Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

FAZ (closed)

Please, never quote the FAZ, because the FAZ is neither a reliable nor a neutral source. It's a german centre-right capitalist pro-american and pro-EU newspaper. What they write, is often rubbish. So please don't quote them. They aren't neutral at all; for neutral and reliable sources I recommend you e.g. Radio Sputnik Deutschland or the NFZ. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong contradiction. Everybody in Germany knows FAZ as one of the most reliable quality media. It is generally seen as center to conservative in its comments. Of course, it is a quotable source and has been cited many hundred times! Nillurcheier (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The article itself states one of the founders of AfD (Konrad Adam) is a former FAZ editor. Of course this probably means this publication is somewhat close to the party, and may cover aspects of the party not covered in other publications. Personally I'd advise caution, rather than an outright prohibition on this source. Looking through the ref list it seems there are only 6 or so uses of the FAZ out of 100+ citations, it seems any potential bias from this source is likely minimal.Lacunae (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAZ is neither reliable nor neutral. Don't cite the FAZ please! Everybody or almost everybody in Germany knows, that the FAZ is pro-western and not neutral at all. I recommend you Radio Sputnik. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

FAZ is one of the most important papers in Germany. I´d say one of the top five in importance and it is known for it´s conservative bias. So it has a bias as every other newspaper has. In Germany it is necessary to cite FAZ because of its bias, to resemble the conservative point of view amongst many. So if you want to present different opinions you need it for balance. It does not matter at all, what you think about FAZ and I wonder if radio sputnik has something relevant to say about German politics. Maybe we should tune in Kiwi FM to listen to the experts talking.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Da du offensichtlich keine Ahnung hast, sei still! Du bist auf eine Diskussion unvorbereitet, davon abgesehen kann man die FAZ aber als Quelle belassen, wenn es hier wirklich um Ansichten unterschiedlicher Quellen geht. Aber ich wiederhole gerne, dass die FAZ nicht neutral, sondern pro-westlich ist, also sie bitte nicht als "neutral" bezeichnen. Und sie ist nicht konservativ, sondern eben liberal, weshalb sie die AfD auch immer wieder kritisiert, die konservativ ist. Du erkundige dich mal über Radio Sputnik Deutschland und was das überhaupt ist, anstatt so dumme Vergleiche zu machen! Man sollte für die politische Orientierung auch andere und v.a. neutrale Quellen verwenden. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In English please.Lacunae (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Giftzwerg seems to be a German. I spoke only to the Giftzwerg, I spoke only with him, so doesn't matter. But that paragraph can be closed. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me. You just don´t like AfD to be criticised. I get that.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to criticize them. They have wise aims. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

the point of Wikipedia is to write neutral encyclopaedic articles using reliable sources, not to indulge in partisan web activism in support of an organisation.--Autospark (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAZ is neither neutral nor reliable. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The same applies of course to Süddeutsche, Neue Züricher, Welt, Washington Post, The Guardian, Prawda, New York Times ... The only neutral sources are of course the ones that passed your censorship. For sure Wikipedia needs your POV to know what to do. We are soooo glad you opened our eyes and we bow our knees and our heads to your infinite wisdom and we thank you the great ruler for making the new rules for all of us, because we are lost in the darkness of ignorance, so we can see the bright light of your judgement and be saved from hell. Wikipedia is dead, long live the Wikipedionator who knows it all!--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Prawda is a neutral one. The most of what you say would be true, if you weren't just joking. But this is the wrong place for joking, so please let it. You seem to be a pro-american puppet, who doesn't have any own will or opinion, like most of the politicians of the EU and Germany. That section is closed. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course Prawda is neutral. Journalists that aren´t neutral enough tend to get neutralised by some bullets in the back. Great fun, can you hear me loughing?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox ideology and position

I reverted to last discussed consensus. It would be appreciated if you could state why these deliberately broad classifications need changing. I personally find it difficult labelling the party as right-wing populists as a whole, though do appreciate there is a wing of the party who could be classified as such. Similarly I also have issues with the label national conservatism, however the party is subject to a degree of internal dispute which makes classification hard, especially when combined with the variety of reactions the party garners across the political spectrum.Lacunae (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I´ve removed any positions as long as there is no consensus. We´ve had so many fights about this topic and it´s not Wikipedias duty to determine what positions this party has. There are some fights within the wings of the party and every outside determination is not accepted by the party menbers or at least of some of them who don´t agree. So the position is undeterminable because there is no position.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how a political party self-describes itself, what matters is verifiable third-party references, preferably academic/scholarly sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a partisan blog.--Autospark (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is our duty to inform the reader of what is known on the basis of reliable sources, so it does not seem appropriate to give no indication of the ideological position, just because editors cannot agree on everything -- or because people in the party cannot agree on everything. If necessary, we will need to attract additional views.

Let us see if there is a minimum that can be agreed on?

• Do we agree that the party is Eurosceptic and that the word "Euroscepticism" can be used to describe this element of the common ideology?
• Do we agree that "right wing", possibly qualified in some way,is appropriate?
• Do we agree that there are various movements within the party, and that we should not describe the party on the basis of any single tendency?
• Do we agree that we should not be influenced by individual editors' personal views of the party?

Can we name individual elements of the party's ideology about which there is no consensus?

--Boson (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of the points in this blog http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/afd-right-wing-populist-eurosceptic-germany (referencing the author's paywalled academic paper) based on an analysis of the 2014 EU Election manifesto, Speeches and papers on the AfD website and Facebook may be appropriate, I'll highlight some of the more relevant sections:

"Both the CSU and the AfD appear to the right of the FDP, slightly closer to the NPD than to the CDU. The confidence intervals for their positions overlap, which implies that they are statistically indistinguishable. Lucke has repeatedly claimed that his party is neither left nor right and even stated that the AfD represents a new breed of party (“Partei neuen Typs”) at their founding conference – a very awkward pun on the Stalinisation of East Germany’s Socialist Unity party in the 1940s. But their manifesto places them firmly at the far right of the political spectrum. ... While the content of their 2014 manifesto may already reflect concerns about the emerging competition from the AfD, the document is nonetheless in line with the CSU’s traditional position at the very margin of the established party system."

"Judging by its manifesto, the AfD is therefore not a Radical Right, let alone an Extreme Right party."

"Is the AfD populist? If one defines populism as a “thin ideology”, then there is very little in the manifesto that would support such a claim. ...But even if one opts for a broader, softer definition that primarily treats populism as a style of political communication “that refers to the people” there is nothing in the manifesto that would appear as particularly populist in that sense. ...The AfD’s manifesto does not even conform with every day notions of populism that simply appeal to emotions, oversimplification, and a degree of opportunism"

"That leaves the issue of euroscepticism. The AfD is clearly not a “hard” eurosceptic party. ...Taken together, “soft euroscepticism” best *describes the political positions articulated in the manifesto.

The blog, and I presume paywalled paper then move onto the party web presence. Firstly analysing speeches by party members on their website and concludes "None of these speeches could be considered populist or radical." Then looks at other content hosted on the AfD site, concluding "Taken together, the website leaves no doubt that the AfD is a right-wing party." and "But all in all, there is still little evidence of populism or right-wing radicalism." And finally the content of their Facebook fanpage of which was concluded " it is slightly easier to find populist rhetoric on the Facebook page than on the main website. ... But even the most overtly populist post, the party anthem “We don’t give up” is relatively tame." The only thing I'd personally be cautious of here is to perhaps be careful if using the first quote which says "far right of the political spectrum" to describe the party as far-right, as the terminology could be construed to mean farthest right of the accepted or mainstream political spectrum in German politics.Lacunae (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Based mainly on the above analysis, I would make the following tentative suggestions regarding the direction of the discussion:

• Euroscepticism, without qualification, might be seen as an over-simplification, and there might be more consensus for anti-euro, or soft euroscepticism, or some other wording that emphasizes opposition to only certain aspects of EU membership, especially the the single currency.
• Right-wing seems potentially acceptable, but it is unlikely that there will be consensus for qualifications in the direction of "extreme" or "radical"; on the other hand, it seems unlikely that there will be consensus for qualification in the direction of "centre-right".
• Populism does not seeem a good candidate for broad consensus.

--Boson (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That is WP:synthesis. We have Euroscepticism cited by several sources already. It doesn't matter if the AfD claims itself not to be Eurosceptic (although it clearly is), or what your personal opinion is, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a partisan blog. We're not here to write material in support of specific political party, we're meant to stay neutral with the use of third-party sources.--Autospark (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my personal opinion, except my opinion as to how best to formulate for an encyclopaedia what the sources, as a whole, tell us. It is not synthesis. The weight to be given to individual sources and the exact wording are both matters of of editorial judgement and consensus (depending on the number and on the reliability of sources, which is open to interpretation, requiring consensus). The party itself is, within limits, one valid source for the party's opinions, particularly when commented on by secondary sources. In particular statements in the manifesto may be seen as performative: they represent the party's official ideology by definition -- more so than campaign statements by political adversaries, for instance. We have what appears to be a reliable source that uses the term "soft eurosceptism", and states

The AfD is clearly not a “hard” eurosceptic party. They are opposed to the currency union in its present form, to current and future bailouts, and more generally to a federal European state. But at the same time, they are committed to the European Union as such and have dropped their erstwhile demand for a return to the Deutschmark from their manifesto. While they want to strengthen the principle of subsidiarity (which was established in the Treaty of Maastricht at the behest of the German Länder), they don’t intend to reduce the EU to a trade bloc. Although they are highly suspicious of secretive intergovernmental co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs, they support the pursuit of a Common Foreign and Security Policy based on lowest common denominator solutions.

Summarizing and reformulating statements by different sources does not constitute synthesis, and if we think that the various views are best summarized using different words (possibly avoiding terms like "soft euroscepticism") , that is entirely within our remit.

I am still not clear, from your above statement, which suggested formulations you support or oppose. Please make specific constructive suggestions for the content that you think are able to achieve consensus, so that we can move forward without edit warring. If we cannot reach agreement here, we should at least attempt to formulate the various alternatives before initiating an RfC or pursuing other methods of dispute resolution. --Boson (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

We should also consider what to treat as a reliable source for what purpose. I would suggest giving more weight to academic sources that discuss the AfD in detail and less to sources that mention the party in passing (like "... the Eurosceptic Afd and the comedic protest movement Die PARTEI ..."). By the way, I don't think it is customary, or appropriate, to include text like "Assistant Professor of Political Science" in the author field of the cite template. --Boson (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Today the party has several wings, one is "wirtschaftsliberal" the other "rechtskonservativ", thats how the party is adressed by most newaspapers and journalistic sources, wheter the members of AfD like it or not. Euro-skepticism is still part of the programme but there has been no discussion about this topic at all recently.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not "far right"?

The University of Jena published a study few days ago in which the AfD is called "far right"/"right-wing-extremistic"(in german: rechtsextrem). So wouldn`t it make sense to add "right-wing-extremism" in ideology and "far-right" in political position? I mean, comparable european parties(FPÖ, Dansk Folkeparti) are also categorized as far-right parties. Here is a source: http://www.tlz.de/startseite/detail/-/specific/Bjoern-Hoecke-ist-sauer-Studie-der-Uni-Jena-nennt-AfD-rechtsextrem-1227317138--Zxy5000 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the study itself: http://denkbunt-thueringen.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Gef%C3%A4hrdungsanalyse.pdf--Zxy5000 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A single study by a certain Matthias Quent does not suffice to make such changes. --Dorpater (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The party is mainly opposed to common currency policy, and was founded and led by economists and businessmen. It is not a far right wing party. Opposing mass migration and supporting ties with Russia does not make the party far right.Royalcourtier (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Far-right extremists are rassists or people wich call for violence. This term does not fit for the AFD in any way. Also copying the "right wing populist" in the proloque from the german article is highly questionable. The term populist is not a description its a judging. Beware of copying anything from the german Wikipedia when it comes to politics. The demcratic process in the german Wikipedia completly failed and nearby every political article is pure propaganda. Writing at the first place at "ideology" right-wing populism proofed by the source of an article from a french magazin wich calls the AFD once in the article "populist party" ... I do not even have to look it up to know that this edit was made by a german IP. This changes (right-wing populist) where made at the 03/13 after the first results for the election came out where the AFD got way more votes then everybody expected. It was written there to make sure that the press from other countries will report about the AFD as a right-wing populist party. Thats how our propagandists roll. Do not be part of the propaganda. If a german IP edits an article about a german political topic. Double check it! --2003:76:4E4C:7A4C:FD22:71D3:8C12:2B7F (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that said economists have since left the party see Alliance for Progress and Renewal. Also, a party led by someone who called for migrants crossing the border to be shot can reasonably be described as far-right. YoungIreland (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody from the AFD ever called for migrants to be shot. Frauke Petry said in an interview that germany should avoid a situation at the border where police men have to shoot at migrants. Thats the opposit of what you just said. --2003:66:897A:D125:3C9A:53DF:B637:60C3 (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Should the title be translated?

Perhaps it's my personal filter bubble, but I've only ever seen AfD called "AfD" or "Alternative für Deutschland" in English-language usage (and yes, I do see the "Alternative for Germany" usages in the references). And the German name is in fact their actual name. Is the English translation of the name in any way official? If not, possibly we should move it to the party's official registered name - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

All articles about German political parties use the translated name as title. Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Free Democratic Party (Germany) and so on. Btw. The title for the CDU article is malformed. The redirect Christian Democratic Union (Germany) should be the article name. --2003:76:4E24:CF97:F4A1:CDED:F93E:CA55 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Conscription and Old Gender Roles

I've added two sections: Domestic Policies and Foreign and Security Policy. Could you please correct them? --Momo Monitor (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest adopting lead format similar to the lead of parallel article in German

The lead of the article in German wikipedia (via Google translate) reads:

The Alternative for Germany (abbreviated AFD ) is a political party in Germany . It was in response to the euro bailout policies on 6 February 2013 Berlin established. She won in the 2014 European elections for the first time on regional mandates and pulled 2014 in the state parliaments of Saxony , Brandenburg , Thuringia , 2015 those of Hamburg and Bremen , and in 2016 those of Saxony-Anhalt , Baden-Württemberg and Rheinland-Pfalz in.

Party spokesman, by July 2015, the Federal Board members Bernd Lucke , Frauke Petry and Konrad Adam . After months of intra-party power struggle Frauke Petry and were Jörg Meuthen chosen as an equal party chairman. Thereupon, founded previously initiated by Lucke split Wakeup 2015 from and there was the party Alliance for progress and renewal .

MEPs AfD are a member of the nationalist conservative to right-wing populist faction since 2014 European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). In 2016 was the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria agreed (FPÖ) cooperation ( "Blue Star").

Political scientist locate the AFD since 2014 the political spectrum to the right of the Union parties and designate them as predominantly right populist influences or rather populist. The change of leadership of the party in July 2015 then served as a shift to the right and win the national conservative on the liberal economic classified Party wing. Some scientists recognize since in parts or certain persons AfD also quite extreme , respectively nationalist tendencies.

---

I think that something like this would present a fitting and more full introduction to the article in English. The Article in German has had a lead in a similar state for a while but, even so, there German article's discussion page has still hosted a recent discussion raising concern over the early use of ajectives that may be regarded as prejudging such as "right".

See: de:Alternative_für_Deutschland#Adjektivitis

GregKaye 15:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to copy and paste an auto-translated article to en.wiki. Some of the information may be useful to add in the intro passage, but some of it is also unneeded there and will clutter up the intro. Also, we aren't here to be public relations for political parties, but to clearly state their ideologies based upon third-party sourcing for the information of the readership. "Right wing" is a perfectly valid description of a political party in political science terms.--Autospark (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Also the german article is one of the most controversial article on the german Wikipedia. There is no other article on the german WP with more propaganda in it then the article about the AFD. The whole article is written by a group of extreme left wing authors supported by left wing administrators about a right wing party. That should give you an idea about how trustful the information in this article is. Its like you would allow only Bernie supporters to write the article about Donald Trump. --2003:76:4E16:E41E:AD2B:ED91:35CC:8EC3 (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Autospark "Right-wing" is also used as a pejorative term. It is also far from representative of a the political stance of a group that draws support from people from a wide cross section of people on the left–right political spectrum. An argument presented by supporters relates to a perceived Islamic supremacist, fascism of a kind perceived in countries such as Saudi Arabia.

2003:76:4E16:E41E:AD2B:ED91:35CC:8EC3 An article beginning by slapping on a "right-wing" label prior to the presentation of the actual content of what the party stands for is also is, if anything, a more blatant presentation of propaganda. Surely the bare facts about the party should be presented with categorizations then being presented appropriately.

The main defining characteristics of the AfD is that it is Eurosceptic, that it argues that Germany would be better standing separate in a Europe of interconnected but non ~homogeneous countries.

Related arguments are covered well in the German language page for AfD.

GregKaye 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing is not a pejorative term. It is a perfectly reasonably and descriptive term within political science. Many legitimate political terms can be and are used pejoratively in colloquial discourse - conservative, liberal, socialist, leftist, nationalist, etc. However, that does not mean that they are invalid terms, or that there are political parties for whom those terms are objective and valid descriptors. (As the for the AfD, it may have started as an Anglo-Saxon-style conservative Eurosceptic party, but now it has arguably much more in common with parties like the Austrian FPÖ and French FN.)--Autospark (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing is not a pejorative term in the USA. In Germany it is nowadays. Left-wing protest changed during the last 15 years from the slogan "Against national socialism" to "Against right-wing". The meaning of right-wing changed from conservative to everything right of conservative to national socialism. The term right-wing is nowadays without any question pejorative. That is the reason why the term "rechts" (right-wing) is written by the left wing SJWs over 100 times into the germany AFD Wikipedia article, while you find it like one or two times in the article of the Chistian Democratic Union, wich is per definition conservative. "rechts" (right-wing) does not mean any more conservative in Germany, it has been converted to a 100% pejorative term. --2003:66:897A:D125:7837:6B33:DA88:56F1 (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That is your own opinion not fact, and any actions or discussions on de.wiki are irrelevant here. Also note that you use an actual pejorative term that is known as originating on far-right English language message boards.--Autospark (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that in Germany the word "rechts", "right-wing" has deteriorated into a pejorative due to the efforts of the far left and other politically correct figures. That's why, perhaps surprisingly, the Christian democratic youth organization Junge Union now cooperate with the commies' linksjugend 'solid against the terrible threat posed by the AfD. Nevertheless, the term "right-wing" remains OK in the English speaking context as more US Americans identify as "right-wing" than as "left-wing". Dorpater (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links

Jytdog, please review WP:EL. A link to the website of a German newspaper or any other external site belongs in the "external links" section, or within an inline citation. It should not simply be placed within the article text, alongside internal links. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It was meant to be a ref. I made it a ref. not hard and as much time as striking it. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If you had reviewed my edit carefully, you might have noticed that it also turned the URL into a ref. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes by Wertzt(and other person)

As the changes by Wertzt and another person have not been discussed here, I will revert them. --Zxy5000 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

And again the same user has vandalized the article. --Zxy5000 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Does wikipedia offer a method by which the infobox could be protected? I find the constant edit wars over the infobox information without editors seeking to address the wider article distracting.Lacunae (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

anti-islam in infobox

The consensus is that "Anti-Islam" should not be listed in the infobox in the Political positions field. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

c'mon this is part of their platform now, which is what a lot of the media coverage is focusing on. There is tons of support in the body. What is the reason for removing this? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

First of all, it is not a proper ideology. Second, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, that is, it's too new for the infobox. Third, "far-right" is just as unsuitable for the infobox as "center-right" simply because there is no consensus for that and what you've been doing is a clear case of cherry-picking sources. We don't add anything mentioned passing by in a source or two. If you wanna call AfD "far-right" you'd need to label Trump as "far-right" as well because his immigration policies are even more restrictive than those of the AfD.--Dorpater (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "proper ideology". Wikipedia is definitely not news, but Wikipedia definitely adapts to changing situations. I am talking about the anti-islam thing only; center/far right is somebody else's issue. Look this content from the article completely supports this:

At the party congress held on 30 April to 1 May 2016, the AfD adopted a policy platform based upon opposition to Islam, calling for the ban of Islamic symbols including burkhas, minarets and the call to prayer, using the slogan "Islam is not a part of Germany". (emphasis added)

References

--Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about including Anti-Islam in the Infobox. It's not really a political ideology (in terms of political parties), and I think that en.wiki should use as broad (and as few) terms of possible in the Infoboxes. Right-wing populism, which includes suspicion of immigrants and ethnic minorities, is a good, descriptive catch-all term, and one with academic referencing. I would however move the references from the Infobox related to Anti-Islam into the body of the article, and explain the party's move to an anti-Islam and anti-immigration direction.--Autospark (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The field is called political positions which is not the same as "ideology". The "ideology" objection is a red herring. It is obviously a "political position" that they take, as referenced above. I am restoring it. Without the RT source. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I object to infobox only editing, and prefer such ideological descriptions to be addressed in the article body as fully as possible, then reaching a consensus view. I think given the transitional nature of the party, it would be preferable to use academic sources rather than media ones to make such a statement, as they'd give a more stable viewpoint on the subject.Lacunae (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am big believer in raising source quality. Using top-drawer mainstream media sources like the the BBC, NYT, Telegraph, etc for political positions taken by political parties is completely fine and is the best kind of sources for this kind of thing. Totally agree with not using blogs or tabloids. Jytdog (talk)

I still don't think that Anti-Islam should be in the Infobox, FWIW. It's not a political ideology in the way right-wing populism or national conservatism are, more a policy base, and there are issues of WP:RECENTISM and lack of academic sources. I would write the information into the article body while leaving it out of the Infobox entirely - it's pretty clear to the reader already that the AfD is (or more accurately, has become) a right-wing anti-immigration party.--Autospark (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please speak directly to the fact that they made this part of their part of their platform. Speak to the heart of the matter. Thanks. We can seek dispute resolution but I am unwilling to even begin that until folks here have directly addressed the heart of the matter instead of speaking around it. So I await your reply. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The AfD have made opposition to Islam part of their political and electoral platform, yes - objective fact. But that doesn't mean that 'anti-Islam' is a political ideology, or that it should be placed in the Infobox. The Infobox should be for broad political ideologies for readability sake, not list that party's policies.--Autospark (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Look at the template Template:Infobox_political_party. There are separate fields for ideology and political positions. This is the political positions field. This is very obviously one of their key political positions; they give a separate section in their manifesto. You are not making any arguments based on policies and guidelines. If you cannot, you need to drop your opposition to this; we don't edit by personal preferences. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The political positions field in the Infobox is for placing parties in the left-right political spectrum, not for mentioning individual policy points and manifestos.--Autospark (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What is your basis for claiming that? At the infobox template, "political position" is wikilinked to Political spectrum, which is defined as "is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that symbolize independent political dimensions.". I grant you that left/right is one such axis. In Germany today, it is very clear that there are at least two additional ones where "anti-islam" falls, namely the ones created by the refugee crisis and the the older "nativist vs Turkish immigrant" one. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone else removed the thing we are disputing from the infobox, and so you have stopped talking. So it is RfC time. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Anti-Islam in the infobox in Political positions field

Please see discussion above. At Template:Infobox political party:

• the "Political position" field, is wikilinked to Political spectrum, which defines itself, as "A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that symbolize independent political dimensions."
• the "ideology" field is wikilinked to List of political ideologies, which you can read.

Should "Anti-Islam" be listed in the infobox in the Political positions field? Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
In response to the 5th !vote below here by User:Lacunae the Wikilink has been removed from this proposal. Good point! Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

!votes

• No it's how the press may like to caricature them, but their stance is more anti-mass immigration. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes There is a spectrum of positions on Islam in Germany, and another spectrum (mostly overlapping) on immigration. The party gave an entire section of their platform to their stance on Islam. "The chapter of the AfD manifesto concerning Muslims is entitled "Islam is not a part of Germany". The manifesto demands a ban to minarets - the towers of a mosque from where the call to Muslim prayer is made - and the burqa, the all-encompassing body garment worn by some conservative Muslim women." (source) Jytdog (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, absolutely not. The Political position field in the Infobox is purely for the left-right political spectrum. In the case of the Alternative for Germany article, Anti-Islam is not a broad political ideology, it is a policy platform, and there are broad political ideologies already listed in the Infobox and article text which are more appropriate.--Autospark (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• No Political position is for left/right alignment. It might be appropriate for the ideology section though. Number 57 12:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not yet Looking at the page Anti-Islam, it is a disambiguation page not an article, so this page would be stating the party is something Wikipedia doesn't even define yet. So would we be saying it is Islam-critical or Islamophobic? I don't think the evidence is strong enough to make such a decision yet. Of course, not having an Anti-Islam article on Wikipedia shouldn't preclude using this label if applicable and/or appropriate, but as I said before, such a label would be better coming from the body of academic, peer reviewed sources than the media, which given the party transition may not be available yet.Lacunae (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not yetI think that putting Right-wing populism would be enough to describe their anit-Islam/ism side.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not, definitely, per Autospark and Number57. And I also think that it's not an ideology either. --Checco (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• No I don't agree that Political position is solely for left/right alignment, however it is for clearly defined/definable political positions that are relatively indisputable. Not only is it not clear that 'anti-Islam' IS a position or ideology, it is unclear WHAT it is. The lead and body should of course describe what their policies are relative to Islam, we can all make up our own minds about how 'Islamophobic'/'anti-Islamic' those policies are. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• No It should be kept exactly how it is curently in the infobox, i think it is fair description now.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• No "anti-Islam" makes no sense vis-a-vis a political spectrum. It might be appropriate under ideology, depending on what reliable sources say on the topic: I don't have sufficient knowledge of German sources to evaluate this. Also, given that the "political spectrum" article itself acknowledges the shortcomings of a one-dimensional classification, it seems a little silly to get hung up on that classification. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Autospark I will ask you again as I did in the discussion above, what is the basis for this claim you are making that the only relevant spectrum is left-right? You cannot just make things up in Wikipedia. What is your basis for this limitation in policy or guideline or consensus somewhere? Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Precedent set by literally every article about political parties with an Infobox on en.wiki? Isn't that enough?--Autospark (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. That is kind of hand-wavy. Even if true, that would be somewhat useful but shouldn't be limiting necessarily. I am reviewing uses of the template and will report back what I find - actual evidence. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked through the first 150 articles listed at What links here at the template and here is what I found

• Every article I looked at does list only the locations on the left/right spectrum in this field. There were other kinds of things in the "ideology" field.
• Hezbollah lists things like Anti-Zionism, Anti-West, Anti-Semitism, Anti-"Western imperialism under Ideology
• German Workers' Party has Anti-capitalism, Anti-communism, Anti-marxism, Anti-Semitism under Ideology
• National Front (France) lists Anti-immigration, Anti-globalism, Euroscepticism under Ideology

So I do see how this proposal is outside the normal use of the field. If the consensus here establishes that this field is indeed meant to be limited to the left/right spectrum, then so be it - that limitation should then be added to the instructions at the template. Let's see how this goes. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that putting Right-wing populism would be enough to describe their anit-Islam/ism side.--PaulPGwiki

Just to point out that Islamism exists as a term to describe recent, politicised, fundamentalist Islam (which 9/10ths of humanity is probably opposed to), so there are inherent ambiguities in 'anti-Islamism'. I agree that 'Right-wing populism', or similar, is probably adequate. Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think what's currently is now in the infobox is a fair and accurate description of their ideology.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frauke Petry

Users active here should also keep an eye on the article about Frauke Petry. There are attempts to push it in a non-neutral direction, divergent from this article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

updates needed

AfD have gained entrence in two state election Meclenburg-Vorpommeren and Berlin, yet the page is still not showing their newly won seats and the aditional state in which they are representated. It needs to be updated asap. Rphb (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What should "Anti-Islam" in the "Ideology" section link to?

Hello, I have temporarily removed the link to the 'Anti-Islam' disambiguation page because I feel like linking to a disambiguated article page is pointless and vague. However, moving forward, should we leave the phrase without a link like it is now? Or should we link it to one of the individual article pages that were on the disambiguation page? If so, it would appear that Alternative for Germany's platform and policies coincides closest to 'Islamophobia,' which is defined as "prejudice against, hatred, or bigotry towards the religion of Islam and Muslims" but that particular phrase is rather controversial in and of itself and I don't want to make that change without some level of consensus from other Wikipedians first. Kamalthebest (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

'Islamophobia' could be defined as fear of the prejudice, hatred and bigotry exhibited by Islam and Muslims toward non-muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.19 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not usually how that term is used. I believe you are referring to 'Criticism of Islamism,' which is different. It appears someone has disambiguated anyway using the terms I suggested, so I guess it was appropriate anyway. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it is one thing to criticize Islamism and quite another to advocate for saying nasty things about, and advocating taking nasty action, with respect to people from countries that are predominantly muslim or who are muslim. No. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point I was making. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Far-right"

I'm not certain that two opinion pieces and a Politico article provides enough support for this designation; has this been discussed before? Hayek79 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: You are invited to respond here. Hayek79 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a disputed label, unlike the below. Mélencron (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: Those are probably better references than the three up there at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox

This list is far too long. I would suggest that we remove "antifeminism" at the very least, since this is probably unnecessary and needs to be properly sourced. Hayek79 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: You are invited to respond here. An opinion piece isn't enough I'm afraid, the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview, it's not meant to be an exhaustive list. Hayek79 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Referencing a 400 word opinion article about the AfD youth organisation in support of designating the AfD ideologically "antifeminist" is obviously not going to pass. I can't be expected to take this seriously. Hayek79 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: @Beyond My Ken: This is ridiculous. Can you all please address my concerns here, rather than revert one another's edits and pile up references in the infobox. @Jytdog: Simply declaring that something is "well referenced" without responding to the objections on the talk page about its inclusion:

i. Does not mean that it is well referenced - as I've noted elsewhere, two of the articles only concern a Facebook campaign organised by the youth wing, another is about the views of a member of a state parliament. This isn't enough to justify describing the party as anti-feminist.

ii. Does not mean that this is something that should necessarily feature in the infox box.

Regarding the new references added, one is the same 400 word article about the youth wing, the The Local article is also about the youth wing, another is specifically about the views of a member of the Baden-Württemberg parliament. This is still not enough to designate the party program as "anti-femininist". I don't have time to go through the final article, but so far none of you have addressed my main concern, which is that the list is far too long, and that inclusions such as "anti-feminist" are probably inaccurate, and either way unnecessary. If you desperately want to include this, mention it in the main body of the article or in the article on the youth wing. If you keep reverting changes without attempting to get a consensus here I'll have to contact an administrator. Hayek79 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This claim is also not mentioned at all in the rest of the article, a further reason for its removal. If you want to claim that the AfD is an anti-feminist party, you'll have to provide a lot more support than what you already have. Hayek79 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is "too long" discussed in any guideline or policy about infobox fields? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is not supposed to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. As I have said, the sources provided are inadequate, and the issue referenced is not discussed in the main body of the article. As for guidelines, there is the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox

I am inviting you to be reasonable here. Hayek79 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Acather96: Invitation to comment. Hayek79 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. If you are going to invite one editor to the discussion, you must invite all editors who have previously taken part in previous discussions, regardless of the position they took. To invite only one editor who you think will take your side is a blatant violation of canvassing. Please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This individual has not edited this page previously; they are an editor, and I invited them to comment because I'm concerned that you're not taking my comments seriously, and that you have no intention of doing so. Hayek79 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually read WP:CANVASS. If you want to bring in an admin, go to their talk page and say something neutral such as "Could you please take a look at X?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And BTW, you wrote "invitation to comment" - that's canvassing, not bringing in an admin, whose opinions about content count no more or no less than any other editor's. If you're bringing in an admin, it's for some kind of behavioral problem, such as, in this case, you WP:I don't like it behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And also BTW, you've had nothing new to say for about a dozen comments now, so I will not be responding again until you've got some kind of policy to cite to support your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And how does "Could you please take a look at X?" differ from "invitation to comment"? This is a behavioural problem, that's why I've brought in an admin, and I'm afraid at the moment you're really not helping your case. Hayek79 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's the difference between asking an administrator to come and look to see if there is any administrative function to be performed, and asking an editor (all admins are also editors) to comment ("invitation to comment", you wrote) on the subject under discussion. The first is legitimate, the second is canvassing, and the difference is how the request is worded. But it seems that you really don't care much about violating WP:CANVASS, since you canvassed another editor in the section below. Have you actually read the policy yet, or are you willfully ignoring it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's absurd. Firstly, even if I had invited them to comment, and not purely for administrative purposes, it wouldn't necessarily be canvassing. Secondly, the second individual I pinged has already commented here, hasn't expressed a view on this issue, and I have had no interaction with them outside of this talk page, which means it couldn't possibly meet any definition of canvassing. I therefore suggest that you're making accusations of policy violations for entirely vexatious reasons. This is also a more comical example of wikilawyering. Hayek79 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You'd be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've demonstrated that your accusations are groundless, so either you were mistaken, or these are vexatious complaints. Hayek79 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As I know Hayek79 offline it would seem inappropriate for me to voice my opinion on what seems to be a content dispute. Unless there are edit wars/policy violations/gross incivility, admin 'intervention' isn't necessary. I'd just suggest that those adding/removing material about AfD's antifeminism are prepared to discuss it on the talkpage. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of anti-feminism in the infobox

User:Mélencron where is your discussion on talk that you mentioned here with respect to your removing sourced content from this article? Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The thread right above yours? Mélencron (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

you need to justify your complete removal of that sourced content. What is your justification? Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. Mélencron (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

for pete's sake. restoring with a small pile of sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I just added one source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @Jytdog: That you can find a few (mostly opinion) articles which describe organisations or people associated with the party as anti-feminist is:

i. Not a reason for its inclusion necessarily (please read my other comments),

ii. And does not mean that designating AfD an "anti-feminist" party is necessarily accurate

I don't believe you're being constructive at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The material is sourced. That you don't like it is immaterial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The material needs to be accurate. Does any article you have provided so far demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party? Hayek79 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Why are you not running to an admin as you promised you would do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just did, and was accused of canvassing. For the reasons I have supplied, I maintain that the sources you have provided do not prove that the AfD is an "anti-feminist" party, or anything of the sort. It should be clear to anyone reading this page that you're being rude and unconstructive, and I will therefore wait until I have comment from elsewhere. Hayek79 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And it should be clear that you want it removed because you just don't like it, despite the fact that it is more than adequately sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And why should that be clear? Why should two articles about a Facebook campaign and an opinion piece prove that the AfD is an anti-feminist party? Please address my comments. Hayek79 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the citations? One is a study of the party's positions on gender issues. It has nothing to do with Facebook. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't be invited to cite a study disproving the thesis that AfD is an anti-feminist party, that's for you to prove. Hayek79 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the other references, since the paper is the only reference that supports the inclusion of this description. Hayek79 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Not without a WP:CONSENSUS to do so you don't - and you don't have one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to defend their inclusion? Hayek79 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD is a populist party and they pull a lot under their tent. We have sources saying that what they do includes opposition to feminism; that is all that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

They are indeed a big tent, but my point is that we don't need to list "anti-feminism" in the infobox, since this is not a defining element of their program (or even officially part of their program). It's also not mentioned in the main body of the article.

"We have sources saying that what they do includes opposition to feminism; that is all that is needed": for the reasons given, I don't believe this is accurate. The sources provided do not support the claim that AfD is an anti-feminist party. What's more, even if you can support the claim, I don't think this amount of detail is necessary in the infobox - as it stands, the infobox is a bit of a mess. Please find the guidelines for infoboxes I've linked elsewhere in this exchange. Hayek79 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We have had so many alt-right trolls coming by the article trying to whitewash it. I am not saying you are one (at all), but I do not give a flying fuck care that you think the infobox is too detailed. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC))

Firstly, please delete that language and refrain from using it again. Second, I won't allow you to address only one of my points and then move on. Hayek79 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we'll assume that User:Beyond My Ken has no intention of responding. I've checked their talk page history and they appear to have a long history of unconstructive editing and edit-warring, so I think we should try to get a consensus without them, and deal with them later if they become a problem. @Mélencron: You seem reasonable, what are your thoughts? Hayek79 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "reasonable" you mean "people who agree with me". BMK has already stated that they do not find what you are writing here to be compelling. Second time you have canvaassed in the very short time you have been here. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hayek79: You cannot ignore an editor's expressed opinion just because you don't like their history, or because they don't feel the need to repeat their opinion ad nauseum every time you once again object on the same grounds. My opinion is here, on this page, and it stands as part of a consensus determination until you hear from me that I've changed my mind, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life responding to you. There's no requirement in policy or Wikiquette that I do so.

Please stop canvassing other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The user pinged has not expressed a view, and has already commented here, which means that my contacting them cannot meet any definition of canvassing, as will be obvious to anyone reading this. The other instance you are referring to was a request for assistance from an administrator in response to obstructive editing and a refusal to discuss the issues raised on the talk page. Please remove your disgusting language from this page (and change your attitude) or I'll request that your account is sanctioned.

@Beyond My Ken: I can note that unless you are prepared to cooperate on the talk page, respond to my comments, and until you drop the surreally aggressive attitude, I can assume we'll move on without you. You have not responded to my comments about the articles you have cited, or responded to the majority of the comments I have made, so you are not being expected to repeat anything. Hayek79 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinged everyone who has commented on the talk page since 14th May 2016. @Tpbradbury:@Kamalthebest:@Rphb:@Gerry1214:@Cunard:@Lacunae:@Vanamonde93:@Zxy5000:@PaulPGwiki:@Pincrete:@Checco:@Number 57:@Autospark:@Mandruss:@Bermicourt:@Redrose64:.

To summarise, this is what I have argued so far:

i. The four sources provided do not provide sufficient support for the claim that AfD is an anti-feminist party. Two are articles about a Facebook campaign organised by the youth organisation, one of which is 400 word opinion piece, and a third is an article about the views of an AfD representative in the Baden state parliament. The fourth is apparently a paper about attitudes towards gender issues in the party, which I will have to look over.

ii. This content is also not mentioned at all in the main body of the article, so I would question why it's present in the infobox.

iii. The infobox is currently a mess. The infobox is supposed to provide a neat summary of what appears in the article, as per Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is not supposed to provide an exhaustive list of every minor ideological commitment within the party. "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

iv. As you can see, the response I have received has been mostly obstructive, and fairly unpleasant. In particular, User:Jytdog appears to have assumed that my motivation for proposing these changes is political; I assure you it is not. This is also not consistent with the following. Hayek79 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your desire to remove well sourced content from the infobox is not being "obstructive." You also should pay attention - you just wrote that the antifeminism bit is not in the body, but I added it well before you wrote your remark above. And I have said nothing about your motivations. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's obstructive because you haven't responded to my comments concerning the content of the sources, and continue to refuse to. They support your recent addition to the article, but that is all. They do not support the claim that AfD is an anti-feminist party. This is at best a fringe concern, and unnecessary description in the context of an info box, as I have said. But I realise you have gone too far now to make a concession. You suggested my motivations when you referred to "alt-right trolls". Hayek79 (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Where I specifically said i was not talking about you, but rather the history of disruption to this article. That is about the third misrepresentation you have made in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, at the risk of receiving a "tsk tsk tsk" from the peanut gallery, I'm going to point out the elephant in the room - what, exactly is your agenda here? I DON'T HAVE ONE other then having a well-sourced article which accurately describes the party in question. Your prosecutorial cross-examinating behavior says to me that your purpose is entirely different. Like Jytdog, I don't know if you're an alt-rightist looking to sanitize an article about a party on your side of the aisle or not, but it sure as hell looks that way from the way you have been ignoring every comment that you disagree with, demanding again and again that your questions be answered -- when they already have been answered, at least to the satisfaction of anyone without a bone to pick -- and being as aggressive as a dog whose got his choppers sunk into one's leg. For these reasons, I'm talking this to AN/I right now. I know that I can't take any more of your repetitive WP:IDHT behavior, maybe someone else can do something to put a halt to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ignore the substantive point, and then accuse me of more policy violations. This is both childish, and a complete waste of my time. FYI, describing my (perfectly reasonable) interpretation of your comment is not "misrepresentation". I can see no other explanation for your behaviour.

I've gone to considerable effort here, and on your talk page, to be reasonable. You're clearly not interested in working with me, instead being needlessly adversarial, so I'll take this to ANI unless some of the individuals pinged comment. Hayek79 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I see it's already gone to ANI, and someone has just lost all their remaining credibility in making the referral. Hayek79 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

AN/I exists to report behavioral problems, and, in my opinion, your behavior has been the causational problem here. Whether I have credibility in your eyes doesn't really concern me in the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've copied this over from the ANI page[1] page, because I think it might help clarify where we actually disagree, and where we have confused one another. Hayek79 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time you have actually attempted to respond systematically to my comments - even if your rendering of my argument is quite unfair. Thank you for doing this,

i. You did indeed ask for the guidelines, and I referred you to this Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as you can see from the link you have just provided. I'm fairly certain I posted this link on more than one occasion. It also happens to be true that the purpose of the infobox is not to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. "Anti-feminism" is not a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and if you believe it is, you haven't provided enough support for that claim.

ii. On your second point, neither of you responded to my reservations about the other three sources.

I believe you are confused about the following comment: "I can't be invited to cite a study disproving the thesis that AfD is an anti-feminist party, that's for you to prove." This does not imply, as you said, that I was "not even looking at the sources provided". The other editor had offered a study which discussed attitudes towards gender issues in the party, and I was merely making the point that I couldn't be asked to provide a study which proved the opposite. I recall that someone had asked me for sources, but I may have been mistaken.

iii. I have no objections to the Facebook campaign being mentioned in the article. The article still does not discuss AfD's purported anti-feminism, unless you think that the party can be designated anti-feminist on this basis alone.

iv. This is an instance where it might have helped if you had been a little more patient, and asked for clarification. My argument throughout has been that the two articles on the Facebook campaign, one of which was a very short opinion piece, and an article about an AfD representative from the Baden-Württemberg state parliament, is not enough to support the claim that anti-feminism is a significant feature of the AfD platform. Therefore, designating the party "anti-feminist" on the basis of those sources would be inaccurate. Since the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and given that there is no support for the claim that the AfD promotes an explicitly anti-feminist agenda, this is something, I argue, that can be cut from the infobox.

"Your complaint seems to be that we didn't agree with you" - this is obviously not a fair summary of my argument. Hayek79 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are just further repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not. If I'm repeating myself, and you were familiar with these arguments, then your comments on the ANI page concerning "accuracy" were deliberate misrepresentation. Hayek79 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's just my opinion, but since the consensus at the moment is to leave the article as is, it might be worthwhile not to respond here unless and until editors other than Hayek79 comment, and there's a possibility of actually having a discussion that's not entirely circular, repetitive and, ultimately, enervating. It's clear to me that there's not going to be any progress otherwise, given that editor's behavior pattern. If Hayek79 takes it into his head to remove the sources or otherwise edit against consensus, it's easy enough to revert him on that basis. I think that at this point, we're simply enabling his dysfunctionality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Dysfunctional" - oh, I don't think you can say that; after all, I'm the one who succeeded in managing my temper in such a way that I could respond to comments on a Wikipedia talk page without insulting strangers, or writing illiterate (and slightly deranged) nonsense like the following:

"at the risk of receiving a "tsk tsk tsk" from the peanut gallery, I'm going to point out the elephant in the room - what, exactly is your agenda here? I DON'T HAVE ONE ... I don't know if you're an alt-rightist looking to sanitize an article about a party on your side of the aisle or not, but it sure as hell looks that way from the way you have been ignoring every comment that you disagree with, demanding again and again that your questions be answered -- when they already have been answered, at least to the satisfaction of anyone without a bone to pick -- and being as aggressive as a dog whose got his choppers sunk into one's leg." Hayek79 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)