Talk:Pegida/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notable?

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

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

Another large German news portal joins the fun: [1]Yaan (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [2]. 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)

AGF? Your first 2 edits showed: You deletes disliked information[3] + promotes other demos.

For your latest disinformation[4] you ignored the second given source huffingtonpost.de[5] 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)

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 [6] 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)

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)

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)

No: ".. Forderung: "Hände weg von Rojava! Sofortige Aufhebung des PKK Verbots und Waffen für Volksverteidigungskräfte der YPG und der PKK" stießen auf starken Beifall!"[7] dead link] -- 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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

manifesto

They have a manifesto http://www.menschen-in-dresden.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/pegida-positionspapier.pdf and their leader Lutz is already on wiki germany so there could be a link to that page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutz_Bachmann and today they're mentioned on bbc uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30685842 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.9.33 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New section "Symbols"

I like the idea of adding the section "symbols", but we must find a better reference than the 1h Youtube movie, which mostly shows talking heads not flags. The term "often used" is a personal interpretation and must be verifiable. I've asked the new editor to familiarize himself with the WP ideas, starting with WP:RS. I moved the section below the other sections and marked it with better source. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nordic cross flag

Can a German tell me about the Nordic cross flag so an appropriate caption can be written? I seem to interpret that through its association with Josef Wirmer and the July 20 plot that it is for conservative and Christian opponents to Nazism, is that right? That would make sense, especially as the German Empire flag is now a flag of convenience for Neo-Nazis after the ban on Nazi symbolism '''tAD''' (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless or until the above concern of WP:RS for the claims that these are PEGIDA symbols can be resolved, I wouldnt worry about this. The lack of source issue overrides any prettying or cleanup by far. While I appreciate your work on the page, as you well know, I am afraid you are retracting into a speculative realm of WP:OR. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

88.73.246.78, could you please explain why you insist to remove the Copyedit tag. Why do you think that everyone who re-adds the tag is a paid British editor? (accusations in edit summaries/evidence is missing) JimRenge (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Political positions: Page currently has strongly misleading information

I am currently under a (self-imposed) 24 hour block on this article. Please see User_talk:Lklundin#PEGIDA for a request to fix current, strongly misleading information on the article. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

current event

I categorized the article temporarily as WP:current event, because an increasing number of editors have been involved, mostly anonymous and new, some vandalism and a lot of unsourced claims, all of which has made the article unstable and unreliable.

Yellowdesk, an observer and remover of current event labels that has not edited here, has removed the label, suggesting in his edit summary there isn't enough traffic.

I can find no WP:guideline as to how many edits or editors need to be made per hour or per day. It is a judgement issue. The topic of this page has dominated news in Germany, is covered daily or weekly by international news syndicates as even the casual reader can see. I think the label is justified to warn readers of unreliability, and I have reverted what I consider premature removal. I hope the situation is quietening down myself soon, at which point I will be happy if we can remove the label.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The guide to use of the template, was linked from my edit comment.
  Here it is again: Template:Current#Guidelines.
  The template was created for those rare occasions in which many dozens of editors are participating, with hundreds of edits in the same day, as distinct from the one or two an hour that this article had at the time I removed the template {{current}}.
  
  By coincidence, today, there is an example of an appropriate use. These occasions are actually rare, when, such is in the case of Charlie Hebdo shooting, there are 350 edits in less than eight hours.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellowdesk, rest assured i read what you call the guidelines, before I put up the flag and again when you sent it. That is why I pronounced what I pronounced. Her eit is again: there are no guidelines as to how many edits or editors need to be made per hour or per day That is why I am sending this here again. The question was posed to better understand. I consider your neglect to respond to my observation and insisting on "your guidelines" unhelpful for growth and development of editors who "dare" to ask critical questions, which is too bad. have a good one.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's fairly typical for a template to have a guideline for use. Call these advisories what you like.
  Here are a couple:
  Template:Unreferenced#Usage
  Template:Copy_edit#Usage.
  Judgement about actual use and removal is naturally up to the editors and community of users, about which reasonable people may differ in practice.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are ridiculously off topic now. please dont add here.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will cheerfully refrain from engaging with you further. Yellowdesk (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Political positions 5: Anzahl Flüchtlinge je Sozialarbeiter/Betreuer - derzeit ca.200:1

The page currently states: "Point 5 demands a decrease in ratio of social worker to asylum seeker from currently 200:1". First of all this is nonsense, since there is clearly not 200 social workers per asylum seeker. Secondly, the cited PEGIDA program actually states: "PEGIDA ist FÜR eine Senkung des Betreuungsschlüssels für Asylsuchende (Anzahl Flüchtlinge je Sozialarbeiter/Betreuer - derzeit ca.200:1, faktisch keine Betreuung der teils traumatisierten Menschen)". This roughly translates to: "PEGIDA is FOR a reduction of the caseload regarding asylum seekers (number of refugees per social worker/care taker - currently ca. 200:1, really no care taking of partially traumatized humans)". I am changing the article accordingly. Please do not revert without discussion here. Lklundin (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

translation

I think I could contribute by translating parts of the German article. What exactly is needed?--Yoshee (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yoshee just go for it, and edit in what you can.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cologne

"On October 26 at least 400 protesters went on a march in downtown Cologne during a demonstration by "Hooligans Against Salafists"." According to all sources at least 4000 protesters were in Cologne on that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.16.93 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

217.6.16.93 Welcome, you must be new to the site. words in the article constantly get changed here. 400 violent hooligans morphed into "protesters" edited by those who didnt read the Spiegel carefully ( see quote), and pushed POV in the editwarring fest.

If you want to be notified for replies please consider registering - see your talk page.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The article currently states that the hogesa rally in cologne was attended by at least 400 people. that is not what the source says: spiegel says that at least 400 took part in riots (or, at least, disturbances) in connection with said rally. The actual rally was considerably larger, around 4000 according to German wp. Yaan (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is about my third time discussing this (see section 'numerous reversals' 3rd para from Jan 4), and with it I transfer the responsibility to everyone else to watch for vandalising reversal : If you read the source ( German; do you speak German, Yaan?) it says 400 violent demonstrators, which is what I wrote, but PEGIDA supporters appear not to read the source either and confuse it with the "regular demonstrators, which were more. They slip in the word "protesters" and voila the sentence makes no sense any more. Okay?? I'll revert. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo named "Historical trigger of Pegida"

This photo with the capture "Historical trigger of Pegida" is a screen shot from an anonymous Youtube video. It is no WP:RS. Making up a title for a screen shot is WP:OR. The photo has been inserted by anonymous editors I don't know how many times on the page to make a point, and I have reverted the photo for the above reasons every time. The last reinsertion was edit 642684250 from today, by an editor that has come her for the first time, and I reverted it too. (It was part of numerous other edits, which can be discussed elsewhere). Another photo needs to be found. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the caption can be dicussed, however third-party reliable sources have been stating that exactly this demonstration has been the trigger for Bachmann to create the YouTube group called Pegida. It is also backed up by Bachmann's own upload which however isn't available under a free license. Photos are not sources in our sense, but are included to illustrate facts that have been proved in the text. We can discuss the caption, but you would have to specify why the photo itself was controversial or misleading and why it was preferable to have none at all. --PanchoS (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

survey re page move to "pegida"

An administrator moved the page to non-capitalized "Pegida" today. The only clue, the edit summary :"Usually spelled mixed case (not all-caps), despite being an acronym. See the great majority of cited sources, e.g. [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/anti-muslim-pegida-movemen "

The editor who made the move has never before participated on the page. A glance at the editor's contributions shows he moves pages all the time. He didnt leave a talk page message, there's been no prior discussion, dissent or consensus I am aware of.

The edit was marked as minor (= uncontroversial edit), surely an inappropriate use of the "minor" check.

Rather than reverting the 4 edits, I'd like to see what folks here think. File a simple "yes" or "no" and if you want with a short explanation below. (If you want to discuss more extensively plse create a subsection underneath.) Thanks.

Do you agree with the article move from PEGIDA to Pegida ? --Wuerzele (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes JimRenge (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• I do.[8] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• User:Anthony Appleyard has moved the article on my request. The mixed case variant is much more common, both in English and in German sources. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, it is not relevant how the group itself spells its acronym, but rather how English-language secondary sources spell it. And most of them use "Pegida": mixed case, not all caps (e.g. Guardian, Spiegel, NYT, Economist). --RJFF (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm okay with the move per the argument given by RJFF. The vast majority of sources turned to spelling it "Pegida" with oral use turning the acronym into a regular word. --PanchoS (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Photos

Pegida demonstration on 12 January 2015

Currently we have three photos of anti-Pegida protests and zero photos of Pegida members or events. Shii (tock) 01:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The one about "wanking against pegida" conjures more questions than answers - is it word play in German or do anti-Pegida masturbate en masse in protest? '''tAD''' (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

^I've removed the above. It serves absolutely no function in explaining the article through a photograph. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added a photo of a Pegida demonstration. I agree with Shii´s and '''tAD''' comments. JimRenge (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks pretty good now. The photos are bad quality, but we work with what we have. Shii (tock) 00:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not contribute to this article but I would like to ask that the photo of the PEGIDA demonstration in Dresden be removed. This photo includes the flag of Israel, which is not representative of the demonstrations and may create a misconception or strengthen disinformation that PEGIDA has anything to do with Israel, Israelis, and Jews. In the vast majority of photos from PEGIDA demonstrations available online no protester waves the Israeli flag. I think that a more representative photo from these demonstrations should be included. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.159.149 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Putin, hilf uns, rette uns!" ("Putin, help us, save us!") and diverse far-right slogans on signs and banners

are you referring to the image on the right? It is rather hateful, accusing Israel of genocide and asking Putin to save "them" from Israel and the US. Yaan (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, he is referring to the image above. JimRenge (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yaan (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Dagida from article

An IP removed the mention of Dagida + ref, claiming in the edit summary : A quick search shows, that Dagida had a facebook site but no followers from Darmstadt, per its mayor, who is quoted in the Express from 12-12-15 [9] German newspaper], so it probably does not exist. I'll leave it in and add this, to qualify the Australian claim we have now. Time will sort this out, whether we can completely remove it in the future--Wuerzele (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

PEGIDA → Pegida – The article was moved back to "PEGIDA" because I requested it. I have no regrets on doing so. In fact, making "Pegida" a part of the sentence is hard to detect. "PEGIDA" is easier to recognize in body content. That aside, I want a proper discussion on the proposed title. By the way, I neither support nor oppose this, so I'm abstaining myself from voting for either title. Which is more commonly used, "PEGIDA" or "Pegida"? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Pegida per conversation above.[10] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment this is an acronym, though German-language article uses both PEGIDA and Pegida but is called Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, so I think either form is usable. Both forms seem similarly common in English -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Pegida is, according to my (subjective) perception, the more common variant in reliable sources – both in English-language and in German ones. I admit that it is difficult to objectively determine the commonness of either variant. At least BBC, NYT, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and Irish Times use the mixed-case variant. --RJFF (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Pegida seems to be more common. JimRenge (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Reverting a move, that has been properly discussed -even if after the fact- AND has been accepted by consensus is unproductive. George Ho, my sympathies with the cause of capitalization not withstanding, as you know from the survey section above I started, I don't understand your motive to duplicate what is as good as a "proper" discussion as you'll probably get on this page, and also since you did not contribute anything to PEGIDA before. What am I missing? With all due respect, to me this is a waste of electrons and server space. There are bigger fish to fry.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, "PEGIDA" is easily recognizable, while "Pegida" is not. I mean, in the term of MOS. I was hoping uninvolved editors would say something about this. All I see are just involved. --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: As an acronym, the current capitalization is more legit. I'm not emotional about the issue, but the very fact that usually acronyms are capitalized at Wiki makes me think it's the right way to do it. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Horst-schlaemma: Laser, Scuba and Radar are acronyms, too. Being an acronym cannot be the sole criterion for all-caps vs. mixed-case. --RJFF (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would even argue that most acronyms that are pronounced as a word (and not as spelled-out letters) are spelled mixed-case, the only major exceptions that come to my mind are AIDS, NASA, OPEC and NATO, but they have only four letters each. I cannot think of a longer acronym that is pronounced as a word (like Pegida, which is never pronounced "pee-ee-gee-eye-dee-ay") but spelled all caps. --RJFF (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PEGIDA - Simply for the fact, that the group writes itself like this ([11]. You just have to take a look at the logo and see that they write themselve in all caps. 2A02:8070:8782:1700:5DC8:9B5A:B41E:8433 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If that was all it took to force us to use allcaps we would have deleted the WP:MOSTM and got rid of the shortcut WP:ALLCAPS years ago.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - BBC and Independent, New York Times all use "Pegida" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

could you please clarify since it appears to be contradictory. Did you actually meant the sources in question used PEGIDA, thus the oppose, or are you supporting the move to Pegida but typed oppose by mistake?--174.93.109.167 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think @In ictu oculi: was a little confused and is saying the title should be "Pegida". —BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops yes (corrected) 18:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to Pegida. "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually", but here I don't think they are, so MOS:TM would seem to suggest "Pegida" if it's reasonably commonly found that way. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per common usage in the press. Number 57 20:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indiscriminate addition of sections translated from the German WP article

Thank you , Dansande Björn for 6 polls, and Bozni for adding info on supporters and Malgorra for adding words of German politicians in your concerted action /translation from the German WP. I know it is well meant, but, I think there needs to be a bit of an evaluation what fits on en:WP.

1. none of you translated refs. What's the rush? Most editors here, as far as I can tell, read/know/speak German. We're aware and not behind. IMO delivering unreferenced stuff is an absolute no-no, unlike de:WP, although maybe not in de:Pegida. I see the shells for refs in the 3 additions, so I hope it will be done.
2. some of the stuff (2 polls) is already in the article.
3. more doesn't necessarily mean better.

As far as the demographic comments added without any reference, marked as a WP:minor edit, I am reverting it for unsourced claims, else original research. Aschitaka I dont overlook your good faith- if sourced, a lot of it can go to other sites- like Dresden (I added demographics there early on) or Saxony etc, but over the past months a lot of people have added unsourced claims and were reverted.Unreferenced material may be removed.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your removal and your comments. Material in this article must be backed by sources directly discussing Pegida. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally get your points, Wuerzele. As for the selection of information concerning my part - political reactions - I did think about what might give the reader an idea about how German politics perceives Pegida; might have been too much and retaining the unorderly style of the German page... Meh. Anyway. I have taken the parts I added off again, will re-evaluate and add references before I put sth. up again. Thanks. Malgorra (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all we are students and do this as a project. I told you that i need some time to fill in the references but yeah. If, as you already mentioned, most of the people here speak German, why don't you just have a quick look on the German page and see for yourself that it is translated. Well nevermind then ;) Aschitaka (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

AschitakaRe "need some time to fill in the references": this is not how WP works, as you can only add sourced claims. As far as "why don't you just have a quick look on the German page and see for yourself that it is translated" this makes no sense; it ignores that I pointed this very fact out in the subject line. If you want to continue to edit WP, please also check WP:Netiquette. I corrected how you filed your response.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And what exactly makes them right wing?

Islamophobic Far Right??? WTF? Their own position paper puts them as Populists Against Islamisation ( which is Islamic Rule of Law versus Neutral Law/Laicité/Liberalism ). They explicitly accept liberal Islam. Some of their resigned former(!) leaders have (had) ties to right-wing organisations, but that does not mean the movement is islamophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.62.41 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I've been trying to get this term defined more strictly on Wikipedia but without any positive feedback from the community anywhere. Just like so many things, Wikipedian editors put in what ever the media says is true (which they call references) instead of using dictionaries or sociological/political journals as would be appropriate in cases like this. *deep sigh* as if the language is a battering ram. For once I'd like to see the term "left-wing anti-immigration movement" used just for the lulz. Of course, it does make a little bit more sense to use the term right-wing as the right wing is about political restrictions (in any system, liberal, socialist or fascist) while the left is about political liberation. But one could just as easily counter with the proposition that authoritarian islam restricts secular freedom. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In their own words Yaan (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please translate the important part? I heard a video before which was translated into English that they mocked the left-right divide altogether. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Liebe Presse, seid nicht traurig, ich muss euch leider sagen: Wir sind alle rechts! [Laughter] Wir verfolgen rechte Politik, wir sind Patrioten, wir lieben unser Vaterland, unsere Heimat, wir wollen sie beschützen (Dear press, don't be sad, I regret to have to tell you that we are all rightists! [Laughter] We pursue rightist politics, we are patriots, we love our fatherland, our home, and want to protect it.) I am certain they are mocking something in the part before the laughter, but the second part (beginng with "wir verfolgen") sounds, to me anyway, as if it is meant to be taken seriously. Yaan (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

your opinion on what they are mocking, and a single persons opinion is not enough to say "right wing" or "left wing"... I can find lots of examples of people from left wing with same politic ideas, eg in canada PEGIDA is setting up in quebec, and obvious that the "anti religion" faction of left wing part of the support.15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multilis (talk • contribs)

Islamophobic not same as far-right

The introduction appears to equate islamophobic and far-right. They are not connected, as many islamophobes are left wing. Furthermore isn't there a better term than "Islamophic", wouldn't "anti-Muslim" be more accurate and less POV?125.237.105.102 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have re-organised the paragraph more around the people accusing it of Islamophobia than the group actually being Islamophobic. That is not POV as it is reporting the fact that people have those opinions of PEGIDA, and is also more relevant to the point of an intro in describing the rest of the article. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia is by definition racist and thus far-right. In any event, far right is what English language sources widely describe PEGIDA – whose founder likes to pose as Adolf Hitler – as. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Bachmann says it was a joke, moreover Bachmann is not identic with Pegida. Prince Harry has once dressed in a Nazi costume. Does that make him far-right, let alone the whole British monarchy? Most German sources do not consider Pegida as a whole far-right, even though they report that the movement contains far-right elements, but they are usually considered as a minority within Pegida. The Daily Mail is not necessary representative of what is "widely considered". --RJFF (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, since this is the English Wikipedia and since English sources report widely on the group and describe it as far right, it doesn't really matter what foreign language sources claim. And the German language doesn't have an exact equivalent of the term far right anyway. Islamophobia is in itself far right; anyone participating in a group targeting an ethnic/religious group is by definition far right. If PEGIDA had organized demonstrations against Judaism and Jews rather than Islam and Muslims, and called Judaism "a totalitarian ideology", compared it to Nazism, said it doesn't belong in Europe and so forth, would Germans still insist it was "not far right, just criticizing Judaism"? Such a position is in fact in itself far right. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A "phobia" is a fear of something, not an opposition to it, so "Islamophobia" is poor English. "Anti-Islamist" (i.e. opposed to Islamic terrorism) or "anti-Islam"/"anti-Muslim" (i.e. opposed to the religion in general) would be better. And "Islamophobia" is also not a racist term - Muslims are not a race. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bermicourt Re: A "phobia" is a fear of something, yes, and, yes: opposition to the something is regularly included. Re "Islamophobia is poor English": I encourage you to bring your concerns to the folks over at the Islamophobia project, that smacked their template on this page a little while ago- if you flip back revision history you ll find who it was.

Your opinion be as it may - the media reporting on PEGIDA is using this term more and more frequently. WP reflects sources, so this page wont get around this term. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I feel it disgusting that as an encyclopedia we accept non-clinical definitions of phobia and thus the abuse of language based simply on references. This obsession with references, any references (non scientific) is the undoing of objectivity on this site 213.100.108.86 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 213.100.108.86, welcome to WP! First, rest assured, islamophobia is no clinical term. not knowing you I suspect you are no clinician (while you can check my credentials on my talk page). Second, I see no "obsession" with references ( are you using a clinical term here?), but claims backed up with sources, which is encyclopedic/academic good practice. Third, "objectivity on this site" may be your ideal, but it's not WP's goal (see WP:NOT) and, by the way, an ideal no media can live up to.

I noticed you used the term "we"- may I encourage you to register, so "we" may ping you and learn to know you and all the other good things that come with that? I've allowed myself to welcome you on your talkpage listing the privileges you gain.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there clinical definitions of xenophobia or homophobia? Yaan (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, this is a dynamic IP. Second of all it is not good academic practise to use non-scientific sources to label entire political movements. Especially not using terminology that according to Wikipedias own article on Islamophobia were (was) constructed by a NGO for propaganda purposes. I'm not here to socialise. 213.100.108.86 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of idiots cynically claiming that disliking Muslims is racism. Muslims are not a race. Would you call anti-Christian sentiment racism? I don't think so. So stop being a hypocrite. Muslims are a huge, dominant, and aggressive group like Christians, not a small persecuted group like Jews or Yazidis. And yes, homophobia is hilariously recognized as a mental illness by the DSM-IV for politically-correct purposes (replacing homosexuality), but so-called "Islamophobia" is only recognized by polemicists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.30.27.18 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

An article on wikipedia should be neutral, stating that PEGIDA a is far right organisation is puttign an unwanted political connotation to this article. 2A02:1812:142D:F800:39C8:2B84:4710:B21F (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

editwarring about sentence in lede

Hohenloh you made an edit turning an actively constructed sentence, as preferred by WP:MOS into a passively constructed sentence (""offshoots were formed"), avoiding the subject of the action. I reverted to WP: STATUSQUO explaining the rationale in the edit summary. You chose to re-revert. I warned you that you were editwarring and that per WP:BRD it had been your turn to discuss. I restored the status quo and you reverted for the third time. you can find other solutions, like 3rd opinion, etc but avoiding to reply to teh argument I made and merely reverting is disruptive.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat what another editor has written earlier: "I will cheerfully refrain from engaging with you further." Hohenloh ⁺ 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't want to discuss with Wuerzele again but if so you should also stop reverting. Otherwise a new trip to WP:AN3 is likely. It's hard to even figure out what the difference is between 'formed' and 'were formed'. They both sound passive to me since neither one identifies a subject doing the formation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Ed. There is some truth to that ! Technically speaking "offshoots form" is the active form, as you would see it commonly in the geo- or life sciences to describe the observation that something, a glacier, a wave, an extremity, a crystal or whatever forms, and is organizing itself, develops. When you say "is formed" it is less clear, and more confusing, because it begs the question: what do they mean ? by whom? who is the actor that forms? God? a distant leader ? why is it not mentioned that the former is not known? In general, because passive voice sentences necessarily add words and change the normal doer-action-receiver of action direction, they may make the reader work harder to understand the intended meaning.English passive voice#Advice against the passive voice in this case thats only 2 negligible words in a supershort sentence, so not relevant. But when you say "offshoots formed", all knowledge is upfront, and implicit, its simple, direct and vigorous. WP articles are difficult enough on so many levels, so I strive for active voice flowing more smoothly and easier to understand. "ACTIVE / PASSIVE VOICE". Towson.edu. wikipedians reviewing for GAstatus have stated passive is a "sign of weak writing". --Wuerzele (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Indeed. Perhaps the inspiration to use that word came from the film Stalingrad where the initial pep-talk from the Nazi chaplain mentions the 'Abendländischen Christlichen Werte'. Lklundin (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The matter has of course already been discussed, but the current footnote is downright bizarre. It reads The majority of reliable English language sources use the term "West". This implies - accurately in my view - that the author of that part of the article is deliberately rejecting 'reliable English language sources' in favour of a less reliable one or his/her purely personal hunches. I would be very surprised if the Occident was widely understood by native speakers of English. Though technically an antonym of the Orient, it is much less widely used. (My native language is English). Norvo (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've brought this up before (as can be seen on the talk page) using the same reasoning as you. If "Ocident" is a more literal translation of that German word, that basically means we should translate "Deutschland" as "Germanland". It goes against Wikipedia policy to not use the most common translation. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Norvo and Iconofiler I like this discussion. Looks like together with The Almightey Drill there's a clear majority of native English speakers here, who want to see the word West. And someone already took the matter into their own hand and removed the explanatory footnote, which you suggested and , Almightey Drill had not objected to, when I announced it, the compromise by the only Native German editors (me and Komischn. I am sorry that you did nt understand Komischn's concern;your comparison of translating "Deutschland" as "Germanland" is totally off, and sounds, as if you think we are some philologicaal nutheads.

Using the more media-ready and crowdpleasing imprecise term West is fine with me, but doesnt make the Abendland in PEGIDA go away. I can live with the translation West. However, I will insert a footnote about the original meaning of the term Abendland as occidental, for those who wonder where the A in Pegida comes from besides being a handy vowel for the abbreviation instead of an unhandy PEGIDW.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"If "Ocident" is a more literal translation of that German word, that basically means we should translate "Deutschland" as "Germanland"." That doesn't make sense, The Almightey Drill. We're not talking about inserting "evening-land" here as a literal translation of "Abendland". Translating "Abendland" as "Occident" however is as exact as translating "Deutschland" as "Germany". --Komischn (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Increased usage of a wrong term doens't make it right. The offizial Translation of Abendland is Occident, so let it be written that way. In Analogie : If the majority of german media translates the word silicon to Silikon(silicone!) instead of Silizium, it doesn't make it right, and the german Wikipia doesn't take it up, because it is still wrong.

Furthermore, there are semantic problems : West as a political term is associated with liberalism,americanisation and anti-communism. Occident on the other side is associated with Cristianity ,crusaders and anti-islamism. PEGIDA demonstrants are not mandatory liberal, pro-american and anti-communist, but they are cristians, and anti-islamist. PEGIDA activist are mostly inconsistant in almost every other topic than islam, so they aren't generally pro-west. If you consider the election-results of the liberal party, it's save to assume, liberalism is the most unpopular idiology in Germany. PEGIDA has the following ideologies :

• Conservatives - they are usually somewhat pro-West, but not as dogmatic that the liberals (note that nominal conservative CDU is in fact liberal, in the same vein, that Margarete Thather's, Ronald Reagan and Auguste Pinochet are liberal, depite of descenting from conservative parties)
• Nationalsozialists - while far right, they are not pro-American, and hate the USA almost as much as the Socialists.
• Political Correctnes Crusaders : They value Gender equality above racial equality, and enforce women-rights by cultural imperialism. While they reseble the USA (especially the democrats), they still hate it, for their numerous war crimes and religious fundamentalism (creationism,hell-houses,...).
• Renegate Socialists : They are generally aginst liberalism, but consider the islam as bad as christianity. They are more anti-establishement and anti-theist than anti-islam. The Islam just happens to be currently more unpleasent than cristianity.

Another aspects is, that Dresden is in East-Germany, and the Word West has different (especially negative) connotaions there. PEGIDA wouldn't be as large, if it were using West instead of occident. -- 79.200.68.141 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Almightey Drill. FYI: The Economist is using Europeans against the Islamization of the Occident. Maybe you need to qualify your statement that English-language reliable media unequivocally translate PEGIDA as "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West". Not Occident.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

West vs. Occident in the Offshoot section

Did somebody check the translation of PEGADA? In the offshoot section, I see that PEGADA has been translated as “Patriotic Europeans Against the Americanization of the Occident“. I understand that West is the word of choice, whereas Occident is said to sound odd in the ears of English native speakers. Apart from that, “Occident” is inconsistent to the translation of PEGIDA using the word “West”.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Now a political party?

Should Pegida be categorised as a political party instead of/in addition to an activist group, as it runs in local elections? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Most POV article on the english wikipedia i ever reed

From the beginning to the end this article is full of mistakes and massivly POV. Normally i read the english wikipedia instead of the german because the german Wikipedia is completly controlled by left wing extremists. With a smart overemphasis of some facts, ignoring other facts and at some points just openly lying they turn every article to fit their political agenda. So the german wikipedia is unreadable and the most article in the english Wikipedia are way more neutral. But in this article here it seems like exactly the same happend. I will not even start to describe where it is POV and where it is wrong because its over 50% of the article. The best would really be to trash the whole thing and let it write again by someone who has no political agenda and just stick to the facts. --109.84.3.27 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is bad you should visit the Gamergate Controversy page, it's much worse.Skeletos (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What a crappy article! Translation of the Pegida position is partially incorrect. http://www.svz.de/mv-uebersicht/mv-politik/das-19-punkte-positionspapier-id8665346.html

The Bachmann Hilter-beard is fake. http://cdn.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2015/03/kein-Hitlerbaertchen.jpg Fakeapedia 92.192.57.224 (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

9000 people on the street today. http://www.gmx.net/magazine/politik/pegida-bringt-dresden-tausende-strasse-30991046 92.192.118.40 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for deletion

Since the article is very poor quality and nobody seems to care I suggest the article to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.25.36 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

contra: An average 700 page views a day i would not "nobody seems to care" apply to. The quality problem should be addressed, though. ATB Wikirictor (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Nobody seems to care" was directed to the quality of the article. When an article contains mistakes and many people read it, falsehoods are transported into the world. This to reduce wikipedia to absurdity. Also you don't seem to care either since the article is as crappy as always. If literally nobody cares to put facts into the article it might as well be deleted. 92.192.10.28 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Do whatever you wishWikirictor (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note 1

Note 1 is blatant OR and should be changed, along with the lede of course.-62.155.196.213 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Claims of wanting to reform immigration to model Australian / Canadian Systems

The position papers state that Pegida wants to emulate immigration systems in other countries such as Canada, Australia, and South Africa. However this suggestions contradicts other suggestions in the Political Manifesto such as point 2 "Advocates the inclusion of the right and duty to integration into the German constitution." In the case of Canada advocating a duty to integrate is exactly the opposite of the Federal Policy as outlined in the Canadian_Multiculturalism_Act. Due to the clearly contradictory statements I suggest we remove the following sentence.

"As stated in its Positions Paper, it seeks to alter German immigration legislation so that it becomes similar to Australian immigration programs and Canadian immigration categories (see Position 11)."

KellenSun (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias of the undated anonymous Pegida manifesto

Can we really use the manifesto released by Pegida as a source for this article. It seems heavily biased. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia but this entire article seems to be weak on neutral sources, and seems to be written with a pro-Pegida bias.

KellenSun (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased, uninformative article?

I came here because PEGIDA comes fairly often in the news, and is only described as either "far right" or "extreme right", and I wanted to know more. What this article tells me is.. well, mostly "It's bad and unpopular and nobody likes them and it's bad". It smells biased to me, and rather uninformative (though it could be that there's not really a lot to say about the group/movement/organisation/whatever). 46.239.250.137 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Use Table of Protester Numbers from German Wikipedia?

While attempting to update the page's table, I discovered that not many English sources discuss the PEGIDA movement beyond large scale demonstrations. Additionally, the Saxon police have not been adding estimated numbers to police reports since June. In pursuit of current material, I found that the German Wikipedia article has a fantastic table detailing all protests from October 2014 to January 2016. However, I am unable to edit the German Wikipedia and cannot copy the table to the English Wikipedia. Could anyone assist in updating the table? CopperPhoenix (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Position paper and points necessary for article?

Hello all--I'm really having trouble figuring out why there is so much content on this page that is this group's policy positions, if that is the right word, copied verbatim from various sources. Should the *two* sections dedicated to them not be replaced by a simple summary? It's hard to find any other political party/pressure group/campaign with *that* much content of that nature. Barring blowback on this page, I'm of a mind to do the summary myself shortly. HOT WUK (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC) HOT WUK (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, the demands list is also atrociously formatted. --HawkS DisQ 11:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)