Talk:Pegida/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Postions/demands

User:Timothycrice reverted my edit of the position paper. Instead of getting into an edit war via edit summary, let's talk. Judging from comments on this very talk page, and my own opinion, listing TWO demands lists is not only redundant, it's also a bad way to present the movement's positions in an encyclopedic format. See WP:USEPROSE and WP:SELFPUB, for example. I do not think that simply posting their unreflected demands helps the readers as much as a commented paragraph would. If you were unsatisfied with my summary, feel free to expand it! I do not want to simply delete the position paper, I want to replace it with a more concise, more informative version. --Hawks ^{Discuss edits} 16:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Hawkseraph, the Position Paper (Positionspapier) is not widely available in English, so for those who don't know German, this might be the only source where they can find that information. It's the party manifest, and it's been there for a very long time, so people are clearly interested in having that available in English. Maybe the 10 demands on German asylum politics (10 Forderungen an die deutsche Asylpolitik) is a bit long though. I don't like the fact that it has so many grammatical mistakes in it, which is why I posted a translation based on the German version originally. The version that is there, which is the official party translation, is riddled with mistakes, so maybe it's becoming a little bit of an eyesore. It comes as a surprise that a movement as big as Pegida doesn't have someone who speaks English fluently. I noticed one other Wikipedia editor thought we should take it out too. Maybe that section should be taken out, because it is only one aspect of the movement's views, whereas the Position Paper was drafted when the movement began, and is a little more concise. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't keep the mistake-riddled version. If you take a look at their facebook page, even their "about" description is full of errors, so it's probably that they just don't care that much. I think that the best way to present the position paper (and the asylum demands) is a prose paragraph which explains every point. If people want to see the list in its direct form, they will have the source for that. We could link it directly in the text, even, like this: The original list was published here. The crucial point for me is probably that we don't need the list, standing alone, to convey to people what PEGIDA's goals are. Seeing as its more of a popular movement anyway, I also think it questionable as to how much every supporter supports the orgateam's views anyways, so I'd like to place a little bit less of an emphasis on "official" statements. --Hawks Discuss ^edits 23:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Hawkseraph, I agree on one thing, but disagree on another: I think we have a consensus by now that 10 demands on German asylum politics should be removed completely. Where we disagree is on the Position Paper. The Position Paper was there long before I started editing this Wikipedia entry, for your information. In other words, there is a consensus that it should stay. The reason why is that it is important to know what are the 19 things that they say they are supposedly for. If it needs to be said, it in no way endorses their views to simply have that available in English for people to study, and decide whether they believe it is sincere, incorrect, or whatever else they might conclude. So maybe we should remove 10 demands on German asylum politics now. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the asylum demands. As for the position paper, I agree that its contents HAVE to be included, I merely disagree on the current mode of display. I think we can make it nicer-looking, you know? I'm not a fan of just copy-pasting someone's political maifesto into the article. --Hawks Discuss ^edits 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, User:Hawkseraph, I'm glad we resolved now what needed to be done about the 10 demands on German asylum politics, it was just too lengthy. As for the Position Paper, there's no translation on Pegida's Facebook page or in the media that I know of. Like I say, it's been there long before I started editing this Wikipedia article. There is a consensus that it should be there so there can be a free study of information. Some people read Mein Kampf, for example, just to know what Hitler said and what he didn't say. The same thing can be said about the study of Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, etc. People just want to know what exactly was said, and who said it. Since there is no other widely-known source for an English translation of the Position Paper besides Wikipedia -- that I know of -- I think people want the convenience of being able to study it here on Wikipedia. Some people believe that even the study of certain material ought to be forbidden, but I'm definitely not one of them. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, just because something is in the article doesn't mean there's a consensus - right now, we two are the only ones who are part of it (and anyone else who might want to join in, of course). Often, stuff is a consequence of someone adding something, and nobody thinking about protesting it. So if we decide to change something, that'S the new consensus - it can change! So I had a look, and while there is no english translation of the position paper anywhere (insane!), there's a lot of reporting 'about' it which we could use as source, and which would have the added advantage of being english sources, because that's another problem this article has: Too many foreign (German) sources. That said, keeping the list isn't such a terrible idea either, especially when we are the only ones with a translation. --Hawks Discuss ^edits 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well, User:Hawkseraph, I think we have a consensus for now. By the way, the German Pegida Wikipedia article has those 19 items of the Position Paper in it, so we could take that into account as a reference point. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Slogans written by Pegida supporters

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published an image of a Pegida protester with a sign that reads, "Weg mit der Kriegstreiber-Regierung! Deutschland raus aus der NATO!" Which means, "Away with the warmongering government! Germany out of NATO!" My two-pronged question is this: Would anyone draw a conclusion, based on that, that Pegida has adopted a position seeking a German exit from NATO, and if so, would they consider every sign carried by every Pegida supporter to be representative of Pegida's positions? Timothy C. Rice (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

/////////

And this is how they (PEGIDA) were received in Dublin, Ireland on 6th February 2016 - (Explanation of events in information section, under following video) Note: Cannot put full links here, so had to take the http out. However, simply pasting the link as is into Google will bring up the video.

youtu.be/Z68yTJWXm5g

1. REDIRECT Target page name

Anti-anti-Islamist

Saying one is opposed to Islamisation doesn't necessarily make it so. Being founded in opposition to an actually anti-Islamist group tends to reinforce the impression that it's not so at all. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

But the core of PEGIDA is that they oppose the islamization of germany - it's literally their name. That the PKK is actually anti-islamist is very interesting, but we should formulate that very, very carefully, so we do not confuse the reader. The point is that PEGIDA's founding was inspired by a PKK rally, which for Bachmann was a sign of growing radicalization. I'd assume he doesn't really care whether they're islamist or not, he just didn't like them being there. After all, the expressly demand no weapons exports to the PKK in their position paper. So I'd argue that for them the percieved radicalism is the problem, not the islamism. In short, they don't want these "muslim" conflicts in Germany. --Hawks Discuss ^edits 15:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Accepting that PEGIDA opposes Germany's Islamisation means accepting that Germany is being Islamised, a dubious proposition at best. Just because they say they oppose it doesn't mean it exists. 'Anti-Muslim' is the description of PEGIDA in the link you added, so I don't understand your opposition to it. Bachman was inspired to form the group by anti-Islamist Muslims; were PEGIDA genuinely anti-Islamist rather than just anti-Muslim they would have joined them. They're not. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "Accepting that PEGIDA opposes Germany's Islamisation means accepting that Germany is being Islamised". People can advocate against something that isn't happening. They are still protesting against it. Just the same, does saying they are anti-muslim means accepting that there are too many muslims? I think not. PEGIDA is first and foremost anti-islamisation, and the article should and does reflect that, but their core mission statement is this opposition to the perceived islamisation. We do have to accept that - we can disoute how honestly they pursue that goal, but they have stated VERY clearly that it is their goal. There a lot of other things they support, and things they don't, which makes them about as incomatible with the PKK as any two groups might be. Even if they genuinely had the same mission, I doubt they'd ever sit on the same side of a table. --Hawks Discuss ^edits 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources say either anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I'll change it, and try to expand upon the PKK a bit more. Hawks ⁠Talk/Edits⁠ 20:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer 'anti-Muslim'; the PKK don't promote Islam. It says a lot about PEGIDA that they were formed to oppose people who are actively fighting Islamism, and didn't realise it. Why remove that? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring removing the existing date format

Per WP:DATERET the existing date format must remain in the article. The edit-warring to change the existing date format must stop because it is against the WP:MOS. Dr. K. 05:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding on to that, 14 December 2012 is pefectly acceptable English. --HawkS DisQ 20:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, thank you. Especially in the UK, not to mention the US military. Dr. K. 23:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the way a date is written in the US military: 01DEC2005, 21SEP2010, 24JUL2007, etc. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

unencyclopedic edits

Statements such as Most citizens of Dresden don't want the conditions as in many West German conurbations. PEGIDA demonstrates against a policy that aligns mainly in recent years to minorities and thereby ignores the common people.a first statement need to be backed up by sources. I.e. the first sentence would need data from opinion surveys and state what exactly those people asked do not want. The second, if the part about German politics is to be presented as fact rather than someone's opinion, would require some sources that are way more authorative than some Pegida flyer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 1 January 2015, 8:25

According to N24, 53% of East Germans sympathize with Pegida, whereas only 48% of West Germans feel the same way. Dresden lies in East Germany, close to the Czech-German border. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Repetition and wholesale acceptance of biased media

User:ParkH.Davis, I noticed you're using needless repetition. In the second sentence of the opening paragraph, it already explains that Pegida is against the Islamisation of the West. By saying it "promotes anti-Islam politics," you're simply repeating the same thing a second time. Did you even read the whole paragraph before you started editing? Furthermore, if you think Pegida is a neo-Nazi movement, what do you say about the fact that they throw the Hakenkreuz in the trash on their website? The Hakenkreuz is quite central to Nazi ideology, so who would throw it in a trash can? I don't think a neo-Nazi movement would. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What I think is irrelevant. Multiple reliable sources have reported that PEGIDA is a neo nazi group. Quoting PEGIDA's website is original research. Repetition is not against wikipedia policy. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Needless repetition is something we don't need, and it surprises me that you're actually trying to make a case for saying we need it. How much repetition do you think we need then? Did we repeat enough that they are anti-Islam, or would you say we need to say it again in the first paragraph? In other words, how much repetition do you think is enough, since you think we need more of it? Timothy C. Rice (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As much repetition is necessary for the topic to be clear to a reader with zero prior knowledge. I support making the topic as clear as possible. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So who would you say knows the number of times we need to repeat things? Timothy C. Rice (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There should be as much repetition as is necessary for the topic to be clear to a reader with no prior knowledge on this topic. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not the one that created the content in question. I am simply attempting to preserve it as it is the result of a previous consensus. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you think about the fact that if people don't understand something, they can reread it? It would be hard to learn anything if all we had was repetition in what is written. My prediction is that your edit is not going to be there for very long, partly because of how you cite your sources. You didn't tell us the date of access. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, you say that "Multiple reliable sources have reported that PEGIDA is a neo nazi group." Which sources? Would you please point to specific quotes? Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-islam or anti-muslim

Is PEGIDA against Islam, muslims or both? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

According to item 10 of its Position Paper, Pegida does not oppose Muslims who integrate into society. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Islamism, though the dividing line is fuzzy. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The core element in the self-given name of PEGIDA is "Gegen die Islamisierung Des Abendlands" what translates to: "against the Islamization of the occident" it is not saying "against Islamism"! --.js 01:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. The article should really say they're anti-Islamization then. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly. PEGIDA were formed to oppose the PKK, who, while mostly Muslim, are anti-Islamist. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is very POV

Bad: “[...] is a German far right-wing neo-nazi[2][3][4][5][6] movement”

Better: “[...] is a German right-wing movement [...] Pegida has often been accused of being a neo-nazi movement[2][3][4][5][6]”

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources given explicitly state that Pegida is a neo nazi group. It would be POV to state otherwise. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, it has been accused of being a neo-Nazi movement, and that is the most common thing in the world of politics. In fact, Pegida's leadership often accuses others of being Nazis. Lutz Bachmann has compared SPD politician Heiko Maas to Joseph Goebbels. Does that seem like something a neo-Nazi would do? From a Nazi perspective, that would be likening someone to an able leader. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that there exist sources claiming Pegida is neo-Nazi; what matters is whether it's true or not. That's the meaning of "encyclopedic". I don't read German, so I don't know the reputation or political persuasion of the sources listed above, but every English-language source I found that is willing to call Pegida "neo-Nazi" has a well-known political bias. In heated issues such as this, it might be difficult to find objective sources. Best I could find quickly is this rather fair BBC article that refrains from political categorization:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30776182

The conservative approach is best. Less information is better than wrong information. The insistence on calling Pegida "neo-Nazi" is based on an obvious political bias. I realize concerned parties opposed to Pegida will not stop trying to alter this article until they are stopped by admins, but that's the reality of an online wiki encyclopedia.Naysayer (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It’s there again...

As for “The sources given explicitly state that Pegida is a neo nazi group”, I challenge you to find a major political organisation that doesn’t have sources calling it Nazi.

Maybe the two images of Pegida rallies with the flag of Israel being flown should be censored. That doesn’t fit with the POV this article is trying to push. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is not pushing a POV, it is simply reporting what reliable sources have stated. If you want to add sources which say that the group is not a neo-Nazi group, then that is your prerogative as per WP:BRD. 147.153.168.220 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

POV categories

Four categories (Category:Neo-Nazism in Germany, Category:Neo-fascism, Category:Racism in Germany, and Category:Racism) have been added to this article. I am removing them because they are not defining characteristics of the subject. Per WP:CATDEF, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..." Until we have widespread agreement in mainstream reliable sources that racism and neo-naziism are defining characteristics of Pegida, we should not be adding loaded categories like the above. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia is widely regarded as a form of racism and the sources you have all say that pediga is neo Nazi. the one source says that "pegida Potsdam is a neo Nazi event".

Islamophobia is not racism. Islam is a religion, not a race. And which source(s), specifically? Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia is widely reported as being racism by reliable sources. [1], [2]. This source: [3] explicitly says "Pegida Potsdam is a neo Nazi event". 147.153.168.220 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You've provided links to two opinion pieces and an interview. Those would be reliable sources for "X says that Islamophobia is racism" or "Y says that Pegida Potsdam is a neo-Nazi event", but they are not reliable sources for stating it in the encyclopedia's voice through the use of loaded categories. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a widely held consensus that islamophobia is racism. It is also a widely held consensus (based on the sources) that pegida is a neo-Nazi group. This is not a pegida fan page. 147.153.168.220 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"Neo-nazi"

Per WP:LABEL, extraordinary claims like labeling a group "neo-nazi" require extraordinary sourcing, especially when the group itself rejects that label. Its supporters include neo-nazis, but it is not a neo-nazi group. All of the reliable, neutral (or even pro-migrant) sources I've seen refer to it as populist or right-wing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. They're very pro-Jewish and have and image of a swastika being thrown in the trash on their banner. Rossbawse (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Neo-nazi groups nearly always reject the label that really isn' significant. What matters is what is said in third party sources ----Snowded ^TALK 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Israeli is not the same as pro-Jewish. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I have to disagree with your first assertion; it is very important what a movement says about itself. When you're trying to sell your views in the political marketplace, you're going to tell people why you think they might want to endorse you sooner than everyone else, your objective is to have a club of like-minded people. To respond to your second assertion, the overwhelming majority of sources I've seen don't call Pegida a neo-Nazi movement. Have you ever done a search and conducted your own personal survey to see more or less how many do and how many don't? Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Snowded, the fact that they reject the label certainly means we're faced with a much higher burden of proof to apply that label. "Value-laden labels — such as...racist... — may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to disagree, but in Wikipedia what a political party says about itself, in particular minority and extreme parties does not count as much as the citation. So if a reliable source says they are racist and/or neo-nazi then it can be included. WP:Weight does not require a personal survey of all sources either, in fact to do that would be original research. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we're in general agreement on what policy says, though I'm not sure how else to determine WP:weight other than by reading the sources; Wikipedia policy is explicitly states that "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." As to this particular case, I haven't seen reliable, neutral (or even pro-migrant) sources explicitly calling Pegida neo-nazi. They tend to not use the term at all (BBC), or to say something like "The grass-roots movement, which emerged in the eastern city of Dresden in October, has drawn crowds as large as 25,000 to weekly protests, including some neo-Nazis and other members of the far right." (NYT); CNN includes an interview with someone from "Nazi-free Germany", but explicitly does not call Pegida a neo-nazi group. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are the sources which someone tried to remove: [4][5] [6] < [7][8]. We follow what sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If Pegida were actually a neo-Nazi organization, the German government would have them under surveillance by means of the BfV authorities. So far, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that that is happening, meaning that they must not be considered neo-Nazis by the German government. Laws against Nazism or so strict in Germany, that until recently it was frowned upon to even show a poster with a Hakenkreuz being thrown in the trash or being crossed out. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, what matters for Wikipedia is how reliable sources describe them, not necessarily how "the German government" describes them. And you're drawing your own inferences from what you think the German government might or might not be doing. Which means it's just original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The German government has movements or factions within movements that are considered far-left or far-right extremist under surveillance. Anything considered extreme (by the German government) is put under surveillance, and nowhere have I read anything that would lead me to believe that is happening to Pegida. If anyone asserts that Pegida is under surveillance, I would say the bruden of proof is on them, rather than on others to disprove such an assertion! Timothy C. Rice (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, all of this is irrelevant. We follow what reliable sources say, not whether not German government puts somebody under surveillance or not. See WP:V.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

When you debate something you're saying you think it is relevant. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not debating anything. I just saying that how we describe the subject of this article in the article is based on reliable sources, not other considerations or original research. That's just Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The links above show where I got my information, here on Wikipedia. It would be ironic if a Wikipedia editor told me he doesn't think Wikipedia is a reliable source! Timothy C. Rice (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Which links are you specifically referring to? And actually, yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

None of those sources (other than the interview with the activist) describe Pegida as neo-nazi. There are neo-nazis at Pegida events (which should be covered in the article, with due weight), but none of the sources use the "neo-nazi" label. Stop the synthesis. The sources themselves do not describe the organization as neo-nazi. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This source says "Neo-Nazi anti-Islam protesters arrested at Calais rally" in reference to Pegida.

This source says "Its members have been dubbed the “pinstriped Nazis” and "Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element believed to form the core of the protests"

This source says "Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement". I guess that doesn't exactly call them neo-Nazis ... except it pretty much does.

This source says "Étienne Desplanques (said) the (Pegida) demonstrators were “ultra right, of a neo-Nazi type”

This source repeats the above independently.

This source describes a "neo-Nazi event in Potsdam" in reference to Pegida.

Note that our article does not say "they are neo-Nazis", it says Pegida is "often described as "neo-Nazi"", which accurately reflects what sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In its most recent annual report, the BfV lists four extant movements as "right-wing extremist": NPD, Die Rechte, Bürgerbewegung pro NRW and Der III. Weg. Additionally, it lists the following three movements as "right-wing extremist," and states that they were made illegal that year: Nationale Sozialisten Chemnitz (28 March 2014), Freies Netz Süd (23 July 2014) and Autonome Nationalisten Göppingen (18 December 2014). Timothy C. Rice (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

But again, that's irrelevant. I guess if you found a place where the BfV explicitly says "we do not list Pegida because ..." then that could be incorporated into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That information comes from the BfV's Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution for 2014, so that covers the entire year. There is no report available yet for 2015. Normally they are published June of every year for the preceding year. (Timothy C. Rice (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Taking sources that say "Neo-Nazis arrested at Pegida rally" or "Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement" and using them to say "Pegida is neo-Nazi" (or even "Pegida has been called neo-Nazi" is blatant WP:SYNTH. I've already said that the Maz interview is WP:BIASED as all get out; it's an interview with an activist from the other side. That leaves us with the Guardian, which explicitly distances its own voice from the "neo-Nazi" label. WP:NPOV is inconvenient when it gets in the way, but until you manage to get that particular pillar overturned you should probably follow it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be SYNTH to say "is neo-Nazi". It's not SYNTH to say "has been described as neo-Nazi". And that's NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's total synth to take a single mention in The Guardian (when even The Guardian distances itself from that label) and say "often described as neo-Nazi". It's also absurdly undue to put it in the lead sentence. Pegida is a polarizing organization, and a lot of people like throwing the neo-nazi label at right-wing groups, but reliable sources such as the BBC, New York Times, CNN, and The Economist have avoided using that label. Indeed, The Economist (no friend to Pegida) has acknowledged that "Few bear any signs of neo-Nazism." Wikipedia should look at a broad range of reliable sources, not cherry-pick the ones that support a particular POV. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To argue that how the party is often described is "UNDUE" for the lede is plainly ridiculous. Either you haven't actually read WP:UNDUE or you're just trying to WP:GAME the rules by invoking them nilly-willy. Likewise there's no synth going on here - it's often described as neo-Nazi, that's what sources say and that's what we say. Third, MoS is a guideline not a policy and in fact WP:LABEL doesn't apply in this case either. Fourth, the economist also says "A new movement with a barely hidden message of hate unsettles Germany". And the question is whether they're described as neo-Nazis. Here is yet another source which says they are [9]. And frankly to described Pegida as just another "right-wing" movement is absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point I don't think we're going to reach consensus here. I'll change the wording to "far-right" for now (though I disagree with that too), and open a discussion at NPOVN. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to compromise. I do appreciate it. Start the discussion and let's see what others say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Timothycrice, if you can find a reliable secondary source which says they reject the neo-Nazi label then you can put that in. But you can't add your own editorializing into the article based on some logo or pamphlet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording is just fine the way it is. Just because you personally don't think that Pegida is a neo-nazi group, doesn't mean that we should ignore what reliable sources are saying. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek and User:ParkH.Davis, anyone with an inkling of common sense would conclude that a Third Reich swastika being thrown in a trash can would mean the neo-Nazi label is being rejected, and someone keeps trying to remove the source cited, Journal Frankfurt. As I've stated above, the BfV did not mention Pegida in the Verfassungsschutzbericht 2014, which I cited (p. 34). The rule I am guided by is that people are innocent unless there is evidence that says they are guilty rather than the other way around. Volksverhetzung is a crime in Germany. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not allowed to conclude anything according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on original research. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur, we cannot draw conclusions from a PR stunt reported but not interpreted by a third party source ----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded, you're suggesting we now need a third party source to certify an article? How would we know if that third party source is reliable? Who would select that third party source? I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that I was using Journal Frankfurt, and maybe you don't like German. Are you suggesting the we cannot count on Journal Frankfurt to tell us what logos Pegida uses? Furthermore, you're being schizophrenic in what you're saying. First you say it isn't important enough to use in the first paragraph, then you say it isn't reliable. You can't make up your mind what your reasoning is. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based solely on reliable sources. You can't do you your own original research. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing populist

As of today, 10 February 2016, the German Pegida Wikipedia article calls Pegida a right-wing populist ("rechtspopulistisch") organisation. Apparently there aren't any editing wars going on over there. Since there seems to be so much confusion over here about what to call it, maybe we should make this article reflect that classification in the opening sentence. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia says. 147.153.168.220 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

News articles are also a source based on other sources. I can't think of anything we read that isn't based on some other source to some extent. That's like saying Der Spiegel isn't based on what Der Spiegel says -- it is patently obvious! Der Spiegel interviews people, records what they say, and passes on the information. Would you then say we shouldn't consult Der Spiegel? Are you saying there aren't valuable contributions worth noting in Wikipedia articles? If everyone thought that way, Wikipedia wouldn't exist. Do you know why Wikipedia is important? It gives you a consensus on relevant matters, and Wikipedia in German is the consensus of German-speaking people. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, but if our fellow editors on another branch of the encyclopedia have reached consensus based on reliable sources, then using them as an example is not a bad start. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No where else on wikipedia has there been a consensus to not describe pegida as neo-nazi. Regardless of what you say, multiple reliable sources explicitly state that pegida is a neo nazi group. 147.153.93.67 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:LABEL says to generally avoid contentious labels in the encyclopaedia's voice. That's consensus right there. I think "neo-nazi" is a pretty contentious label. And I haven't seen these sources you speak of yet. If you would like to provide them, go right ahead. The burden of doing so is on you, or whoever else wants to apply the label. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The label "neo Nazi" is one being used by multiple reliable sources. If the label was not being used by reliable sources, I would agree, but as Wikipedia is not censored, you can't omit content simply because you personally disagree with it. The sources are the ones given in the article already, I did not put them there. 147.153.168.220 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

None of the 6 sources currently in the lead support calling Pegida a neo-nazi group. Several mention neo-nazis being involved in Pegida protests (which Wikipedia should definitely mention), but none of them call Pegida itself a neo-nazi group. And the other sources I've seen (from such extreme far-right publications as the BBC, New York Times, and CNN) all avoid calling Pegida itself neo-nazi. If you have some heavy-hitting sources that say otherwise, please feel free to provide them. Until then, I dont think you've met the burden of proof to revert the page back to keeping the neo-nazi label. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The first source is entitled: "Neo-Nazi anti-Islam protesters arrested at Calais rally: Some 20 arrested at Pegida movement demonstration in northern French city after authorities banned the gathering" and goes on to say in the body "Some groups began to circulate in the city center, mainly far-right, neo-Nazi types". [10] The second source says "its members have been dubbed the “pinstriped Nazis” and they refer to their demonstrations as “evening strolls” through German cities. But on Monday night, an estimated 15,000 people joined Pegida, or Patriotic Europeans Against Islamisation of the West, in a march through Dresden" [11] The third source it entitled "PEGIDA, neo-Nazis, and organized rage: Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement. They've become an integral part of the group's weekly marches - and they appear to be tolerated by organizers." and goes on to say in the body "In northern Germany, the leadership of the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) participates in the demonstrations. In Berlin, neo-Nazis march with Nazi symbols on their clothing, clearly showing off their beliefs. And at the home of the PEGIDA protests, in Dresden, members of far-right hooligan groups serve as leaders. None of the protest organizers seem to object to their participation." [12] the fourth source says "Étienne Desplanques, from the Calais public prosecutor’s office, justified the arrests saying the demonstrators were 'ultra right, of a neo-Nazi type'". [13] The fifth source it literally entitled "Pegida Potsdam ist 'Neonazi-Veranstaltung'", which literally translates as "Pegida Potsdam is a neo nazi event". [14] The last source repeats the earlier quote "'Some groups began to circulate in the city centre, mainly far-right, neo-Nazi types,' regional official Etienne Desplanques said." [15]. You cannot censor wikipedia just because you personally disagree with something. Multiple reliable sources have labeled pegida as being a neo nazi group. The burden of proof is on you to provide reliable sources which state that pegida is not a neo nazi group. 147.153.93.67 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Literally none of those sources call Pegida a neo-nazi group, except for the opinion piece/interview. As I already said, they're all talking about neo-nazi elements present at Pegida events, which the encyclopedia should cover. So I believe all of the above sources (and the NYT, BBC, and CNN) would satisfy your request for sources which don't call Pegida neo-nazi. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the sources is literally entitled "Pegida Potsdam is a neo nazi event", one of the others explicitly states that while pegida may not have been founded as a neo nazi group that it is now a neo nazi group and neo nazis are regular participants in both the rallies and in Pegida leadership. Also, Pagoda's founder had an infamous scandal in which he appeared in nazi clothing. I don't know how much clearer than that it can be. Do you have any reliable sources which state Pegida is not a neo nazi group? 147.153.93.67 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

An interview with a pro-migrant activist is not a reliable source for us calling Pegida a neo-nazi group in Wikipedia's voice. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't mention the fact that Pegida protests are attended by neo-nazi and far-right activists, or that the founder was photographed dressed in Nazi clothing. Those are both noteworthy and covered by reliable sources. But those same reliable sources refrain from calling Pegida itself a neo-nazi organization. At this point I feel like I shouldn't have to continue to repeat myself. This should be some pretty basic reading comprehension. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because you personally don't think that pegida is a neo nazi group, doesn't mean that multiple reliable sources aren't reported differently. The source literally, and I stress the word LITERALLY says "Pegida Potsdam is a neo nazi event". Wikipedia is not censored and we can't ignore reliable sources. 147.153.93.67 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

An interview with an activist who dislikes Pegida is not a reliable source. I'll open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel necessary, but regardless the source says that pegida is a neo nazi group. 147.153.93.67 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you are all having this conversation. I saw the post at WP:RSN and made a comment there. Many sources around the world call Pegida a far-right movement or group, and many call it xenophobic. I think those terms should be used to describe it in the lead. I have not seen sources describe Pegida as neo-Nazi. Rather, sources describe the relationship between Pegida and neo-Nazi groups and supporters. This issue deserves more attention in the article, but labeling Pegida "neo-Nazi" would be way off and unsupported by sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur. While there are very sparse sources where pegida might be explicitly called neo-nazi, there are too many fringe cases to support this serious accusation. As such I would propose that we move the content of this discussion into a own section which discusses the movement's problems with neo-nazis in detail. I support 'far-right' as adjective for the lede. Hawks ⁠Talk/Edits⁠ 14:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

New Positions

The 10th of September 2015 they came out with 10 new thesis:

PEGIDA – 10 demands to the German asylum politics 1.) We call for an immediate stop for asylum seekers, and we call for a German asylum-emergency law - now! Our asylum laws were conceived after the war for manageable quantities of approximately 2,000 refugees per year and not for 1,5 millions we expected to reach already in 2015! 2.) We call for strict border controls! We demand to suspend the Schengen Agreement IMMEDIATELY - for all the borders of Germany! Other EU countries control their national borders - and that, although the completely failed Dublin procedure goes almost entirely at the expense of Germany. The temporary reintroduction of border controls during the G7 summit has proved that border controls are an appropriate mean to prevent illegal border crossings, the flourishing business of smuggling mafia and the entry of criminals. 3.) We demand that the group of "safe countries of origin" will be expanded on ALL Council of Europe member countries! This European Council has 47 member countries with 830 million citizens and over 1,800 European officials. All Member States have committed themselves to the preservation of democracy and rule of law as well as the recognition of the fundamental and human rights. That should be enough to count these countries to safe countries! 4.) We call for a TEMPORARY right of asylum for refugees of war! Of course, real war refugees and accepted asylum seekers is to grant temporary protection and full coverage in the modest scale. But once the situation in the country improves, the refugees have to leave our country again. 5.) We call for a binding limit for the annual reception of asylum seekers, namely defined by ourselves, the host country Germany! This vital question about the future of our country must be carried out by means of direct democracy - through a referendum! 6.) We finally demand honesty in the integration debate and the end of the red-green social-romantic tale of wanting to integrate masses of male, African asylum seekers here! No one wants that. The green socialists use the refugees to create a red-green job wonder for bachelor graduates of chatter Sciences here. The pathological altruism and feigned empathy gooders are moral invisibility cloaks, which should cover the mega-lucrative migrant market. 7) We demand that immediately all rejected asylum seekers and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be banished at once! Again: We call MASS deportations - and do it now! 8) We demand that the refugee problem has to be resolved in locally in their own cultures! Our so-called representatives of the people should finally show backbone and take Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in charge. These wealthy, huge Sharia-paradises are much better suited to accommodate the crowds of Muslim asylum seekers, as an Europe of unbelievers! And we finally need asylum procedure-spot audits in the countries of origin. Even in North Africa has to be decided by fast-track procedure on applications for asylum in Germany! 9.) We demand that foreign criminals, which are connected with Islamic terrorist organizations, are banished immediately! This naturally also includes the adopted "sons and daughters" of German Minister of Internal Affairs, de Maiziere, all these jihad returnees and all known and violent Salafists - these people are to be deported outside Europe immediately! 10.) There will be expected resistance from Brussels about any changes in our German asylum policies – so then we all have to leave this bullying dump EU!

Source: Pegida Facebook --Momo Monitor (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pegida. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30765674

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Keywords: Anti-Islamic and anti-immigration

Anti-Islamic and anti-immigration are the keywords to describe the movement. They are terms that can be accepted by critics and supporters alike. Let's be careful with biased labelling!Finkeltime (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Far-right and ant-Islam descriptors

An IP is edit-warring adding unjustified tags without supporting their rationale on the talkpage. The "far-right" description is supported by nine reliable sources and any tagging is clearly POV disruption. This unjustified edit-warring disruption must end. Dr. K. 06:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: If they continue with another IP, report to AIV and point to the page history. It's clearly the same person. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EvergreenFir but in the case of sockpuppetry we have to open an SPI. Meanwhile, although highly disruptive, the IP edits may not be seen by the AIV crew as pure vandalism. Dr. K. 06:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Saw your rpp seconded it. My experience is that admins are open to blocking when socking is super obvious like this case with the same IP range (or if you show documented long term abuse like the ips listed at User:EvergreenFir/socks). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much EvergreenFir. Based on your ideas and encouragement I will open an SPI. You will be invited. :) Dr. K. 06:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Labelling something as Far-right

Historical context: The first state to mobilize the masses as French against the the foreign foe was Revolutionary France. Levée en masse was one the result of the call of all nationals to defend the nation. What I' trying to say here is that from a historical point of view, it is anachronistic and simply wrong to label all extreme nationalism automatically right-wing. In the "good old" time of the Soviets everything against the interests of Soviet ideology was shouted on as Fascism! So let's not follow suit of the remnants of that debunked ideology and not shout down everything not so multicultural as Far-Right and trumping the game with the Nazi card-http://postimg.org/image/t06j7tou7/ .... Reductio ad Hitlerum

PEGIDA organises rallies where a hotchpotch of different groups protest the influence of conservative Islam has on their country. In those rallies you will have a variety of people from concerned citizens to more simple minded people, but all concerned with the same base line. Isn't that freedom of expression and democracy? Finkeltime (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Pagoda is widely referred to as "far right" by reliable sources. 65.128.4.12 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"Pagoda" Yeah, don't think you're in a position to tell others what the 'reliable sources' say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.142.70 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The important thing to note from a Wikipedia stand point is that all the sources for Pegida being 'far right' are media reports from left wing sources. Sources like The Socialist Register aren't really appropriate for describing their political opponents. The sources assert without proof that Pegida are a far right hate mongers while admitting that (from the Guardian source) the group’s ideology remains vague. In the sources given it is being taken as read that 'anti-Islam' (which Pegida themselves say they are) and 'far-right' are the same political position; that there could be no other reason to oppose Islam. Pegida themselves claim to be a single issue group without a political stance on other issues and while that's certainly something to be taken with a grain of salt it's notable that they take pains to distance themselves from a specific nationalism; the group's name talks about Europeans, not Germans. Just within this article we see that members of Pegida use an anti-Nazi flag as their symbol. We live in an era when it is very common for centrist, a-political or even traditionally leftist views to be labeled as 'far right' or 'racist' to stifle debate around the issue rather than because these ideas are actually right wing. Wikipedia aims to accurate and unbiased and we shouldn't allow this kind of mud slinging and name calling to be accepted as fact simply because the media participate in it. In concise terms; the sources cited are agenda driven 'hit pieces' and shouldn't be taken at face value. 86.179.123.133 (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Party Founding

New party founded. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Against immigrants who "refuse to integrate"

Dr.K. and Gun Powder Ma have insisted on keeping language removed by Volunteer Marek implying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Pegida wants to:

• enforce immigration laws against immigrants who "refuse to integrate," [16] and

• oppose the "islamization" of Germany. [17]

Their explanations are that the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.

This language is an illegitimate endorsement of Pegida's views through Wikipedia's voice, and the arguments in favor are utter hogwash. The BBC source does not state that some muslims "refuse to integrate," and explicitly describes "Islamic extremism" in terms of Pegida's views, not those of the BBC.

I'm posting on the NPOVN noticeboard because external eyes are needed at this article. -Darouet (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This language is an illegitimate endorsement of Pegida's views through Wikipedia's voice, and the arguments in favor are utter hogwash. Please leave the personal attacks. This is a legitimate editorial disagreement over some phrasing and not some kind of political endorsement by PEGIDA sympathisers as you make it appear. I expect the withdrawal of that politically-charged remark as it shows utter lack of WP:AGF toward your fellow editors.

Dr.K. and Gun Powder Ma have insisted on keeping language removed by Volunteer Marek implying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Pegida wants to: enforce immigration laws against immigrants who "refuse to integrate," [1] and oppose the "islamization" of Germany. [2]

Um, no. I did not touch the and oppose the "islamization" of Germany. [2] part. I only dealt with changing half of the edit: Namely the phrase:

particularly for Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate.

The sentence: "particularly for Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." implies that according to PEGIDA, all Muslims refuse to integrate.

But the BBC source says:

It is against "anti-women political ideology that emphasises violence" but "not against integrated Muslims living here".

and:

Germany's ethnic Turkish community is the largest immigrant group, numbering about three million, and most are Muslims. Many have lived in Germany for decades and many are well integrated.

So I restored the part of Gunpowder Ma's edit that says:

particularly for Muslims refusing to integrate.

because it is closer to the BBC report, which makes the clear distinction that PEGIDA does not think that all Muslims refuse to integrate but it is against those Muslims who refuse to integrate.

I'm posting on the NPOVN noticeboard because external eyes are needed at this article. I am not going to participate in two separate discussions on the same topic. I don't know why you opened two discusions on two different locations but I choose to participate on this one because it is natural that disagreements over editing go to the article talkpage first and I don't see the need for escalation at this time. Dr. K. 21:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Please note that my words were directed towards the "language" and "arguments" you made and not you personally. Given your explanation of your intentions and language, I further recognize that you never intended to slander muslims or give credence to Pegida's position. I also apologize for offending you.

That said, I strongly disagree with the language you have kept. In your effort to clarify Pediga's opposition to only some muslims, i.e. those who they believe "refuse to integrate," you accidentally imply, in wikipedia's voice, that there really are muslims who refuse to integrate. This is an egregious error and can be avoided by choosing language explicitly attributing the views to Pegida. -Darouet (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Refusing to integrate amongst immigrant societies is not something confined to Muslims. It is common to many religious and ethnic groups and there is nothing objectionable about it. It just reflects the desire, in some part of the immigrant community, of keeping the traditional culture in the new environment. That Pegida chose to make it a political football is quite another matter. In any case, I think we have an agreement. Thank you for your civility and constructive approach once more. Best regards. Dr. K. 23:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no Lex Pegida which demands to use a Wikipedia's voice in the lede specifically only in this article. The lede of Black Lives Matter, for example, says: "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community, that campaigns against violence and systemic racism toward black people." It does not say "that campaigns against WHAT IT SEES AS violence and systemic racism toward black people."

Why should there be a different rule for Pegida? Islamic extremism and Islamisation are as real a phenomenon as violence and racism towards blacks (or any other races). Let's follow consistent standards in the ledes of current, controversial political organizations. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You can go argue that at the BLM article if you want. Here, there is no agreement that Pegida is correct to fear some threat of islamization. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't claim consensus if you have none. If you want to introduce subjective qualifiers into the lead, provide your sources which make use of these qualifiers. The phrase "founded against Islamic extremism and Islamisation" is certainly more objective and a fair compromise. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The Spiegel source used as a reference explicitly attributes Pegida's belief about Islamisation in the first sentence of the article:

"Disenchanted German citizens and right-wing extremists are joining forces to form a protest movement to fight what they see as the Islamization of the West."

The BBC source used later in the sentence places quotes around the term "anti-Islamisation:"

"Every Monday since October big "anti-Islamisation" rallies have been staged in Dresden, eastern Germany, by a new grassroots organisation Pegida."

The attribution and quotes around the phrase "[anti]-Islamization", and the references to extremism, clearly indicate that the journalists of the BBC and Der Spiegel don't share Pegida's views.

Lastly, they can correct me if they like, but comments from Volunteer Marek, Dr.K., and EvergreenFir suggest that they, like the journalists cited here, think these views should be cited with attribution to Pegida, and not expressed in Wikipedia's voice. -Darouet (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot say in Wikipedia voice that "Pegida opposes the Islamization of the west" because that assumes that this is actually happening, and the sources don't say that. It *has to* be attributed to Pegida.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well summarized. And Marek is correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. K. 23:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree Mauri Kunnas (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)