Talk:Pegida

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," [1] and

• oppose the "islamization" of Germany. [2]

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)

Category Racism

Many high quality sources discuss the racist politics of Pegida. While Pegida officially challenges any label of racism, reliable sources should determine our characterization, not Pegida sources.

I'm providing a list here of some sources that discuss racism, islamophobia and Pegida.

• Experiences of Islamophobia: Living with Racism in the Neoliberal Era, by professor of sociology James Carr, and published by Routledge. "The past 20 years have seen right wing political groups increase in prominence across Europe. These groups are united by their "ethno-nationalist xenophobia", manifesting itself as opposition to immigration and political initiatives involved in promoting multiculturalism. Anti-Muslim racism is rife in European broadly right wing, political groups such as Britain First the British National Party, the English Defence League; the Golden Dawn group in Greece, the French Front National, and the Lega Nord in Italy, the German grouping Pegida, etc., all of which overtly and vociferously invoke anti-Muslim rhetoric."

• European Islamophobia Report 2015, published by the Turkish Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research, and authored by professors Farid Hafez (Austria) and Enes Bayraklı. "This Islamophobic attitude is mirrored by the internationally renowen[ed] Pegida movement, which came into existence in autumn 2014 and thus falls in line with a longer discourse of anti-Muslim racism... Pegida views 'Muslims' as more criminal, sexist, homophobic and terrorist than white Germans. Pegida discourse tries to disarm any allegation of racism through the positive evocation of Judeo-Christian values" (p.187). The book routinely describes "Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism" (e.g. pp.242-3, p.258).

• Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, Published by BRILL and authored by professors Oliver Scharbrodt, Samim Akgönül, Ahmet Alibašić, Jørgen S. Nielsen, and Egdunas Racius. "Governments, politicians... and church representatives strongly condemned the Islamophobic and xenophobic activities mentioned above, and expressed their solidarity with the Muslim population. The chairperson of the Conference of Ministers of the Interior, Ralf Jager, commented on the Pegida activities by saying, 'The initiators are fueling prejudice and fear through xenophobic and Islamophobic agitation..." Similarly, the charperson of the Protestant Churches in Germany, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, said that the tendencies of racism and the wholesale perversion of religion are in contradiction to the Christian faith. Last but not least, the chairperson of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, said Pegida was highly inflammatory and described the movement as follows: 'Here, neo-Nazis are mixing up with far right-wing parties and citizens who think they can now freely exercise their racism and hatred of foreigners" (p..276)

• Fear of Muslims?: International Perspectives on Islamophobia by professor Douglass Pratt and academic Rachel Woodlock, published by Springer. "By denying the racism contained with Islamophobia, and moving it to a question of free speech, the debate is shifted to absolve perpetrators of Islamophobia of sentiments that would otherwise be considered abhorrent. 'The contests over the nature of Islamophobia and the continued deferral of its recognition as racism thus have the effect of keeping open spaces for the pursuit of racial politics that would otherwise appear politically incorrect, anachronistic, or extreme were traditional signifiers for racial difference to be employed.' This has opened up political space for the emergence of groups such as the English Defense League, UKIP, the Netherland's Party for Freedom, the Sweden Democrats, and Germany's Pegida, who challenge mainstream politicians and their positions on immigration, terrorism and national identity. The ultimate expression of the far-right views containing at their core a virulent hatred of Islam and Muslims, despite claiming to be motivated by concern for European identities was Anders Breivik's mass murders in 2011." (p.6)

• The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe by professors Andrew Geddes and Peter Scholten, and published by SAGE. "Pegida's activities provoked large-scale counter-demonstrations. In January 2015, Chancellor Merkel was strongly critical of Pegida when speaking at a Muslim-led rally in Berlin where she said that 'hatred, racism and extremism have no place in this country.' Pegida's fortunes also faded when the extreme right associations of its leaders became more widely known, while PR disasters (such as the photograph of Pegida leader, Lutz Bachmann, dressed as Adolf Hitler) alienated many who might have had some sympathy to its claims about supposed Islamisation" (p.94)

By maintaining that even Pegida of all organizations cannot be listed under the category "Racism in Germany," we are essentially demanding that only organizations that publicly self-identify as racist or neo-Nazi (which is illegal in Germany) can be listed under this category. That is not a reasonable requirement and hurts readers who, presumably, are using this category for research. -Darouet (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

These are a number of cherrypicked sources that classify "islamophobia" as a form of racism, a theory mainly advanced by politically motivated left-wing figures and definitely not universally accepted among the research community. Not a single one of your randomly Googled sources explains, which views or activities of PEGIDA actually constitute which would fall under scientifically accepted definition of racism. Multiple sources can equally be found labelling Southern Poverty Law Center as an "Anti-Christian hate group" but it seems Volunteer Marek does not like this claim to be added to the respective article [3]. Curious inconsistency? Paul Keller (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is getting interesting. Why are you bringing up SPLC here? (and I call total bullshit on "multiple sources can be found labelling SPLC as Anti-Christian hate group" - maybe multiple sources, but not multiple RELIABLE sources).

Anyway, the sources above are fine, despite the WP:SOAPBOX above about "politically motivated left-wing figures" and they are sufficient to include the category.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oop, nevermind, I got this one. Hey there Lokal. Was that you at the SPLC and NPI pages and vandalizing my talk page too? Or one of your buddies? Time for you to go and create a brand new account I guess. Really, aren't you running out of drawers to stuff all these socks into? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our article on Islamophobia has a lot to say about that. Some sources describe it as cultural racism. Others claim it's simply anti-Arab sentiments or xenophobia under a different name. clpo13_(talk) 17:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for Darouet's claim "By maintaining that even Pegida of all organizations cannot be listed under the category "Racism in Germany," we are essentially demanding that only organizations that publicly self-identify as racist or neo-Nazi (which is illegal in Germany) can be listed under this category." then this makes little sense. Antifaschistische Aktion or similar criminal far-left groups do not of course self-identify as racists, while their open calls for a genocide against Germans such as "Bomber Harris, do it again" (just Google the slogan) or statements by politicians such as „Es mag Sie vielleicht überraschen, aber ich bin eine Volksverräterin. Ich liebe und fördere den Volkstod“ (Christin Löchner) fall under any sensible classification of racism (the anti-German variety in this case). What do your sources have to tell us on this issue? Paul Keller (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-fascism can hardly be considered racism. clpo13_(talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well if you hear someone shouting "Bomber Harris, kill once more German women and children" then this cannot be considered racism just because the people crying such things self-identify as "antifascists"?Paul Keller (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that slogan and this talk page is about Pegida. I cited from 5 academic and professional books above written by 12 different professors. What they write is consistent with mainstream press accounts. By contrast, you've presented no sources to convince us that their views are fringe, or to explain why their consistent discussion of Islamophobia and racism is wrong. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The image of Pegida demonstration with Israel flag in it

I think it should be removed, first, because it associate Israel with Pegida, and Israel is certainly not associated with it. Second, because it violates in my opinion WP guidelines of neutrality. Pegida is considered by many as nationalistic, modern form of the Nazi movement that take on the immigration problems as excuse. It's not a friend of Israel, but adding image with the flag of Israel in it tries to wave this issues, as like if this movement is not controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

PEGIDA supporters broadly identify with Israel and this is well attested in sources. You may nnot like it, but that's how it is. The relevant term here is "Israel-Connection". It is equally true that PEGIDA has plenty of supporters of Jewish ethnicity [4], which at first glance has left many commentators puzzled.--Paul Keller (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)