Talk:Pegida/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1]. 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 [2], which at first glance has left many commentators puzzled.--Paul Keller (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Paul, do you have more sources on this issue? -Darouet (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I will add them in due course. Paul Keller (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit/Archive. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Pegida is a German nationalist movement that have grown due to the crisis in the Middle East and immigration of over million Muslims to Germany in very short time. However, being in cultural conflict with Muslim immigrants from the Middle East doesn't mean that Pegida supporters are broadly identify with Israel. Actually according to numerous reports, many of Pegida supporters are neo Nazis, meaning racists, and certainly don't support the Jewish state. The source given by this user (who ever-since have been blocked for sock-puppetry) is not an acceptable one because it cite no studies or surveys that prove the author argument. I live in Israel and certainly there are not many Pegida supporters here. Actually there was once a report on one German women who supports Pegida and marched with Israel flag, she said that she was the only one to walk in this Pegida march of thousands, that had the Israeli flag with her and that she been asked if she's Jewish by other protesters. Now, to the bottom line: There are no studies that show link between supporting Pegida and supporting Israel, so please remove this implying image per WP policy of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the sock provided only one article from a source that I would not characterise as being RS, and the opinion of one interviewee, I would not be adverse to removing the photo. In the first instance, we already have an image meeting with WP:PERTINENCE for the Charlie Hedbo section. The photo of the 25 January protest is redundant and, looking at the multiple photos at Wiki Commons, seems atypical and on the WP:POINTy side of choices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pegida supports the state of Israel as much as they support the immigrants, the islamists or the current goverment. One flag held up in a publically recorded demonstration does not constitute support - it was a feeble attempt to put some distance between them and the right-wing extremists of NPD (and such) just before an regional election. They are demagogues, who feed on the results of a stupification by the mass media, that only appears to educate about the Hitler-regime and the final solution, but is - in reality - boring the public with outlets of a Holocaust-industry, that is blamed by many jewish intellectuals for its uncanny reiteration of myths and semi-truths (if you switch on the german tv-broadcaster ZDF, you'll bound to find such important themes as "Hitlers flip-flops, shoeware of evil" or "Hitlers janitor, the man who saw it all" [I am overstating my case of course]). After endulging onself with literally hundreds of these feature, simple minds are bound to get indifferent on the subject. There's not even the spark of a thought, that german history happened before 1933. So I state in conclusion: PEGIDA is a result of a process, that could have been avoided very easily in the first place. But Israel-Supporters they are not - send the israeli-army to the german borders and let them handle the immigrants from Syria in their forseeable way of doing things and that support from Pegida may become real.

I doub that still.--78.51.108.253 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Position paper

I removed the content of the anonymous "position paper" which appears to be a translation of content from the German Wikipedia article where it should also be removed. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda of any kind. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Bachmann

The article fails to mention Bachmann's criminal convictions for breaking and entering, larceny, DUI, causing someone to make a false statement, etc. Shouldn't that be mentioned? I don't think it falls under BLP. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably some brief mention is justified. Not to dwell on the topic excessively, but it's received substantial press, and does form a part of the political and social context of this movement. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a tricky subject. This article is about Pegida, not Bachman. Therefore, mentioning his criminal convictions here is not very relevant, because it does not relate to the Pegida organisation directly. As such it can be construed as POV. Ironically, this information does belong to Bachman's BLP, as long as it is covered by RS and in a DUE way. Dr. K. 18:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

He's the chair of the party, so there is plenty about him that might be covered in greater detail in his own bio, and summarized here. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see how the criminal past can be covered here without smacking of POV. Framing this as: "Bachman founded Pegida, and, by the way, he has a criminal past", is way too obvious and POV. Other combinations include: "Bachman, a convicted criminal, founded Pegida..." etc., also obvious POV and WP:POINTy, not to mention OR. Dr. K. 18:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of something more meta: for instance noting the political reactions in Germany or globally when Bachmann's legal issues became widely known. And I do agree that the specific formulation you note above would be POV. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I had an edit-conflict when adding to my previous post the additional sentence: "However, if his criminal activities were related to political or other actions involving Pegida, that's another matter." Your reply addresses my concern, because it is related to political reaction involving both the leader and the party. I do not object to such a formulation. Dr. K. 18:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Template

I'm removing the Islamization template as its irrelevant. Islamization refers to the spread of Islam, including nations converting to Islam. Its mostly a historical phenomenon. That is not what PEGIDA is about. Its about Muslim migrants, as well as German Muslims. That has nothing to do with the historical concept of Islamization itself.VR _talk 04:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Policies

There is a reasonably lengthy section on Pegida's position paper. But nothing at all about its actual policies. That omission is odd, and should be rectified.203.80.61.102 (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Far-right?

I have removed the reference to "far right" political stance. The Pegida group advocates protection of Jewish communities from Islamic hostility. Far right is usually synonymous with neo-nazi and therefore cannot be far right, and I suggest the characterization of the movement should be left to the individual.2.13.170.152 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe it as far-right. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Based only on what is written here in Wikipedia, I doubt that the group could be called far right. Opposition to the Islamisation of Europe is neither right nor left wing.203.80.61.102 (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the Guardian hardly seems a reliable source. They are very quick to label something or someone as "far right", even when they're not. 213.46.43.3 (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources required for 'nationalist' tag

In the article's opening section, Pegida is denoted as a German "nationalist, anti-Islam, right-wing political movement." There's adequate sourcing showing that Pegida is "anti-Islam" and "right-wing." (One well-supported epithet missing from that list is probably "xenophobe.") However, there is practically nothing in support of Pegida being a "nationalist" movement. According to sources, the whole platform of Pegida ideology is constructed on the issue of "immigration in Germany." We need sources for "nationalism"; we must be exact in our terminology. -The Gnome (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources. Gbooks search. Dr. K. 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I looked up, with admittedly some delay, the sources in your search and found about five books with both words in them:

In the first hit, the author, a PhD in Political Science & government, now a Florida town mayor, denotes the Greek party of Syriza as "nationalist," without offering any support for that. I'd say her assessments about other parties should accordingly be treated as suspect and inaccurate. In the second hit, the name "Pegida" is not associated with "nationalism" at all, yet the book appears in the search because the book is about nationalist political formations as well. In the next hit, the authors indeed characterize the article's subject as "nationalist," though without offering substantiation for that. In the fourth hit, the authors (a professor of gender studies and a professor of pedagogical work) admit that Pegida works in a "transnational arena," yet they label Pegida as "nationalist," which is, if anything, a contradiction in terms: Practically by definition, nationalists would support their own nation's interests (as they perceive them, of course) and not the interests of other nations. Same as with the second hit, the last one does not associate "nationalism" with the subject at all. I'm afraid the Gbooks search does not offer much. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Far-right politics as a purpose

While there are citations to support the claim that the organisation is far-right (as there also are supported claims it is right-wing), in what way is far-right politics (and only far-right politics and not right-wing politics) a purpose of the group? I have seen no evidence to support the claim that the groups purpose is to spread far-right political ideas. To be clear, I'm not denying the possibility of the political position of the group, but questioning the authenticity of this being a 'purpose' of the organisation. Helper201 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And here you are again trying to tendentiously sanitise the far-right by pushing for the edition of the cover all term right-wing to make the position "right-wing to far-right" which is not supported by sources and doesn't make logical sense as the far-right is right-wing, it is a tautology. Bacondrum (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Helper201 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Try addressing the issue at hand. What you've written is pointless. All I was questioning here was how it could be reasoned that far-right politics is a purpose of the group. I called for no other changes. Helper201 (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You are pushing for the catch all term on numerous European radical right pages in direct conflict with academic consensus and with very flimsy sourcing to back your claim. That definitely looks tendentious and it's worth commenting on. I invite you to participate in this rfc I've started on the term right-wing. Bacondrum (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)