Talk:Eurabia conspiracy theory/Archive 4

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Academics
In the impact-academics section, a Pew report has got a prominent place. But this is weird, as the report doesn't deal with Eurabia. The closest thing to a political analysis in the report is this: "The projections are based both on past demographic trends and on assumptions about how these trends will play out in future years. Making these projections inevitably entails a host of uncertainties, including political ones. Changes in the political climate in the United States or European nations, for example, could dramatically affect the patterns of Muslim migration." Making this appear as an academic comment on Eurabia is stretching it and we are in OR/Synthesis territory. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request
The article contains; "The Eurabia theories have been dismissed by academics as an islamophobic conspiracy theory." Which secondary, better yet, Tertiary reliable source corroborates this claim

I ask, is it not a gross violation of WP:SYNTH? Is it not a concoction by mixing various sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources? Which academic can talk on behalf of all others? Unless, of course, all the academics in the whole wide world gathered around and attested the claim. Is there a source that says so? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for academics who have stated that the theory is real? // Liftarn (talk)
 * I know a woman, who went to UNIVERSITY and wrote books about HISTORY, who stated the theory is REAL. Joke aside, you could answer to "is it not a gross violation of WP:SYNTH?" question. I did not because I am not very familiar with this rule. Maybe Mr T has a point. I guess that at least "As far as 2013, all academics who wrote about Eurabia theories have dismissed them as an islamophobic conspiracy theory." is safe. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh, the "theory" is real, because it exists. The question is, what are its merits. Now of course there are some Muslims who are very open about their expectation of exactly the "Eurabia" scenario, just look at Anjem Choudary. It is therefore not disputed that "Eurabia" is the professed aim of some Muslims, the question is just, what fraction of the silent Muslim majority actually embraces the scenario, and how likely is it they will succeed. Since they are openly stating their aim, you cannot call it a "conspiracy" any longer. The "conspiracy" part is the claim that there are dark forces at work among the western elite who want to destroy ethnic identity in Europe so that a unified Europe will be easier to govern. Now this is a conspiracy theory, and I doubt it has much merit. If you look at population figures, the naive expectation will be that some European countries will have a Muslim majority by 2060 or so. Now this is a naive interpretation of these figures, but at least it is an interpretation of actual demographic data, it isn't just some irrational "phobia" with no connection to the real world (like "Elders of Zion" style theories of an evil invisible Jewish conspiracy, all the more evil the more invisible it is). --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is no serious representation of the 'Eurabia' concept. The allegation that the concept is a conspiracy theory belongs into a separate criticism section and not into the introductory section. Academics like Daniel Pipes, Niall Ferguson or Hans-Peter Raddatz, who make use of the concept are lumped together with 'far-right activists' and dismissed, while Matthew Carr, who has no academic credentials and whose article was published in the far-left journal 'Race and Class', is extensively cited. This seriously violates the principle of fairness.

The statement made above, according to which "As far as 2013, all academics who wrote about Eurabia theories have dismissed them as an islamophobic conspiracy theory", is contradicted by the article itself, which cites supportive academic voices.

For these reasons, I suggest this article to be completely revised. --Karl Ruster (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right, this article (and others of a similar kind) is a mess. But I'd rather not waste my time and effort editing it. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bruce Bawer part of the article contradicts itself
Either Bawer maintains that there was a "Eurabian conspiracy" that was pre-planned by agreement between the European Union and the Arab League, or he maintains that the situation is a result of political expediency, but not both. The article right now says that Bawer believes that it was a deliberate policy (that is, decided presumably by cabinet-level officials on both ends) and also says that it's a result of politicians trying to capture the muslim vote (this is not deliberate but rather an unplanned result of decentralized players choosing politically expedient campaign platforms). Unless the article is citing Mr. Bawer for actually taking two mutually exclusive positions, this needs to be fixed. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Israel is not a member of NATO
Norway in particular has never at any point in its history been allied with Israel. Norway is only allied with the members of NATO. I've not seen any evidence for Israel being allied with any European countries. NATO participates in dialogue with Arab states and Israel, and other countries, but that doesn't make them members of the alliance, thus allies. Also, the source that is cited doesn't say anything about that. We can only use the wording from the reliable (third party) source cited, and it says that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory, where European and Arab powers aim to Islamise and Arabise Europe to "make life impossible for Israel." It doesn't mention anything about Israel being allied with countries which are not its allies and which never have been in an alliance with Israel. The sentence, that is original research not supported by the source, appears to be an attempt to portray the US and Israel as the same thing. Israel wasn't even well liked in the west until the late 60s, and is not a country European countries today are eager to accept into their alliance. Most Europeans today are critical of Israel for the same reasons they were critical of South Africa prior to 1994, and most Europeans consider Israel a primary threat to world peace, not as an ally. The Prime Minister of Turkey, an important member of NATO, for example describes Israel as a regional threat, so Israel is not in any way allied with NATO. If Israel for example entered a war against Turkey, they would automatically be at war with the rest of NATO, thus most of Europe. That's what a formal military alliance is about. Lukademi-demi (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "" and "" are wrong, see Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–1949, Suez Crisis, Israeli nuclear program. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, Lukademi, the main reason why Europeans see Israel as the primary threat to world peace is because they are either anti-semitic, indoctrinated, or just plain stupid. There was a recent poll from Manfred Gerstenfeld showing that, astonishingly, a near-majority of Europeans believe that Israel is committing _genocide_.  Regarding the proposition "Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians", "In Italy, 38% of those interviewed agreed. In the Netherlands, the figure was close to 39%, in Hungary 41%, and in the U.K., 42%. The figure in Germany was 48%, Portugal 49%, while Poland was at 63%. ".  It's no surprise, given their incredibly bad information (if Israel is conducting a war of extermination, it's doing a horrendous job of it, given that the Palestinian population just keeps rising), that they would claim that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace.  The blame for the spreading of such scurrilous and obscene (and frankly, absurd, given the facts) allegations falls squarely on the European media.  It resembles a modern-day version of the blood libel (just like the Al-Dura case), and like the ancient blood libels, it's just as ridiculous.   While Israel is arguably more of a threat to world peace than, say, Denmark, surely it is not as much of a threat to world peace as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran (the first two of which are in a state of civil conflict and the second two of which are the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world).  North Korea has been trying to provoke Japan by firing experimental ballistic missiles "over its bow", as it were.  If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, on the other hand, it is not only Israel that stands to suffer.  The Gulf states are terrified of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons specifically because Iran has designs on various parts of the gulf, including, for instance, Bahrain.  Iran having nuclear weapons will start an arms race in the middle east, and given the poor security in the region, it is certainly a possibility that a weapon of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear) might fall into the hands of a terrorist group.  That is the scenario keeping people up at night.174.44.174.192 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM --aad_Dira (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Hey aad Dira, shut up or also tell the idiot to whom I was responding that he ought to stop calling Israel an apartheid state, given that it isn't true. And the arabs who lost their homes and land during the war deserved it just as much as the german people deserved their collective punishment for nazism. Want to cry about international law? If breaking international law during a war of independence meant that a state was totally illegitimate, then any PLO state would be just as illegitimate, given that it failed on numerous occasions to exercise discrimination and proportionality according to the laws of war.  I'm sick and tired of seeing Israel libeled by anti-semitic arabs and anti-semitic europeans.  174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 174.44.174.192, read WP:TALK. Comments need to comply with it. The only person who mentioned apartheid is you. Talk pages are for discussing proposed changes to the article based on the site's policies and guidelines. Editors are at liberty to delete or hide your comments in their present form, so bear that in mind. Comments like this serve no purpose here. They disrupt and distract from the purpose of Wikipedia which is to write an encyclopedia. If you keep this up, someone, maybe me, will just delete everything you have written and report you if you restore it. Help keep this irrelevant commentary out of Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Don't bring the conflict here. This is a charity and the only reason for people to be here is to help write an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's rules.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, Sean, let's not play games. He said that most Europeans were opposed to Israel the way that they were opposed to South Africa before 2004.  It's no secret what he meant, so don't try to imply that he wasn't talking about apartheid.  The point of his remark was to demonize Israel by comparing it with Apartheid South Africa the same way that other organizations try to redefine genocide in order to make the claim that Israel is committing genocide.  And yes, this is antisemitic propaganda.  It's not a legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.  It's motivated by the hatred of the jewish people and of their right to self-determination.  The reason why there can be no binational state is because there is no trust.  Zionism is mainly a project to allow for the jews to protect themselves, because the holocaust isn't just what germany did but what the rest of the world _failed_ to do. To describe it as some kind of colonialist imperialist enterprise instituting an apartheid system is beyond ridiculous.  No state is required to grant citizenship to a hostile group of residents.  To act like the Arab-Israeli conflict began in 1948 or 1967 is ahistorical. The conflict started as soon as jews began to immigrate to the mandate to land that was bought at above-market prices from the very same arabs who subsequently turned around to demand that no more jews be let in, intensifying this effort at the very time that the jews of europe were looking to escape, seeing swords of damocles hanging above their heads.  And then the swords fell in Europe (and had it been up to haj amin al husseini, the swords would have fallen in the levant as well).  To compare the situation in Israel to apartheid south africa is beyond detestable, and I won't sit here and let you claim that he never said it.174.44.174.192 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to be able and willing to comply with WP:TALK ? Please answer the question yes or no.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to let an antisemitic libel go unanswered. Also, don't tell me what to do.  If I am going to be in compliance, I'll be in compliance.  If I'm not, you will just have to deal with it, unless you wanna tell on me to the principal =p.  Also, you should at least admit that either you were mistaken or you are a liar (regarding him having mentioned apartheid). 174.44.174.192 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that Robert Wistrich and Bernard Lewis were conspiracy theorists and not part of the academic community
Both Bernard Lewis and Robert Wistrich, who are respected historians, have cited a somewhat attenuated version of this concept, and moreover, they provided some quotes from members of Islamist organizations who have claimed that they hope to overwhelm the european countries with waves of immigration until the Crescent flies over the continent of europe. Bernard Lewis has said that the third time is a charm for the Muslim world, noting that Islam will spread to Europe not by the sword as had been attempted twice in the past but rather by means of a peaceful migration. Wistrich and Lewis both take a few factors into account as evidence that this is underway, in particular, the deafening silence of most europeans regarding those aspects of Islamism incompatible with Western values, tolerance of Sharia subsuming some roles of secular courts, recognition of polygamous relationships, and the tepid attempts by the european governments to prevent radicalization. They do not attribute this to a conspiracy but simply to the fact that as Muslims become a more significant voting bloc, politicians tend to offer them concessions to win their votes.

Since the concept is not totally crazy (both scholars refer to this demographic shift as "Eurabia"), is it really fair to say that the concept is a priori islamophobic and a conspiracy theory? Bernard Lewis is a leading scholar of Islam, and although he has cited a concept of Eurabia, he is not really hostile to that outcome and simply talks about it as a fact of life. He cites a Syrian philosopher (whose name escapes me) who has said something like "Either Europe will become Islamized or Islam will become Europeanized." 174.44.174.192 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please tell me the Lewis and Wistrich references to which you are alluding. They could be worth mentionning in the article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two videos of lectures by Lewis, one of which was arranged as a conversation between Wistrich and Lewis. However Wistrich mentioned in the talk that he had used the term 'eurabia' in that thousand-page book he wrote on antisemitism.  I can link you the videos and timestamps if you want.  I just watched them yesterday. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, it's this video at this timestamp: 32m14s in the video "Prof. Bernard Lewis - Radical Islam, Israel and the West" available on youtube (I can't link it here, stupidly enough. The audience member asks a question, Lewis clarifies the meaning of dhimmi for the audience member, then Wistrich takes up the content of the question and notes that one of the chapters in his book _A Lethal Obsession_ is called "Welcome to Eurabia".  He discusses it a bit, and then Lewis picks it up and discusses the evidence of an islamization of Europe (not necessarily the countries becoming muslim-majority countries, but rather, places in which the secular governments give an extraordinary amount of deference to the Muslim minority (for instance, by the trying of blasphemy cases or laws criminalizing the "defamation of religion").  The whole answer is about 10-15 minutes long, but what Lewis and Wistrich.  174.44.174.192 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. The video is a recorded meeting between Robert Wistrich and Bernard Lewis, organised by Wistrich's Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA), at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on February 16, 2010. The SICSA published a report, avaible at gatesofvienna.net and europenews.dk. The video is here (official youtube account of the University), the timestamp you gave.
 * As a thanking, here is another video about Eurabia from the official youtube account of the HUJ (English language with French accent). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The video has no footnote, so I do not know to which "members of Islamist organizations who have claimed that they hope to overwhelm the european countries with waves of immigration until the Crescent flies over the continent of europe", or the "secular governments give an extraordinary amount of deference to the Muslim minority", or "laws criminalizing the defamation of religion", or "reluctance to confront radical Islam", Robert Wistrich was alluding. I do not know either to which European cities where majority of newborn are called "Mohammed", or "European governments are now admitting Sharia", Bernard Lewis was alluding.
 * There is a page about "A Lethal Obsession" at Google books, under ISBN 9781588368997, without exerpt, and I do not have a copy of the book, so I do not know the content of the "Welcome to Eurabia" chapter. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "They do not attribute this to a conspiracy" →‎ Please notice that among the authors mentionned in the Wikipedia article who support an eurabian thesis, none use the word "conspiracy". Even Bat Ye'or doesn't. She claim that Euro-Arab Dialogue meetings "take place behind closed doors and without recorded minutes", that most of European do not know about, according to Simon Kuper "The 'Euro-Arab Dialogue' is so secret that hardly anyone knows it exists except Ye'or", Bruce Bawer wrote that she "recounts decades of behind-the-scenes Euro-Arab collaboration", but she does not call this a conspiracy. Last year, she denied supporting a conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bernard Lewis is a leading scholar of Islam" →‎ Bernard Lewis is historian. His area of expertise is the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire from Medieval period to 19th century. He is not historian of 20th or 21th century (his statements about WW1 made him prosecuted for genocide denial), he is not demographer, he is not jurist. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "is it really fair to say that the concept is a priori islamophobic and a conspiracy theory?" →‎ It is not a matter of fairness, it is a matter of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.
 * "Bernard Lewis is a leading scholar of Islam" →‎ Bernard Lewis is historian. His area of expertise is the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire from Medieval period to 19th century. He is not historian of 20th or 21th century (his statements about WW1 made him prosecuted for genocide denial), he is not demographer, he is not jurist. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "is it really fair to say that the concept is a priori islamophobic and a conspiracy theory?" →‎ It is not a matter of fairness, it is a matter of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.
 * "is it really fair to say that the concept is a priori islamophobic and a conspiracy theory?" →‎ It is not a matter of fairness, it is a matter of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.

Conspiracy vs Demographic Islamification of Europe
For Eurabia, does it necessarily involve conspiracy? I one simply believes that Muslims will continue to immigrate to Europe and eventually outnumber native Europeans, would this be considered Eurabia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr1s0n3r 0f l1f3 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Goodness, if they loved the arab system so much they would join it directly. Serten (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurafrique and other predecessors
The funny thing with Eurabia is that we have an article about a conspriation theory but not one about the real plan, called Eurafrique with large scale technology dreams like Atlantropa and more currently, Desertec as a base. Its like talking only about fake moon landings and not mentioning that there have been actual plans to bring people to other planets ;) Take a scholar search with [[Atlantropa] and Eurafrique and you receive a wast array of studies about the setup of the West European community and the French and german Eurafrica concepts in the 1950's, which were rather crucial and not at all fringy for the EU. That said, either integrate that there or have a separate article. To have more of the actual plans for Eurafrique and minor concepts as Mussolinis Italy's Mare Nostrum would help as well to put Bat Ye'Or in a more human perspective, as she didnt invent something new, but retold a rather old story in her own words. Serten (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Serten Why you have added the category fringe theory? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw it had been erased during my edits and thought it was still appropriate. Its not fringy in the sense of lack of public attention, but completely out of question in academia. Serten (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who added it? See, it wasn't there. I know it not supported by academics, it is just an observation. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Might have been an error, thought I spotted a template, but there wasn't any. I would consider ist closer to Alba gu bràth - will say its well with other political slogans ;) Serten (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing back, political slogan will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Youre welcome, starting a section on the talkpage is always good before changing an article significantly. Serten (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Critical comment on Critical comment
Basically, in any WP article, any "critically comment" section can easily be erased or used for the useful part, as it tends to be a mere collection of orphaned statements. Take this Ralph Peters, which is no analyst but a Radio Eriwan / Fox News fancy story writer mirroring a sort of And you are lynching Negroes narrative back to Europe. Thats part of the conspiracy theories spread from the mother of all, but no serious point of view. Serten (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the deletion of the Ralph Peters §. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have dome some clean up and reduced redundancies. Peters is now in the spread conspiracy sections, where he imho belongs. I have as well reduced some of the "see also " links, e.g. 'Finlandization' has no relation to Eurabia, esceept for both being a rather offensive term for anyone aware about the actual history of Finland and Eurafrika. In case of your additions, Visite fortuitement prolongée the links were already in the text.Serten (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your 628566914 change is huge, therefor hard to check. I wish you made it by several steps. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Finlandization is a rather offensive term for Finland submitting itself to USSR, isn't it? Eurabia is a rather offensive term for Europe submitting itself to Arab countries. "Finlandization" link is accurate in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Political demography" link may be accurate. Whats the pro and con? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not added any material to the article since months. Which additions of me are you talking about? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to apologize first as I mentioned the links at Eurafrique, not the ones here. With regard to Finland, its the only country taking part in WWII that got rid of Russians and Germans occupation troops on its own, and still have and use land mines, against all pressure. Submission is something different. Political demography is more of a science, but I linked Demographic threat. OK?  Serten (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think – whatever the articles on W are about – that demographical forecasts have to emanate from the latest statistics. Many articles describe prognoses which are extrapolations of 8 - 15 years old statistics. This article is no exception. A net-based encyclopedia has the advantage to always be updated in statistics and scientific knowledge, so it's bad when facts that can lead to flammable discussions are too old. The statistics are usually public documents in Westerns democracies. --Caspiax 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eurabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150709040540/http://www.medea.be/?doc=55&lang=en to http://www.medea.be/?doc=55&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eurabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217004703/http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/3/9/8/7/pages39879/p39879-1.php to http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/3/9/8/7/pages39879/p39879-1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Eurabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130125163625/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hudsonreview.com%2FbawerWi06.html to http://www.hudsonreview.com/bawerWi06.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hudsonreview.com/bawerWi06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eurabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722075647/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898 to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323024339/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx?print=true to http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx?print=true
 * Added tag to http://www.scb.se/templates/pressinfo____251100.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081108085143/http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1 to http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601185943/http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/menafertilitydecline.aspx?p=1 to http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/menafertilitydecline.aspx?p=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606061638/http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2006/0112france_vaisse.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2006/0112france_vaisse.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513095806/http://www.vaisse.net/BiblioJustin/Articles/BiblioJustin-Lobby_musulman-avril2007.pdf to http://www.vaisse.net/BiblioJustin/Articles/BiblioJustin-Lobby_musulman-avril2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217055404/http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_eurabia_122002_eng.doc to http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_eurabia_122002_eng.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323072942/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080920.wreckoning20/BNStory/International/home to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080920.wreckoning20/BNStory/International/home/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910205259/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/breivik_s_swamp?page=0%2C1 to https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/breivik_s_swamp?page=0,1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Demography
I find this revert highly surprising. The user is reverting demographic projections from Pew in a section of the article which is about demographic projections and also relies heavily on Pew. The reverted information is factual, neutral, and directly sourced to a Pew discussion of the growth in the Islamic population of Europe.

The stated reason for the revert is that the cited source does not mention the word Eurabia. But neither do multiple references of the article.  Adoring nanny (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussing a topic is not the same thing as using a specific word. If the source is not specifically about the topic, it is inappropriate to use that source to imply something about that topic. This article isn't about the demographics of Muslims in Europe in general, this article is about a more specific conspiracy theory and neologism. Further, misrepresenting sources to confer legitimacy on a WP:FRINGE concept which is not accepted by the academic mainstream introduces additional problems. At a glance, the first two sources you mention appear to be about misconceptions regarding Muslim demographics in Europe, while the other is background context for Eurafrica. If you want to discuss those sources, feel free, but all sources must be judged in context, and nothing on Wikipedia is carved in stone. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Misrepresenting"? Did I make a mistake in my attempt to paraphrase the Pew source I cited? If so, what was it, and my apologies. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, this was not intended to be an accusation, this was a caution against a common pitfall related to your comments. I am also not saying the article is perfect the way it is. Introducing information slightly outside of the scope of an article, even if that information is accurate and verifiable, can be undue weight or similarly non-neutral. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. There is an overwhelming amount of information about demographics which could potentially be added. Obviously we cannot add it all, nor should we try. In order to decide what is and what is not included, we need secondary sources to do the work for us, so we can assess what is relevant. With this in mind, these Pew sources might possibly be useful at Islam in Europe, for example. Here, they seem subjective. These are not about "Eurabia" as a concept, or as a neologism, so they needs to be treated carefully to avoid editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the whole section on Eurafrica and added it as a see also. I couldn't check the first 2 sources mentioned as not mentioning Eurabia, but the 3rd was in that section. Please read WP:OR.  Doug Weller  talk 08:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Guardian long read and information contradicting the article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/the-myth-of-eurabia-how-a-far-right-conspiracy-theory-went-mainstream Kaihsu (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you add it to external links, nicely formatted using template:citenews. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC) (Scrubbed because it didn't reply to the section title. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC) )


 * I came here to suggest it be used as a source, not having noticed it was already mentioned. The first thing I noticed is that it points out that "Eurabia is a term coined in the 70s that was resurfaced by Gisèle Littman..." This an issue raised above and in an earlier post in the archives. The link there doesn't work but the article it meant to link to is here. It says, among other things of course, that " Leaning heavily on the research 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)". Our article almost says that but doesn't point out that the newsletter it mentions was called "Eurabia". See and   Even odder, our article says "Bat Ye'or's Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis was the first print publication in the Eurabia genre" and then says " which has since grown to a number of titles,[20][11] including Melanie Phillips' Londonistan,[21] Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason" - her book was published in 2005, Fallaci's in 2004.  Doug Weller  talk 10:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then surely we can accept it as a more reliable source and change the WP article to match? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, Melanie Phillips is a conspiracy theorist and not a reliable source for anything other than to confirm that it a term beloved of conspiracy theorists. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

sounds like bias john150.107.172.172 (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the term
It is stated that 'The concept was coined by Bat Ye'or (pen name of Gisele Littman) in the early 2000s and is described in her 2005 book titled Eurabia: The Euro‐Arab Axis.' I beg to differ. Michael Bowen [beat painter from the Ginsberg, Corso days] who I was in contact with until his death a few years ago, stated clearly many years ago when speaking of his painting Eurabia that it came to him as a shock after starting a painting in a square in Florence. I quote his words below, written to me in 2006 and speaking of a time much earlier. "For me it is only observation, thought, and recording what I see in paint on canvas. It is for this reason that in 1997 and 1998 I would wander through the streets and alleys of ancient Florence with my sketchbook always looking, observing, and enjoying those moments away from my studio in the hills in the town of Carmignano above Florence where Isabella’s family lived. In Florence, there is a place one can sit in an outside café on a beautiful summers day and watch humanity go by. It is called the piazza Santissima Annunziata. It is a huge piazza. So after wandering around meeting many fabulous people that could only exist in Florence, which is a city in constant repair of its renaissance history, I would head for my favorite café on the great piazza."

He then elaborated on the 'shock' and why he called the painting Eurabia.

"After about two weeks of this practice came the great shock. Moreover, from the great shock came the painting Eurabia. Many other paintings came from those days on the piazza but the great painting came the day I realized I was witnessing the re-invasion of Europe by the Muslim world. A shock is a powerful thing to experience, but in essence, it is a neutral thing; it is a realization, and with that realization came what I had been taught by my mentor John Star Cooke in Tepoztlan Mexico. That lesson was hammered home to me repeatedly. Yet it is still difficult to remember it at the right moment. There in the piazza came the lesson again. Like all great truths the lesson is simple. Everything is hidden in the obvious. And the obvious was right in front of me. Among the crowds of the many thousands that I had seen were the thousands of Muslims. Some were obvious in Eastern dress. Some were less obvious in their western clothing but they were there. Some with their children, some few as tourists, some others as citizens and some who were simply there because they had braved the deserts and the oceans to get to civilization. Since I knew the history of the great Muslim expansion under Mohamed himself, I knew also how large that expansion was, how destructive it was, how terrible it was for those invaded, and how half of the Roman civilization was lost to Islam and remains so to this day. Only India in modern times, and Spain in the 14 hundreds had struggled free of the Muslim yoke. The India I knew, first visited, and started painting in 1969 at the Grand Hotel in Calcutta was an India that had assimilated and worked through their Islamic domination. It was a bloody struggle resulting in millions of deaths and the separation of Pakistan into a Muslim state. That first trip is recorded in the book called Haryana and the Grand Hotel  is where I made many paintings, one of which I love very much called the Courtyard because it represents the old and the new all rotting together in the Calcutta humidity. During the original Muslim invasions, the great Christian warrior Charles Martel stopped the expansion of Islam into Europe in what is now called the Balkans. In Spain, they were overcome by the kingdom of Castile and expelled back to their desert homeland. India suffered on until 1947 when it became independent of the European British and finally threw off the last vestiges of Muslim barbarity. This cost the Indians a portion of the sub continent now called Pakistan. The rest of India is a free republic. There calmly sitting in the piazza, I asked myself, what was I watching? There were no swords, no soldiers compelling a population to bow down five times a day, no towers or Mosques where the Koran was read, no horrible laws of mutilation and discrimination that marks the Muslim world today. Yet here they were in vast numbers back in Europe. This is when my painting Eurabia changed. I rushed home to my studio and painted into the night the characters I had seen. But the signs of Islam, the star and the crescent moon, appeared in my painting three times. One above the Duomo in the black night, one in the top left corner next to the frightened African who with his friends would run through the streets to escape the police like a herd of gazelles quickly wrapping their displays of cheap sunglasses. The other star and crescent moon in the hat of the foolish European with the clown lips oblivious to a still bloodless invasion. For the next week I stayed home finishing the painting, re-working it over and over, making a similar one to get the first one right. And most importantly contemplating the lesson that the truth is hidden in the obvious. For a long time I didnﾒt know what to call this painting. Then I heard that a great Italian writer had written about the quiet Muslim invasion and had seen the same thing I was seeing when no one else saw it. Her name is Orianna Fallacci. She wrote a book under the same name, Eurabia, about the same thing. In a way one could say this painting should be dedicated to her and her intelligent analysis of this terrible problem."

I have tried to confirm Orianna Fallacci wrote a book under the same name, but have found nothing to support this, so it may have been Michael's understanding only. She is mentioned in Wikipedia's page on her but no Eurabia in her list of book titles. I believe she used the word in a talk once in the early 2000s. I think the origin should therefore be changed to Michael Bowen, who does seem to have been the first to use the term, albeit as the title to one of his paintings. I have a digital copy if it's wanted to illustrate this article. Can be seen here http://www.passwordpublish.co.uk/Eurabia.jpg PetePassword (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your anecdotes and personal correspondence do not meet the criteria for citations in Wikipedia articles. Please read our policies on original research. If, you or Mr. Bowen's estate ever have his correspondence publish in reliable sources, then they can be considered for inclusion. Until then we simply can't take your word for it that these assertions are true.--Adamfinmo (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement in the Introduction that "the term was coined by British author Bat Ye'or (pen name of Gisèle Littman) in the early 2000s" is actually contradicted by the source currently being cited as verification, which states: "Eurabia is a term coined in the 70s that was resurfaced by Gisèle Littman." Also see the "Guardian long read and information contradicting the article" talkpage section below.    ←   ZScarpia  12:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)