References

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Party Founding

New party founded. [1]--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. ^ GmbH, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2016-07-19). "Dresden: Pegida-Anhänger gründen offenbar eigene Partei". FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2016-07-19.
Categories