Talk:Pegida

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pegida article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Germany Start‑class Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Start‑class Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

And what exactly makes them right wing?

I don't understand the characterization; it doesn't seem obvious what about them is related to a right or left wing of political theory.72.239.205.32 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article (as of this version) doesn't explicitly label the organization as right-wing. It does state that the organization's rise has been attributed to an increase right-wing anti-immigration sentiments. In general, the opposition of free immigration is considered a right-wing (conservative) position. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization of PEGIDA as an "anti-immigration" movement in the first sentence is in contradiction with their position paper (in particular point 6)! 90.50.135.188 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pegida isn't anti-immigration, it calls for limitations, especially considering dangerous/potential islamists, economical refugees and tendencies to crush Western values. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have some politically motivated editing. See for instance this edit. --Lukati (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West > Occident

English-language reliable media, whether based in Germany or the UK, translates the name of the group as "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West". Not Occident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30478321

http://www.dw.de/german-council-of-jews-chairman-condemns-immensely-dangerous-pegida-movement/a-18143163

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/anti-muslim-pegida-movement-rattles-germany-a-1009245.html

As a native speaker of English, I can disclose that the word "Occident" is extremely obscure and is nowhere near as much used as its antonym of Orient, which is nowadays only a literary or historical term '''tAD''' (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of German, I can disclose that the word "Abendland" is extremely obscure and is nowadays only a literary or historical term, so I think "Occident" hits the nail on the head. --Komischn (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However accurate that might be, we should indicate somehow (maybe a footnote) that the majority of reliable sources in English say "West" '''tAD''' (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you too. I am taking a stab at a note The Almightey Drill and Komischn, -and hope it survives the anonymous reversions!--Wuerzele (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno: "the West" (though not "western" or "Western"), especially with the definite article, is also increasingly archaic in at least US discourse, so I think it still serves as a better translation. Furthermore, "the West" resonates with twentieth-century right-wing pseudo-heroic discourses far more than "Occident" does. Iconofiler (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent revert

I had two of my recent edits reverted without explanation some hours ago: one was removing an unverified claim about what triggered the Pegida protests, the other one was a sentence about counterprotests.

Re. what triggered the protests, one would need a reliable source to show that they were indeed triggered by plans to arm the PKK (who are fighting against some kind of islamisation themselves!) and not by, say, Wuppertal's shariah police or some random mosque construction project.

Re. the counterprotests, they are obviously a reaction and notable, and (I would argue) as a response in kind much more notable than statements by politicians and officials. Yaan (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there now (kind of) has been a source provided for the claim that pegida does not want foreigners to protests against islamism. However, another source already used in the article says the protests started in response to something else.

i still do not understand why there should be a problem with mentioning the (larger) counterprotests.

Yaan (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaans (and Kirschbaums, Sydney Morning Herald) opinion about the trigger is wrong. The publication of the secret asylum plans in Dresden were announced on Oct. 23 -- 3 day after the first demonstration. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A: You didn't give an explanation why you removed the info about the counterprotests. Please do not remove sourced content about the counterprotests without WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaan makes it difficult by mixing his disinformation (about the trigger) with his counter-protest-text. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither "my opinion" nor "my misinformation", it is what one of the sources used in this article reported. The article you probably referred to is here, indeed making it appear as if this information could have been inaccessible to Bachmann et al at the time of the first rally (Oct 20th according to German Wikipedia).

Yaan (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are having difficulties with partial reverts, I suggest you make yourself familiar with the concept of "copy and paste". It makes this kind of stuff much easier :) Yaan (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying again: Stern.de does not mention Yazidis (Jesiden). And your "anti-IS forces" are the PKK (known as a terror organization). -- There is no reason for your continuation of your edit-war. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose you read WP:AGF. And also learn how to only edit those parts of an article that you want to edit (the part about counterprotests is uncontroversial, no?)

stern.de describes the origins of PEGIDA as follows:

Die mit Macheten und Messern geführten Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Kurden und Salafisten Anfang Oktober in Hamburg und Celle Auslöser für die Gründung von Pegida.(sic!) Als dann am 10. Oktober auf der Prager Straße in Dresden Kurden gemeinsam mit Antifaschisten gegen den Krieg in Syrien und für Waffenhilfe demonstrierten, versammelte Pegida-Initiator Lutz Bachmann seine Freunde in einem griechischen Restaurant und überlegte, was man tun könne, um "Islamisten und zunehmender Ausländergewalt" gegenüberzutreten. (roughly: The conflicts between kurds and salafists from early october, which were settled with knives and machetes, [were] the trigger for founding Pegida. When on October 10th Kurds and Antifascists demonstrated against the war in Syria and for armed assistance, Pegida founder Lutz Bachmann gathered his friends in a Greek restaurant and pondered what could be done to counter "islamists and rising levels of foreigner violence".)

Stern says nothing about the PKK. From the attendants and slogans mentioned one might infer that the intended recipient of military aid might have been Assad, or the Peshmerga (those de-facto allies of NATO in northern Iraq), or the YPG (those de-facto allies of NATO in Kobane). In any case, some anti-IS faction.

Most news from Celle from early October were about Chechens vs. Yezides, e.g. [1]. Given that stern.de's editing is too sloppy to notice missing verbs in a sentence, they might also have been overlooking this little detail.

Regards,

Yaan (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? Your first 2 edits showed: You deletes disliked information[2] + promotes other demos.

For your latest disinformation[3] you ignored the second given source huffingtonpost.de[4] and changed arms supply for the terror organization PKK => mil. assistance.

Please stop your disinformation-campaign and edit-war. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:6197:9BA0:232F:9862 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firat a small correction: I deleted claims for which you failed to provide appropriate sources, and which were contradicted by what on wp would generally be considered reliable sources (see WP:RS). This is quite different from deleting information because someome is "making it hard", and also, I believe, considered best practice on wp.

The huffington post article [5] speaks about several demonstrations, and repeats the sentence about them as Bachmann's claim, not as fact. ("aus Protest gegen PKK-Demonstrationen in Dresden, wie Bachmann selbst sagt."). Even assuming that Bachman is correct that these demonstrations were organized by PKK sympathizers, it does not follow that they are calling for arms supplies to the PKK rather than one of the groups I mentioned above. To make this more clear: Stern.de says that the rally calling for military assistance (see translation of "Waffenhilfe" here) was co-organized by anti-fascists. Does it follow they were demanding weapons for your beloved Antifa?

Yaan (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were added on Dec. 24. There is no reason to further discuss your view and assumptions. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:18CF:AAE3:53AD:E898 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really interested in discussing views and assumptions either (e.g. stuff like some demonstration in question was about X because its audience was U, Dresdeners do not want Y, german politics is Z). In fact it would be great if no-one presented them as facts in the first place.

I agree that further discussion without you finally presenting sources for your claims will probably be not very fruitful.

Btw. I have found some images of the pro-Kurdish rally in Dresden here. Can we agree that it was an anti-IS rally, and that they demanded military assistance for the YPG? Yaan (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No: ".. Forderung: "Hände weg von Rojava! Sofortige Aufhebung des PKK Verbots und Waffen für Volksverteidigungskräfte der YPG und der PKK" stießen auf starken Beifall!"[6] [7] -- On October 10, Kurds demanded "Bereitstellung von panzerbrechenden Waffen" (Provision of armor-piercing weapons).

Once again: Please stop your disinformation-campaign and edit-war. -- 2A02:8108:8140:1108:18CF:AAE3:53AD:E898 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)ІІІ[reply]

I am sure you are aware that your PKK quote is from a guy called Günther Slave. I do not think this person fits any useful definition of "Kurd".

What you can see on the images is that the focus of the rally was Kobane, and that the Kurdish demonstrators are able to distinguish between YPG and PKK.К

No idea where your other quote and the image are from, but armor-piercing weapons for Kurdish fighters is by now an official policy of Germany's federal government. Yaan (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. found a more complete version of the image you posted above here. Really makes me appreciate your points re. misinformation even more. Yaan (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uups, the picture is from Berlin - however - it illustrates the demand of the Kurds to abolish the PKK ban.

Since August there was an extensive debate about arms supply for Kurds (Peschmerga) - and what will happen with the weapons after the war.

G. Slave wasn't the 3rd source. But this activist knows for what he got applause.

But the topic is (the trigger of) Pegida and not Kurdish rally in Dresden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6aFr9GVE2c (0:25 : Die PKK braucht Waffen, ...) --2A02:8108:8140:1108:959D:6997:5B80:770E (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there Counter-protests

.. or are this other demos only Antifa-advertisments? Well, PEGIDA dislikes the Antifa (see logo). Is it noteworthy that Antifa is now sad and recalcitrant? --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not promote political organizations because it follows the neutral point of view policy. The counter-protests appear to be notable; they have been reported in several reliable sources. Please do not remove relevant and reliable sourced content. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This other demos have been reported because they are loud (in the internet). The Antifa & their Civil society groups discredits the participants of PEDIGA (~ 98 % ordinary citizens) as racist, neonazis, ...

How can we solve the problem, not to promote political organizations? --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those demonstrations were reported because they were large. I am looking forward to your sources that discuss in which way the audience of the counter protests is less representative of the general populatiom than the audience of the Pegida protests is. Yaan (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

Another set of reactions published in local press Yaan (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Notable. Dada. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another large German news portal joins the fun: [8]Yaan (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cologne cathedral flood lights

Thanks for 2001:4dd0:feeb:0:468a:5bff:fed2:9522 correcting my mistake of the date of the black out. Just wanted to tell you as a brand new editor about the WP:goodfaith principle. Your edit summary "If you read the linked source you would have read that the portest is on monday evening... which is 5th of january" doesnt consider the possibility, that I did read the source, and, because the source doesnt mention an actual date, made an honest error. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

numerous reversals

Hi, 2A02:8108:8140:1108:20E6:71E5:8289:C483. Since you are a new editor, and I just welcomed you on your talk page, I wanted to make sure you are aware of WP:3RR. Your numerous reversals could be construed as WP:editwarring, which can lead to a WP:block.

Your first revert was about the term leader, which you replaced by 'speaker'- the source I used employed the term 'leader'. If you have another source that calls him speaker, it could be added. Until then, the sourced term should be used.

Your second revert was removing the sentence "He started it in response to plans of adding 14 centers for about 2000 refugees in Dresden." AND the reference for the sentence and the previous sentence, which you left. (ref name=Kirshbaum16/) Removing the source and orphaning a claim is a no-no. You wrote in the edit summary "Kirschbaum's mistake, asylum plans were announced after the first demo, see talk page". Ok, as reasons for Kirschbaum's alleged mistake you quote your own logical reasoning. This is called WP:OR and it is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Unless you find a source that calls Kirschbaum's sentence a mistake, you cant argue it. I might argue: What if Lutz Bachmann had prior knowledge of the refugee centers ? No proof, no WP entry.

Your third revert was "On October 26 at least 400 right-wing extremists went on a rampage in downtown Cologne during a demonstration by "Hooligans Against Salafists" and the source, the Spiegel, with your edit summary: "there are no connection with Hooligans in Cologne". This is in direct contradiction to the Spiegel: "The authorities were especially aroused by the events of Oct. 26, when at least 400 right-wing extremists went on a rampage in downtown Cologne during a demonstration staged by the group "Hooligans Against Salafists" (HoGeSa)." If you remove sourced info you must have a very good reason, and you must start a discussion on the talk page. The edit summary is not the place for a discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

An IP has added a phenomenal amount of tags to the top of the article. I supposes it's time to debate here in this section. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

This section could maybe contain the entire "POSITIONSPAPIER der PEGIDA", PEGIDAs manifest, translated to english and with the points listed instead of coming after on the same line. Currently the source cited is an article explaining their positions. this is unescessary as we can go straight to the source and translate it. The source for PEGIDAS political position should be PEGIDA, not a newssite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.230.187 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

The topic contains allegded conviction of PEGIA leader, which the NYT (perhaps a reliable source) attributes to some obscure German Newspaper. As per WP:BLP, I'm reverting the text until a reliable source is found. 24.132.94.37 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]