Talk:Eurabia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] 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)
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'.
[edit] 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
[edit] highly POV copyright violations
whoever keeps posting this text needs to stop:
- 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.
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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...
[edit] 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)
[edit] EUROPE MUST UNITE AND FIGHT!
"According to the worst-case Eurabian predictions, by the end of the twenty-first century, most of Europe’s cities will be overrun by Arabic-speaking foreign immigrants, much of the continent will be living under Islamic Sharia law and Christianity will have ceased to exist or be reduced to a state of ‘dhimmitude’... In the nightmare world of Eurabia, the future will become the past once again and Christians and Jews will become oppressed minorities in a sea of Islam; churches and cathedrals will be replaced by mosques and minarets, the call to prayer will echo from Paris to Rotterdam and London and the remnants of ‘Judeo-Christian’ Europe will have been reduced to small enclaves in a world of bearded Arabic-speakers and burka-clad women"
To all you europeans and westerner's out their: Do you want this to happen to the craddle,the birthplace of our very civilisation. Our HOMELANDS!. This islamisation of europe must be stopped and action starts immediately! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.108.253 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
LOL! hahahahahhaa "action starts immediately"! That sounds scary. XYaAsehShalomX (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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))
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
- Absolutely. Maybe you could help clean it up a bit ;) XYaAsehShalomX (talk)
[edit] some links in 2008-06
- Please cancel the revert of User:XLinkBot and take bak my changes of 2006-08-12. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
