "Eurabia." I think it successfully addresses some important concerns contained in the premise of Eurabia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The premise of Eurabia according to who ? You ? The article itself that does not mention "Eurabia" ? I don't think so. Equendil Talk 19:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pov-section tag

The section on criticism is clearly pov. There are critics of Islamization that are not from the extreme right. Bruce Bawer, a critic of the Islamization of Europe, and others too, have even written books against the far right. 83.231.23.171 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand the logic here. The section doesn't mention the far/extreme right, nor does it suggest that anyone critical of or concerned about "the Islamization of Europe" (if of course such a thing is indeed taking place) must necessarily be of the far right. It's merely a summary, albeit a fairly unwieldy one, of various views suggesting that it's kind of a non-issue.
In any event this article isn't about "the Islamicisation of Europe", it's about the fringey neologism "Eurabia", which is sometimes used to flag up that issue. Or rather it should be simply about the term itself, but per the above discussions, it's found itself stuck as a dumping ground for all sorts of broader, random content which one or two WP editors have insisted be discussed here under that loaded and utterly non-neutral heading, even if half the sources being mined for that content don't even use the term.--Nickhh (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes: Eurabia conspiracy theory is fringe. But in [[Category:Eurabia]] I can see entries that are not fringe, the Melanie Philips article por instance. It seems from the literature that "Eurabia" has a broader meaning than Bat Y'or's theories. 83.231.23.171 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

article a disaster

It is a total WP:COATRACK: while term itself probably deserves definition and origin, this article reads more like a thesis in support of the concept, rather than an encyclopedic exploration of the topic. I am peeved that there is a separate cricism section (systemic consensus is against that) the majority of the sources are obscure or semi-obscure commentators, giving undue-weight coverage to the topic by means of an apparent narrowing of the field. There is over coverage, too few disenting voices are shown, and their seems to be selectivity in terms of what sources for opposition there are: one sources versus almost 20? WP:UNDUE violation.

But all of these pale in comparison with how badly written the article is, having a journalistic tone instead of an encyclopedic one, and having linguistic disasters like "Current use of the term has gained supporters, and may/sometime/often differs from than that of Bat Ye'or," (WTF???) or "call for controls limiting Muslim immigration to Australia (lest a "critical mass" develop)". Regardless of issues on the neutrality and coatracking of the content, it needs a heavy dose of rewrite.

I have changed the quality rating across the board to "C" and tagged accordingly.--Cerejota (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Efforts have been made to improve this article, but they have been immediately reverted and stonewalled on the talk page (see above, endlessly) - against consensus - by individual WP:OWN editors, who have then gone on to add even more inappropriate material, thus making the problem worse. As a result, those with an interest in helping to write a decent article about the term, rather than promoting the purported concept and anything that might seem vaguely related to it, have walked away.
To make an NPOV article in line with policy, several things need to be done as a minimum -
  • Any source/material that is merely about "Muslims in Europe"- or "EU-Islam/Arab world"-type issues but which does not use or comment on the specific term "Eurabia" needs to go
  • Anything sourced to blogs and obscure commentators, especially footnotes linking to the rather nasty looking "Gates of Vienna" site need to be removed, in their entirety, whether they mention Eurabia or not
  • The lead needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that this is a fringey term not usually used in mainstream political discourse
  • The massive quote from Bat Ye'or here needs to be removed, or at least condensed significantly. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for her views.
I may or may not do any of this if and when I get time. I'd be grateful for the views of others first as well, and preferably of course confirmation/agreement that the above proposals are fair, hopefully to avoid another round of nonsense over this. --Nickhh (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

reduced tag

I reduced the loaded tag for the reader's sake. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

2008-09-19 deleted reference

It may be, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion is... ironclad. ComTime (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratio of Muslim in Germany

Due to the image it says that 3%-4% (Germany, Sweden, Serbia) I don't quite believe it, I've seen much more about them in Germany, about 7% where does this 3~4 come from? In which year? I think this image shall be updated more frenquencely because they born much faster and fetch many people from their homeland.

Islamophobia

Now some people is thinking about muslims like nazis about jews.

radical muslims do openly talk aout jews like "nazis thought of jews" , The far right i neurope still has parties with ties to the 'nazies' I don't really get you ut if you have a problem with the article it's yet again like jews having a problem with "antizionism" because it has theories and is against most jews. Shiftadot (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

85.57.143.84 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is more like jews (or anyone else) thinking about nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.30.131 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


What is the point of adding this comment to this discussion?
  1. ^ [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=36504 The new 'moderate' Islamic voice], World Net Daily, June 7, 2006
  2. ^ Egyptian Muslim Preacher 'Amr Khaled: Within 20 Years Muslims Will become the Majority in Europe, Dream 2 TV, transcript and translation by MEMRI, May 10, 2008.
  3. ^ So what would it take to alarm you? Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in T.O.?MacLean’s, February 14, 2008.
  4. ^ Sharia law 'could have UK role', BBC News, July 4, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurabia_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1159789465"