Jump to content

Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Climate change denial

@Beyond My Ken: I don't take kindly to the insinuation I somehow support the AfD (hint: switch out the "r" in my username for an "h"). I've been reverting the past few edits primarily because it isn't clear to me that 1. "climate change denial" constitutes an ideology or 2. the sources you provide, sans the DW piece, are actually reliable or corroborate that claim. Furthermore with regard to (1), even on the articles of parties that explicitly deny climate change outright (mentioned within the body of the article itself), as here or here, it isn't clear that this constitutes an ideology which should be listed in the infobox – in either case, it isn't. (P.S. I'm not sure if WSWS constitutes a particularly reliable source, either.) Mélencron (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

When a party issues a platform which includes climate change denial, then climate change denial is certainly part of the party's ideology. (We have the same shit here with the Republican Party, as the world is learning now, with the head of the federal EPA claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant.) The sources are all reliable, and all support the contention that climate change is part of AfD's agenda, as the majority of them are simply reporting what the party said about itself in its platform issued in 2016. Your reading of the New Yorker pieces entirely misses the point of it. As for "Melenchon", I have no idea what that means, or any real interest in it. What I know is this pattern: someone adds something to the ideology list, you remove it, it gets re-added with sources to support it, you quibble over the sources, some get removed, but others take their place because the facts speak for themselves. To me, that pattern reads like someone trying to protect the subject of the article from having unpleasant facts about it revealed to the Wikipedia-reading public. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but you should review your behavior to see what it telegraphs, and you should also re-read the New Yorker piece with more nuance than I believe you have done to date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The New Yorker piece doesn't actually state that the party espouses climate change denial; it's referring to statements by Petry. As with the previous dispute on the political positioning of the Liberal Democrats, the statements of party leaders do not suffice. Furthermore, if you actually see how the New Yorker piece refers to Petry's views on climate change – it provides an anecdote of Petry but never makes a specific reference to climate change denial.

“Now you’re repeating your hypothesis,” Petry said, leaning over him from the stage. “But how do you justify it?” He hesitated in confusion, and other protesters joined him. A teen-age girl began to speak from prepared notes, saying that the AfD denied climate change. “You have to hold the mike closer to your mouth,” Petry interrupted, and then rocked from foot to foot, marking the slow tempo of the girl’s speech. “Your party claims that CO₂ is not dangerous, but how do you explain all the people dying from air pollution in China?” the girl asked.

“I’m a chemist,” Petry said. “The problem is not CO₂—it’s the nitrogen and sulfur oxides that make the smog. So many people make this mistake.” She went on, “Let me ask you a question. If you dissolve CO₂ in water and the temperature rises, will you have more or less CO₂?” It was a trick question that Petry often uses.

“More,” the girl said, meaning CO₂ in the atmosphere.

If you're going to keep it in the infobox, though, I'd much rather prefer if you actually stick to reliable sources which actually explicitly state the party espouses climate-change denial (i.e., Politico Europe and Deutsche Welle articles) as opposed to flimsier sources. Sputnik, WSWS, and GlobalSecurity.org are not particularly credible sources. Also, you don't need to provide four or six citations for a single claim – it's excessive and unnecessary (especially when those references aren't reused elsewhere within the article). Please at least attempt to maintain a veneer of neutrality when it comes to your editing on political articles, especially with regard to ideology. I don't appreciate your insinuations about my political beliefs (they're the opposite of what you seem to believe), nor your belief that you feel the need to explain to me why AfD is a climate change denialist party (I never at any point contested that claim – I only indicated that I don't believe it's a political ideology). Almost all of my edits to Wikipedia are on political topics, and yet I always attempt to remain scrupulously neutral in my editing. You don't need to justify to me the fact that AfD are climate change denialists. I just don't believe that's a political ideology which merits inclusion in the infobox (which is becoming excessively lengthy, in any case). Mélencron (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What exactly, makes you say that GlobalSecurity (for instance) is not reliable? Be specific please, including any discussions at WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
And the writer of the New Yorker pieces makes it quite clear that the subject is using a "trick question" to deflect the claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Aad the multiplicity of sources is necessary because people like you and Hayek79 and the Helper person fight tooth and nail about the sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this the way you deal with losing a discussion in an article dispute? By reporting the person you're discussing with to WP:ANEW? It's not a very new tactic, but it's often effective. Still, it only goes to indicate that you are heavily invested in "protecting" this article to keep it as positive for the AfD as possible, or else why take such drastic measures? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Calm down and stop accusing me and other editors of being NPOV, seriously. Click on the "ideology" link in the infobox. It leads you to List of political ideologies. "Climate change denial" is not one of them. (Let me just say, if it's not on this article's infobox, then I don't think it really belongs here, either.) Mélencron (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
So, you believe that the Wikipedia list is all-inclusive, that there are no other ideologies except those that are listed there?? And you're also not aware that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source? Again, if you don't want to be seen as NPOV, don't behave like an NPOV editor. I can't read your mind, or look inside your heart, all I can do is judge you by your edits, and the edits say that you are protecting AfD. (And why am I even talking to you when you attempted to put me out of commission with an ANEW report? Why should I have even a smidgen of respect for someone who does that to win an argument? Tell me that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This reply is not remotely constructive and you've refused to substantively address my original points (1. the reliability of specific sources – mainly, I object to the use of Sputnik, WSWS, and GlobalSecurity.org, none of which are reputable; 2. the use of the New Yorker piece – again, the Politico Europe and Deutsche Welle pieces are simply better because they explicitly refer to the party's climate change denialist views, and 3. that this isn't a "political ideology"). You also seem to have forgotten what happened in the previous dispute – User:Hayek79 removed the far-right label, they posted on the talk page suggesting that antifeminism be removed because it wasn't "properly sourced", then I restored the far-right label and provided a citation for antifeminism, Hayek79 reverted me and pointed out the source I added was an opinion piece, then I removed it after another editor restored it because of that, noting that on the talk page/acknowledged I was wrong about that source. In that situation I acknowledged I was wrong to restore the source. It isn't that difficult to acknowledge when you're wrong as opposed to accusing an editor of having political motivations in their edits when you're reverted on a political article. I never accused User:Hayek79 of breaching POV at any point, so I'd appreciate it if you could actually acknowledge substantive concerns rather than being repeatedly accusatory. Mélencron (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The whole amount of sources was a minor issue and I could see your point. That's why when I edited again I did not revert your edit, I removed different sources. I did this because two of the sources used are clearly not reliably neutral sources. You ignored my comment on the fact that these sources are not credible and proceeded to revert my edit, without giving good reason, other than addressing one of my points. Then to go and leave a note of editing warring on my page. Please make sure to see the reasons I give for the edit before reverting and have a good reason to revert before doing so. I am also in total agreement with everything Mélencron said in their last edit. Helper201 (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So, here's a suggestion for a compromise: The Sputnik News, SWSW and New Yorker references are removed, but the remainder stay. "Climate-change denial" stays in the "Ideology" list. If there is a concerted effort in the future to remove it, the removed references can be restored unless others can be found, since only weight of references seem to stop "Ideology" items from being removed. Ping me if there's a response, I'm not watching this article currently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That would be satisfactory for now; in any case, I should emphasize, there's only a need for a single reference for any given statement on Wikipedia. The party's program, Deutsche Welle, and Politico Europe are all good sources for that.
I still contest the notion that climate change denial constitutes a political ideology which should be listed in the infobox, but should you remove those three references, I don't have any further issues with regard to referencing. It's certainly a not one the ideologies listed within party infoboxes are (e.g., nationalism, national conservatism, x nationalism, anti-Islam, Christian democratic are all typical descriptors) – even the parties that blatantly deny its existence don't have it listed in the infobox, as they're not the primary descriptors of the party. (Personal view of the AfD: German nationalism, right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, national conservatism, and economic liberalism are the most applicable.) For that, though, that'd request outside comments to actually achieve a consensus on that issue. Mélencron (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:, @Helper201: Is the above compromise satisfactory to you? If so, I will request an edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a dispute similar to the one over the inclusion of "Anti-feminism" above. I agree with User:Mélencron and User:Helper201 that this claim shouldn't feature under the ideology section, and that the sources are mostly invalid and inadequate. There is a reason why, to my knowledge, no other article for a major political party lists things like climate change denial in the infobox. Since at least two of the contributors here appear to be of the opinion that as long as a claim is supported by enough references, it can appear anywhere in the article, regardless of the advice available here: MOS:INFOBOX, it's unlikely that this will be resolved. Would arbitration be an option unless others comment here in the next few weeks? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that the Infobox should only list actual political ideologies (with reliable references) such as right-wing populism (clearly the party's main ideology), not individual policies or political standpoints. Most of the AfD policies and standpoints, anti-feminism, climate change denial, anti-immigration and so on, fall under the umbrella of right-wing populism anyway.--Autospark (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree entirely with what is written above. MOS:INFOBOX addresses this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There are currently ten items listed under ideology for this party, which is far too many, forgetting that "climate change denial" and "anti-feminism" are inappropriate entries for the ideology section of the infobox, and that many of the 11 or so references provided are inadequate. Please compare with the following articles on German political parties: CDU, CSU, SDP, or with those of European parties of a comparable ideological persuasion: UKIP, National Front L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note to all that User:L.R. Wormwood = User:Hayek79. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Climate change denial started out as a position; but as the evidence for it grows and the idea becomes more of a statement of faith than a position on an issue, it is becoming more like an ideology. I agree that this needs to be defined as a modern political ideology in climate change denial and perhaps a list of political ideologies before it's added in an infobox on a page such as this. I haven't seen any serious "anti-green" party that literally campaigns with something like climate change denial as a central tenet yet, however; including AfD. – SJ + 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Because some editors are already counting noses, champing at the bit to find a consensus, and because counting !votes is not how consensus is determined, I am opening a formal RfC on this question, so that a neutral party can close it by determining consensus according to Wikipedia's standards of doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog has taken "political ideology" to refer to "belief" or "faith", which is not conventionally how this phrase is used. See: List of political ideologies. Climate change denial would be a policy position if adopted by a political party, that is to say, if Alternative for Germany embraced the platform that the planet is not experiencing climate change, that would be the position of the party on the issue of climate change, and this would have policy implications. Unfortunately, we simply disagree on the sources. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Equally, if we're going by how often words are used in an article, "policy" features 25 times in the climate change denial article, "ideology" does not appear at all, neither does "faith", and "belief" 6 times, but this is obviously not a reliable measure so we can ignore all of this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

On the "big tent" point, as I noted above, this is an abnormally large list even for a "big tent" party. The following parties are much bigger tents than the AfD, and have a lot less listed in their infoboxes: Labour Party (UK), Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States). The only two major parties with comparably long lists that I've found are the British Conservative party and the GOP (nine each) - but in these instances this is clearly justified. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following tables are unsourced; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against those sources, and citing the sources.

Tables of election results
Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
Election year No. of
constituency votes 		No. of
party list votes 		% of
party list votes 		No. of
overall seats won 		+/–
2013 810,915 2,056,985 4.7
0 / 631
European Parliament
Election year No. of
overall votes 		% of overall vote
& ranking 		No. of
overall seats won 		+/–
2014 2,070,014 7.1 (#5)
7 / 96
State Parliament (Landtag)
State election, year No. of
overall votes 		% of overall vote
& ranking 		No. of
overall seats won 		+/–
Hesse, 2013 126,906 4.1 (#6)
0 / 110
Saxony, 2014 159,611 9.7 (#4)
14 / 126
Thuringia, 2014 99,548 10.6 (#4)
11 / 91
Brandenburg, 2014 119,989 12.2 (#4)
11 / 88
Hamburg, 2015 214,833 6.1 (#6)
8 / 121
Bremen, 2015 64,368 5.5 (#6)
5 / 83
Baden-Württemberg, 2016 809,311 15.1 (#3)
23 / 143
Rhineland-Palatinate, 2016 267,813 12.6 (#3)
14 / 101
Saxony-Anhalt, 2016 271,646 24.4 (#2)
25 / 87
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2016 167,453 20.8 (#2)
18 / 71
Berlin, 2016 231,325 14.2 (#5)
25 / 160
Saarland, 2017 6.2 (#4)
3 / 51

To address this objection ahead of time, a Wikilink is not a source, and WP articles are not reliable sources in any case. -- Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wahlrecht.de has results for all of them, as you might expect. Mélencron (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Climate change denial" be listed in the "Ideology" list in the infobox?

EXCLUDE
A broad consensus of editors consider that climate change denial is not an ideology. Appropriate contents for the infobox "ideology" field have been agreed upon in the discussion section and should be applied, although this was not part of the formal RfC question. (non-admin closure) — JFG talk 15:37, 22 April 2017 (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.

  • Should "Climate change denial" be listed in the "Ideology" list in this article's infobox?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes - "Climate change denial" is intrinsically part of this party's core beliefs, as shown by the many sources which are cited to support it, and should therefore be included in its list of ideologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No - "Climate change denial" is a policy position, like supporting or opposing capital punishment. It is not an ideology, like socialism, liberalism, nationalism, anarchism, etc. (Incidentally, "Antifeminism" should also be removed from the infobox, for the same reason. The list of ideologies clearly includes too many things). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No – concur with FreeKnowledgeCreator, in addition to the comments I've already made in the discussion above (i.e., that "climate change denial" is not a political ideology). Mélencron (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No – it's a policy, not an ideology. And honestlty, that standpoint is covered by the (well-referenced) right-wing populism, which is an recognised political ideology.--Autospark (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No – Climate change denial is not a political ideology. The sources do not support the claim. Parties with similar positions do not have the same claim listed. The infobox is also far too cluttered. A more developed exposition of my views can be found above (currently on my phone). It is for these same reasons that "anti-feminism" should be removed from the infobox. I suggest that the scope of this RFC should be expanded so that we don't have to go through the same thing for each claim. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • yes It is a bit difficult to describe any ideology at all to the big tent (which is why we list so many) but "climate change denial" is not a policy position (that term doesn't appear, for example, in our article on Climate change denial) It is more a matter of faith, belief, or ideology - a view on reality itself (or a looking away from reality, i guess) akin to the belief/ideology in which one sees a happier world when women stay at home and those brown people stay out of my country. And it is well supported by reliable sources of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: Germany, Politics/Political parties, Conservatism, Green politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No — it is not an ideology and the infobox "ideology" camp should include just a few distinctive ideologies: out of the current ten, I would leave "right-wing populism", "national conservatism", "economic liberalism" and "euroscepticism"; the others are redundant and/or out-of-scope. --Checco (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No Eventhough the party's general viewpoint is generally sceptic to the climate change issue, they do not campaing or advocate for that matter in any significant way. Also the infobox should not include dozens of single-word aspects regarding a party, but rather contain basic major ideologies and viewpoints. Things like positions regarding climate/environment, in case they are not a major political issue for the party (like for most if not all green parties), can get an own section in the article and be portrayed there.--Joobo (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No Ideology is for stuff like "social democracy" and "Fiscal conservatism," not "Single-payer healthcare" and "Low taxes." The latter are policy, not ideologies. Climate change denial goes under policy. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, but for purely practical reasons, listing every 'belief' in the info box, while they are not very developed in the text is inapt, and most readers will not read them. Whether Cl Den is a policy or an ideology is too philosophical for me, but what I do understand is that the purpose of the infobox is core beliefs, here that would include R-W populism, anti-immigration and others, this one does not seem to be 'core' and should be developed in the article. Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)No - it's policy, not belief. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. Jytdog explains it quite well. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. "Climate change denial" is part of this party's core beliefs. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
RE: User:Gouncbeatduke Yes, it's part of their platform, but as other users have noted, that doesn't make it a political ideology (in any conventional sense). Equally, the "ideology" field is conventionally used (UKIP, for example) to provide a short (usually about four or five) list of political ideologies to give the reader an impression of the party's leading ideological commitments at a glance (as per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). At the moment, there are 10 entries (mostly redundant) accompanied by a veritable WP:REFBOMB, which both looks a mess and doesn't help readers. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

discussion

  • There seems to be, among some editors here, confusion about what "ideology" means. Reaching back for my Webster's New World Second College Edition, I see that it means, in this context:

    The doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc.; specifically, the body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based.

    Put more briefly, an ideology is simply a set of beliefs. Some editors seem to want that to mean "a set of beliefs, but only those that appear in this particular list of beliefs", but that is erroneous. The set of beliefs of a party, as laid out in its party platform, is its ideology. There can be no doubt that "Climate change denial" is part of the set of beliefs held by the AfD, that means, by definition, it's part of their ideology. It doesn't need to appear on Wikipedia's list of political ideologies, because the statement of the party's program released by the AfD trumps that completely. If they say "we believe in such-and-so" then it's part of the party's ideology, and should be included on the list. We don't need the hand of God to tell us that this thing they believe in is part of their ideology, but this other thing is not: if they believe it, it should be in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Your quoted definition defines an ideology as, "the body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based". "Climate change denial" is not a "body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The infobox field says "Ideology", not "Ideologies". The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology. So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, the infobox field links to the following page: list of political ideologies. This field is used to give a brief overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, as you can see here: UKIP, or here: New Zealand National Party, or here: Podemos. It is not used to provide a pastiche of links to different commitments, or "beliefs" as you put it, for the purposes of painting a general picture of the "ideology" and policy commitments of the party. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see political ideology. Neither the definition you provide nor the one linked apply to "climate change denial". Mélencron (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with both users above. I'll paste my response to Jytdog which I left in the section above (I wanted to avoid turning this vote into a discussion, but it appears that ship has already sailed):
User:Jytdog has taken "political ideology" to refer to "belief" or "faith", which is not conventionally how this phrase is used. See: List of political ideologies. Climate change denial would be a policy position if adopted by a political party, that is to say, if Alternative for Germany embraced the platform that the planet is not experiencing climate change, that would be the position of the party on the issue of climate change, and this would have policy implications. Unfortunately, we simply disagree on the sources.
On the "big tent" point, as I noted above, this is an abnormally large list even for a "big tent" party. The following parties are much bigger tents than the AfD, and have a lot less listed in their infoboxes: Labour Party (UK), Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States). The only two major parties with comparably long lists that I've found are the British Conservative party and the GOP (nine each) - but in these instances this is clearly justified. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Opposing a carbon tax would be a policy position, based on an ideology of climate change denialism. Like "shoot illegal aliens at the border" is a policy position based on an anti-immigrant ideology. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It is a policy position in the same way that "pro-life" would be a policy position. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't agree. Pro-life is an ideology; making abortion illegal is a policy based on that ideology. policies flow from ideology. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we clearly just disagree. A majority of us believe that there is an obvious qualitative difference between descriptors such as national conservatism, economic liberalism, social democracy, and so forth, and things like climate change denial. I think your interpretation of ideology, particularly in a political context, is unusual, but I respect that we do not agree. I think we ought to wait now until others have responded to the survey, since it would seem there is little chance of one of us convincing the other. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's much I can add that hasn't already been said. I would personally agree with the previous edit and others with regards to ideologies such as national conservatism being more warranted for the reasons already outlined above and that anti-feminism and climate change denial should be removed from the ideology section of the info box. However I think a compromise can be made, where due to the large amount of backing via citations, anti-feminism and climate change denial should be mentioned in the main body of the text. In the mean time while the overall decision is being decided, can we agree to at least remove the non reliably neutral citations (such as Sputnik News and World Socialist Website) that are included among climate change denials citations? Helper201 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
"In the mean time while the overall decision is being decided, can we agree to at least remove the non reliably neutral citations": Someone said they would request an edit for this, but so far nothing has happened. I think there's a consensus for doing this before the survey above has concluded. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
the RfC is just getting started, there is no point in tallying (ever). The RfC will be closed per policy-guideline-based !votes. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't tallying for a consensus, don't worry. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Although I oppose the inclusion above, I think some here are being over-pedantic in their defs of 'political ideology', they appear to be expecting the ideology to a coherent political position. In political terms, especially with populist parties, there IS no coherent ideology. I think it justifiable to define a political ideology as 'core beliefs'. No one would define anti-europeanism as an 'ideology' in ordinary discourse, but it is a key belief of UKIP, and their defining characteristic. Pincrete (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone has that expectation - we all accept that AfD is a "big tent". Regardless of whether we agree on the definition of "political ideology", the field has always been used to list a few of the leading ideological commitments of the party. Besides, we wouldn't include something like "anti-Europeanism" under the ideology field for the UKIP article anyway (for several reasons).
Since several people have now offered suggestions for what ought to listed under the field in the survey, and what ought to be removed, can we get a consensus on which of the items currently listed should remain? I would join User:Checco in suggesting that we maintain the first five: German nationalism, Right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism, and remove the rest. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with the above suggestion by User:L.R. Wormwood and User:Checco. Helper201 (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone help me with protocol? Would we need to open a new Request for Comment, or are we in a position where we can just agree among ourselves? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed five points. They characterize the general ideology of the party. Everything else could be portrayed in a more detailed way in the text. I do not know if there is some kind of particular protocol. Eventually it all comes down to the consensus and/or most user opinions. --Joobo (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I would pare down the Infobox to just three ideologies, right-wing populism (arguably the main ideology), Euroscepticism and National conservatism. Nationalism is implied by Right-wing populism and Nationalism conservatism, and Economic liberalism, while not untrue, was more the ideology in the party's original incarnation before the split that formed ALFA.--Autospark (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It is true that Economic liberalism was one major point in the early party beginnings together with Euroscepticism. Yet eventhough some part split off and formed ALFA, Economic liberalism is still part of AfD party ideology today.--Joobo (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with the user above that economic liberalism is still a leading feature of the party's agenda. Of the five, I object more to national conservatism, which I have always regarded as a fairly flimsy phrase. I am prepared to compromise on this, however. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't just make things up here based on anybody's opinions. We rely on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobody argues that. That does not mean one may not give assessments. --Joobo (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is explicitly not a place to give personal "assessments" or other general discussion of the topic. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no problem with giving different views regarding developtments in the party. General discussions however should not take place on the talk page, that is correct. --Joobo (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(RE: Jytdog) This is now a discussion about article layout, i,e. what should appear under the "ideology" field, and what should not. At the moment, we are trying to build a consensus on how the infobox should look, and which of the items we are removing (depending on the RfC, of course) should feature more prominently in the main body of the article. It's all (to varying degrees) sourced, but that's besides the point. We are entitled to do this, and you are welcome to object at every stage. Nobody is providing "personal assessments" (whatever you mean by that) or engaging in "general discussion" of the topic. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And my comment was no more a question of "just mak[ing] things up [...] based on anybody's opinions" than the following: "It is more a matter of faith, belief, or ideology - a view on reality itself (or a looking away from reality, i guess) akin to the belief/ideology in which one sees a happier world when women stay at home and those brown people stay out of my country" (despite that argument having already been addressed). What I meant was that national conservatism is a fairly ambiguous term which doesn't carry as much explanatory power as, say, German nationalism or right wing populism. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@L.R. Wormwood: It is already some time ago that this discussion was held. Does one have an outlook for a reslut regarding the decision of changing the ideology points?.-Joobo (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's probably time to close this RfC. If necessary we can have a second RfC addressing the question of which items should remain in the infobox. There's a clear consensus that the list is too long, that some items are dubious, and that it would be improved by listing four or five items rather than nine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As for what should remain in the infobox, I think I'll stand by my initial suggestion (German nationalism, Right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism). I am prepared to compromise for the purposes of being finally done with this. As for the question of whether climate change denial should feature, shall I go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me.--Joobo (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I broadly agree with User:L.R. Wormwood, even though I would not include German nationalism, but just National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Economic liberalism and Euroscepticism (possibly in the former order). --Checco (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2017 (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.

At least mention climate change denial in the article?

I can understand removing it from the infobox - but shouldn't the fact at least be mentioned in the text that this party is promoting the anti-science conspiracy theory of climate change denial? It fits right in with all the other unrealistic beliefs those people have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Will fix that. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


unsourced conventions table

the following is unsourced. moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them. Please note that to show that this content is not WP:UNDUE independent sources would be useful.

Party conventions
Party convention Date Location
Founding congress (statute, election of the executive committee) 14 April 2013 Berlin
1. congress (candidates list for the European parliament election 2014) 25 January 2014 Aschaffenburg
1. congress (continuation) 1 February 2014 Berlin
2. congress (election programme for the European parliament election, election of the executive committee) 22 to 23 March 2014 Erfurt
3. congress (new statute) 30 January to 1 February 2015 Bremen
extraordinary congress (election of the executive committee) 4 to 5 July 2015 Essen
4. congress (statute) 28 to 29 November 2015 Hannover
5. congress (party programme) 30 April to 1 May 2016 Stuttgart
6. congress (election of the top candidates and programme for the German federal election 2017) 22 to 23 April 2017 Cologne

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideology field

Since this part of the closure decision is apparently already being contested, shall we do a quick straw poll to determine whether we are satisfied with the "ideology" field as it stands? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Not how we do things. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is how we do things, though it might not be convenient for you in this case. It would save a huge amount of time and energy, but I'm sure you'll take this to AN anyway. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Straw polls are allowed, but please remember that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -Obsidi (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

Are we satisfied with the infobox as it stands?

  • Yes My views are littered all over this page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. I would not include "German nationalism", while leaving the other four ideologies in the following order: "National conservatism", "Right-wing populism" (even though I have strong reservations on this being an ideology), "Economic liberalism" and "Euroscepticism". --Checco (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sort of. Leave out German nationalism, because right-wing populism and national conservatism are more specific ideologies. My preferred order would be" Right-wing populism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism, and Euroscepticism.--Autospark (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add to this that in the german language there is a certain connotation to German nationalism and that it is distinct from the other ideologies listed. So if there are reputable sources describing them as German nationalist, or "deutschnational" in german, it should most certainly stay included. Just my two cents as a native german speaker. 91.49.90.151 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) per @Autospark:, I am mostly satisfied but contest "German nationalism". In historical context that term doesn't make much sense, or is quite debatable. Unnecessary in my opinion. In fact insinuating the other parties like CDU as against German nationalism (modern rhetoric aside) may be POV. Remove.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
But the CDU, SPD and pretty much all the other established parties are in fact against german nationalism, so it is not an insinuation but a political reality in modern day germany. German nationalism is not plain nationalism, nor is it national populism. There simply is a distinction in that area in society. It may seem like semantics but there is a difference. It is mostly, if not exclusivly, used in the context of the far right, which the AFD arguably is according to reliable sources. And in the end that should be all that matters really, if they are called that in reliable sources, it shouldnt matter to me, you or anyone else if it makes sense in a historical context, which by you determining so makes it pretty much original reasearch. Appologies if that comes across as harsh, i mean absolutely no insult and am just speaking my mind and am trying to give an oppinion or perhaps another perspective on the matter. As an IP i dont think it would be appropriate to take a vote anyhow. 91.49.86.17 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that nationalism in Germany is considered "far-right" is its own issue. Before the Reunification, the CDU and even the SPD could be considered nationalist because they wanted a united Germany; it was even the latter's posters to even desire Danzig and West Pomerania (imagine that from the SPD today). However I also see your point. I'll leave it to RfC I suppose.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldnt exactly say that nationalism itself is seen as far right in germany, frowned upon to a degree perhaps. German nationalism specificialy is another matter though. But anyway, you lot do what you want to do even if i disagree personally to a degree, although i do see some valid points as well. So... have a good one everyone. Nice to have not been treated as complete dirt on Wikipedia for being an IP for once haha 91.49.86.17 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We need a consensus on whether this version is an improvement on the last. This would appear to be clear from comments here and elsewhere, but I think it needs to be more explicit. Clarification So far you've all suggested further entries that might be removed, but could we be clear that we agree that the four items already removed were inappropriate/redundant? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it is ok, but "German Nationalism" has to be taken out as well. The party is not advocating for a forming of a bigger German country with new parts included of German speaking regions as in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium etc. Actually that is what this ideology means. The using of this term is presumably a misunderstanding. So either taking out or better replacing it with another more correct one like mere "Nationalism". --Joobo (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "German nationalism" is possibly not appropriate in a German context. It might be useful to include this field nevertheless to distinguish the AfD's position from that of mainstream parties which, for obvious historical reasons, as has already been noted, are explicitly anti-nationalist, and which interpret German identity in European terms. I don't feel especially strongly about this; my only concern is that we have had more than one editor with an apparently limited understanding of European politics accuse contributors, including myself, of trying to "cleanse" or "whitewash" the page for removing content which they believe to be negative from the infobox before. I would suggest, nevertheless, that given the current consensus, per WP:SILENCE, that someone WP:BOLD-ly make this change and see how it goes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I just changed it from German Nationalism to Nationalism, since that is the correct term in this context due to the fact that the first term has a particular meaning that does not apply here. However, I do not think this change is what users would argue about, but rather regarding the infobox points. Though it is unlikely for now that there will be a consensus on including again several more points into the infobox; the formality of the RfC close is still in question on the noticeboard though.--Joobo (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The edit note said "non-existing parameter". What does that even mean? The ideology parameter exists; German nationalism is the German form of nationalism. This is well sourced in the article. What exactly is the problem? Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: It means that there is no such thing as party newspaper. Furthermore the reasons why "german nationalism" is wrong and why such usage of the term is a misunderstanding of the term are given here by me and others. The AfD does not want to expand German territory into f.e. Austria, Switzerland etc. That is what "german nationalism" means. Hence "Nationalism" itself is the correct term, not "German Nationalism".--Joobo (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hm. removed again without discussion first. Ref was very easy to fix per this. Please discuss your desire to change this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
No that is not what German nationalism means. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect "German Nationalism" basically means the unification of all "German" areas. That would mean the creation of a single German speaking nation including parts of Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and possible others. The AfD does not advocate for that at all. Hence the term is wrong. "Nationalism" is correct.--Joobo (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I just added three more refs. This is exactly how we got the refpile situation before. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The disagreement here is that German nationalism (as the Wikipedia article outlines) often has a very particular meaning which does not apply here. Equally, despite what you say, AfD's purported German nationalism is not in fact discussed in the article. Reference to nationalism is only made in one other part of the article, in this section. Specifically this sentence: 

"Left-wing criticism of the party took a more hardened tone over the late summer 2013,[citation needed] with an array of political activists from far-left anti-fascist anarchists to the mainstream Green Party accusing it of pandering to xenophobic and nationalistic sentiments."

As I explained above, I think it might be useful to keep the German nationalism field to distinguish the AfD agenda, which in recent years has indeed become more explicitly nationalistic, from that of moderate or mainstream German political parties, which are explicitly anti-nationalist. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I just added three more refs. This is exactly how we got the refpile situation before. The German nationalism piece of this is one reason why the AfD is a focus of international concern as well as within Germany, and Petry speaks directly to that. Directly. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, as User:Joobo put it (and as I wanted to avoid putting it), you are content-warring with people who have a better understanding of European politics and history than you. Piling up English language sources in the infobox does nothing other than make the article look a mess. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The field should stay without a consensus for removing it (I think it should stay), but I have removed two redundant references. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually assume good faith in the edits by Jytdog. Nevertheless it is incorrect to keep the "German Nationalism" ideology -point, since the AfD does not want to annex Austria or parts of Belgium. The sources given also do not suggest that at all. That is why "Nationalism" would be correct here.--Joobo (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
His edit summary would suggest he doesn't assume good faith with your changes. Since I've given my position, I won't comment here any further for the time being. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"German nationalism" raises more questions than it answers. Running in logical circles and pedantry on the precise utility of such a phrase is madness. It's not worth it. Some users here just want to add terms that they believe will seem defamatory to the "average" person or something because of historical context. Just get rid of it.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 14:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
When has the party ever explicitly (or even implicitly) discussed expanding the territory of the Federal Republic to historical borders?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That is a fake question. Please don't waste anybody's time with fake questions. The refs provided support "german nationalism" - please deal with what they say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
How is that a "fake question"? What does that even mean? The sources given don't match the definition of the term, that is very misleading. There is nothing on the Party's platform that supports expanding German territory or anything of the sort. It doesn't matter how you cherrypick terms, they have to correspond with the reality. How are the sources reliable to match the veracity of the term?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Does your mom know you secretly abuse kittens? Fake question (assuming that you don't actually abuse kittens). Same as yours. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not know what provoked such polemical behavior from you but there is no reason for you to post like that. You are lucky I've a thick skin online. All you need to do is provide evidence that AfD's platform supports the definition of German nationalism. There is nuance you need to distinguish especially in this context.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 05:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Apparently you did not engage in the discussion here for days to give sources to your edit that "german nationalism" is correct instead of "nationalism". So either you actually still misunderstand the definition of the term "german nationalism" and i can assume good faith in your edits, which i am doing less and less, or it rather falls under WP:POINT. "German nationalism" is not sourced WP:V and possibly, depending on the intention of the edit, also conflicts also with WP:NOR. Please give sources that clearly show that one of this party's main goals is a new german Nation with inclusion of other german speaking areas as to be found in Austria or Switzerland. In case one cannot source that, the entry will and actually has to be deleted WP:LIBEL and replaced. I am also encouraging @Sigehelmus:@L.R. Wormwood: to comment on this page. --Joobo (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I would comment further, but I have said all that I intend to say. The standard procedure here appears to be filibuster, WP:BADFAITH accusations, and general WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour. This has been going for weeks, the user hasn't directly responded to any of your concerns about the precise definition of German nationalism ("What exactly is the problem?"), and I don't believe they intend to. Attempting to initiate a discussion would be a waste of your time, and I would suggest that you wait for further users to comment. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm probably with User:Sigehelmus on this actually. Debating the definition of German nationalism is probably a waste of time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, in case of no detailed response by Jytdog. I encourage other users, you included, to change the entry in the infobox to its correct version of "Nationalism". Furthermore i like to hint that after i edited it yesterday Jytdog argued on my page i would engage into an edit war, which, considering the circumstance that his entry is not sourced, he does not engage into a discussion, is a contradictorily move. --Joobo (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
For the purposes of ending this dispute (and because you're probably right), I would support changing "German nationalism" to "nationalism". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That was an interesting edit. I have added a well sourced section to the body now, which was oddly missing. This is extremely well-sourced and discussed all the time. I do not understand the opposition to this Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: No it is not sourced. It does not get anymore true only cause you claim it. Either you still have no clue what "German nationalism" means by its definition, or you edit in a disruptive way intentionally. The AfD is clearly a nationalist party. However the term "GERMAN nationalism" has a very distinct meaning, which does not apply to the AfD. The AfD does not advocate for taking new territories of german speaking areas in Europe ( Is this now the 4th or 5th time i mention this here?). As long as you cannot provide sources for that, which you will not be able to, mentioning this in the article is simply false. Everything has been said.--Joobo (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If people keep on misconstruing German nationalism and what the sources actually say, we will need an RfC. This is a very different thing from the prior RfC and opposition to this will go down in flames. Shall I post that or will folks deal with what our article on German nationalism actually says, and with what the refs actually say? Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not tell that at all. Simple as that. No source you include here actually says that the AfD is a "German Nationalist" party by the definition of "German nationalism". Yes the AfD is a nationalist party in Germany and about Germany, but they are not "GERMAN nationalist". The word "German" in "German nationalists" referrs to ALL german speaking people in Europe. "German Nationalists" want to form a new german supercountry with all german speaking territories. To this day did you provide any single source giving that information? No you did not. One actually does not even need an RfC but what you do here is blatant disruptive editing and could even be sanctioned. It is on you how you like to handle it. --Joobo (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Per above. I don't know why @Jytdog: insists on pushing an inaccurate term but I think this case is closed before it's even open, because the definition itself is not even correct. I would like to see just one source where it's even implied AfD want some union of German or German-speaking peoples.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see your talkpage Sigehelmus. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There was no need for that cowardly threat of a ban you left (when you're the one breaking the rules to push a facetious incorrect claim) when I could have easily done the same for you first (luckily I'm above that). The burden is on you to prove that the Party's platform includes the definition of German nationalism. You can abuse the bureaucracy all you want, but as @Joobo: said before many times, you need to explicitly prove your incorrect claims to be right, with reliable sources and not twisting them out of context to meet your views. Literally all you need is good proof.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 18:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Your behaviour above is now classic WP:STONEWALL and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If you genuinely don't understand what German nationalism refers to, you should read the Wikipedia article you yourself have linked in the RfC. Ignoring other people's comments and insisting that you "do not understand the opposition to this" cannot be interpreted as anything other than WP:IDHT. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


RfC re German Nationalism

Consensus is that the article should describe AfD's ideology as "nationalism" rather than as "German nationalism". 6 people voted, 1 for "German nationalism" and 5 for "nationalism". One of those 5 didn't give a direct choice, but I think the details make it clearly favor "nationalism". 1 anonymous editor argued for "German nationalism", but did not vote. The basis for this consensus view is that "German nationalism" has a well-understood meaning which is different from AfD's ideology but that "nationalism" does describe AfD's ideology. The discussion shows full consideration by those who voted for "nationalism" of the arguments in favor of "German nationalism". Though there was a lot of argument that "German nationalism" is acceptable, there was no argument that "nationalism" is not. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2017 (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.

Should this article describe AfD's ideology as Nationalism or German nationalism? Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

!votes

Discussion

See section of article here where the specifically German nature of AfD's nationalist ideology is discussed and is very well sourced. Sure their ideology is nationalist -- we all agree on that -- but in the context of Germany, and in particular in the context of Germany's past nationalism under the Nazis, the issue of nationalism is a very particular one in that country, which is often and obviously discussed. And German nationalism, like that of other countries, has its own article on the history of nationalism in that country. There is Italian nationalism, French nationalism, etc etc. each with their own particular issues.

Claims that have continually been made in opposition to the use of "German nationalism", that "German nationalism" means only calls for territorial expansion (here, here, and here)are bizarre, not supported by sources, and no sources have been brought to support the claim.

The changes in the content from "German nationalism" to "nationalism" (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, are likewise unsupportable. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Context: Unfortunately, Jytdog apparently does not understand what German nationalism refers to, and has refused to listen the attempts of others to explain this to him. German nationalism in general is synonymous with pan-Germanism, and the process of the consolidation of the German nation-state in the 19th century, as the article he has provided a link for above explains. The same is true for Italian nationalism. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The ambiguity and contention of the term is evidence ipse facto that its presence is more harm than good. Cui bono? There is no point if it is just going to mislead the page viewers. Even nationalism itself is a vague term quite honestly, but it's better than inaccurate POV.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
First line of the German nationalism article: "German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation and promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state." Our article on German nationalism is well sourced, and the comments above which concern "territorial expansion" demonstrate the extent of the confusion here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Pan-Germanism is not the same as German nationalism. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not suggest they necessarily were (a good way to avoid addressing the substantive point too). I have wasted enough time debating this with you. I have corrected my typo in the other section by the way. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you did. Here is Moytl actually says (with emphasis added):

Perhaps no branch of nationalism has been more debated, studied, and evaluated than that of the German people. German nationalism describes the attachment of the German people to the idea that the German nation should have its own slate. A nation refers to the characteristics of a people sharing a common history and heritage, a common language and customs. It is this belief that propelled the formation of a unified Germany in 1871. German nationalism should therefore be seen in the context of German history and the protracted process of nation building. It is only through this context that one can begin to understand German nationalism—a feeling that showed much promise in a more benign and traditional form before spiraling downward under Imperial Germany and the fanaticism of Nazi Germany. Today, German nationalism remains an intensely debated concept within the context of the reunified nation. What is often labeled the "German Problem" refers to Germany's ongoing struggle to define what it means to be German, to confront the negative manifestations of German nationalism, and to find balance as a German nation-state locked in the center of Europe. An understanding of German nationalism requires thinking in terms of three distinct historical periods: the rise of German nationalism that culminated in the emergence of the first unified German nation in 1871 under Prussian leadership: the development of Adolf Hitler's extreme and virulent form of nationalism under the guise of National Socialism (Nazism); and the post-World War II struggle within the Federal Republic of Germany over the very nature of German nationalism and German identity. Each historical epoch is linked by a common thread—the struggle to define once and for all who and what the Germans are.

It is unambiguous that AfD's answer to the "German Problem" is a positive and strongly asserted German national identity - and one that specifically excludes "others" and stepping away from the 'shame" of its past. This is one of the most prominent and controversial aspects of the party Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
What you described is literally just patriotism.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In another context perhaps. Not in the German context, and the sources discuss this endlessly. I am not responding further here. As independent people come and review we will see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Well firstly, thank you for correcting me on what I did and did not intend to say. The section you are quoting illustrates perfectly what everyone has been at pains to explain to you from the outset. You are confusing German nationalism, with the subject matter of the German nationalism article. We might be able to casually refer to nationalist sentiments in Germany as "German nationalism", but here this would be inappropriate since our article is concerned with the 19th century process of German unification, and the ideas and context which gave rise to that process. Usually, German nationalism refers to this episode in the history of Germany and Europe, and not simply nationalistic views in Germany. I have nothing else to say, other than that this has been a painfully frustrating exchange, and that I would recommend that you read up on the history of German unification, and European history in general. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid the bits you've highlighted in bold don't help your case. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I will respond here, just to note that you have misrepresented the scope of the German nationalism article, which is the whole history up to today. The post-WWII has not been completed, but much of WP is incomplete. The extent and level of misrepresentation made in this discussion is astounding. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: "just to note that you have misrepresented the scope of the German nationalism article, which is the whole history up to today": This doesn't matter, the meaning of the term doesn't change after 1871 (or after the Second World War, for that matter), hence the history of the 20th century. The article still discusses German nationalism, the meaning of which is laid out at the beginning of the article. The only misrepresentation here is on your part. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, once and for all. German nationalism is not correct in this case. German nationalism has its roots in the idea to form a unified "nation" for all "Germans". That is because for centuries there have been many parts in europe that were split up but with germans living in and ruling it. Today Germans however are not only those people living in the country today known as Germany but also most prominently the People in Austria. Austria is actually also a "german nation". The core belief of "German nationalism" is to have a nation for all germans. Now does the AfD aims for that in any way? Do they have anything to do with the Germans of Austria or lets say the german minority of Belgium? Does the AfD aims to the creation of a new great German super state or do they even refer to those germans in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Italy etc.? No. The AfD is a nationalist party focusing on the country today known as the "Federal Republic of Germany". German nationalism refers to all germans regardless in which countries of todays europe they live in. The AfD however does not care at all what is going on in Italy's Southern Tyrol. That is the whole story. Agf in the edits here Jytdog, as this is one of the main pillars of WP. In case there are facts that support the claim of the focus on "German nationalism" by the party, none is against inclusion here. Yet there simply is nothing and hence the mentioning would be simply inaccurate. --Joobo (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
To claim that german nationalism is only about "uniting" german culture and territory is preposterous, no offense. Yes, it can be part of it but it does NOT have to go hand in hand. They may be populist but they are not stupid enough to go claim southern Tyrol, Austria or what all else. It would just be perceived as a joke. If you would like, i could even provide some sources describing the AFD as german nationalist by, for example, die Zeit or Focus, both reliable i assume. This whole talk page looks to me as a german just like a bunch of people not grasping the complexity of the issue in connection to germanies... lets say troubled past. Mind, i will freely admit that i personaly despise the AFD and their misanthropic political positions, claims of superiority of german culture or even leaving behind, or rather forgetting, about past crimes commited by the german state and people. THAT to me is german nationalism. It of course may also be plain nationalism, but why take the whitewashed aproach when there is a distinction and more precise way to call them what they are. i.e german nationalist. To say it isnt because they have no interest in taking or claiming italian land is... lets say way too simple to put it mildly. But the outcome of the discussion seems all but decided anyway, minds made up so im not even sure why i am writing this. Same person as IP in the straw poll section above, just as an fyi. 91.49.73.116 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. RfCs run for 30 days so this one is far from over. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this RfC about to be over soon? Does not seem to Generate too much enthusiasm or new sources regarding the claim of a "German nationalist" ideological focus. --Joobo (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-05/afd-parteitag-stuttgart-grundsatzprogramm-beschluss
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/parteien-starkes-polizeiaufgebot-sichert-afd-parteitag-in-stuttgart_id_5486076.html
Here would be two sources talking about the AFD in context of german nationalism. In german of course but this is just what a 2 second google search came up with, surely there is more. I could search for more sources but to be honest, seeing the discussions it would appear to be wasted time as minds are made up, so it seems moot and a waste of time. In other words, if this goes on and im bored/got some free time i might link some more sources here after a proper search. Btw, feel free to make the bare url's look prettier because i dont have the know how to make it look nice... 91.49.73.116 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.rundschau-online.de/politik/kommentar-zum-nrw-kandidaten-afd-sinkt-immer-tiefer-in-einen-deutschnationalen-sumpf-25918852
Here would be another source, unsure about realiability but a newspaper looks acceptable i would assume. 91.49.73.116 (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
"Preposterous" is the claim that this party is "german nationalist" when there are no sources indicating that. There is a clear frame what German Nationalism means. This party simply does not fit into it as it is not focusing on the "Germans" in general. The party refers to the people in the nation today known as the "Federal Republic of Germany". To say they are "not stupid enough" to claim Southern Tyrol would insinuate that this party actually aims for something like an annexion, or at least an orientation, to this or comparable regions. The party, unless you can give evidence for that, is not doing this untill this day. I carefully read the sources you supplied, none of them gives evidence for a "german nationalist" focus of the party. The first news article is about the way the party deems Islam and its role in Germany. The source suggests that according to the party this religion does not belong to Germany. The second source basically says that members of the party demand a patriotic attitude in Germany. Both is no evidence for "German Nationalism". --Joobo (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Even the german language wikipedia article makes a disticntion that they are not plain nationalist. They use a link to nationalism and another to make a distintction of another variety of nationalism, "völkischer Nationalismus". which to be honest i find a fair compromise. So it looks like "nationalist, including german nationalist" both as blue links. And what does german nationalism have to do with whatever name the country is called? It IS focusing on germans, they are talking about germans as a vanquished people riddled with guilt and shame that should be discarded, they are talking about a mark of shame to "commemorate" a lost war in berlin (holocaust memorial), they are talking about german culture as a beacon of light etc. Just because they are not pan-germanic doesnt make it any less so. And i completely disagree with your very narrow frame of what the word means. Pan-germanism is something entirely different and it seems you confuse the two issues entirely. Also a very nice straw man in regards to claiming territory, well done but as i recall no one is asking to describe them as pan-germanic. "Zusammengenommen ergibt sich aus diesen beiden Grundhaltungen – die Mehrheit hat mehr Rechte als die Minderheit, gesellschaftliche Veränderungen sind gefährlich – jener völkische Nationalismus, der für die AfD mittlerweile typisch ist." certainly goes above talking about islam and makes a broad statement about "völkischer Nationalismus" of the party, which i would translate as german nationalism. The same words are used in the german wikipedia article infobox as well. With several sources obviously. In regards to the second source, in the very first sentence the article states "Die AfD hat sich auf ihrem ersten Mitgliederparteitag seit der Spaltung als deutschnationale Anti-Asyl-Partei positioniert." which specificaly calls them german nationalist. You can interpret the source to fit your liking but it doesnt change the words. 91.49.73.116 (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
To add, i would like to appologize for the perhaps too harsh language in places. It is hardly conductive to a constructive discussion about a difficult topic like this and just makes people defensive and entrench themselves. So please, take some of it with a pinch of salt and my appologies. I do not mean to be difficult or even condescending at all, which after re-reading some of what i wrote certainly can come across as such. I simply quite passionately disagree with you but will try harder for a better approach and think more about how to state and formulate my oppinion in a more appropriate way. 91.49.73.116 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not even assume bad faith in your actions here IP because there still, to my regret, seems to be a misunderstanding on your side regarding "German" nationalism and its meaning. Yes, the party refers to "Germans", but what Germans actually? -The german people of the Federal Republic of Germany. Yet, this Republic is simply one German nation with its people. For instance Austria is actually a "German nation" as well. German nationalism refers to all Germans regardless in what areas they historically might live in in todays European countries and subregions. Hence, the party, as it is not refering to the Germans, but to the people of their country which is called the Federal Republic of Germany, is not German Nationalist but Nationalist. Hopefully it finally gets clear what it is meaning. --Joobo (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And what about the sources i provided? They got it wrong also? It is not about my oppinion. I gave you sources which you demanded, then you claim you read them "thouroughly" and that they are not relevant despite it being mentioned in the very first sentence in the one source. I point out passages refuting your claim of irrelevance of said sources and you dont mention it. I dont decide to call them german nationalist, the reliable sources i provided to you do. But whatever, I did something you asked for, you "read" them and claim they are not relevant, i point out relevant passages and they get ignored. Then it is only nationalism in this article infobox in the end, well tough luck. But really, to say they cannot be german nationalist because they dont represent all "germans"... can you provide a source that makes that distinction in a modern context? And no, it clears nothing up because you dont provide sources. I would very much like a source that says that "...German nationalism refers to all Germans regardless...". What do you say about reliable sources calling them "deutschnational" or describing their "völkischer Nationalismus"? They are plain wrong as well? I just dont get what you want now. More sources? "Better" sources? Accademical sources? I am willing to do the work and look for some if i thought it would help but when they get ignored then... yeah why bother 91.49.68.199 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How about you start trying to understand what that term means. You do not seem to understand it, that is also why you wondered why i highlighted the term "Federal Republic of Germany" which you would have not if you knew what the historic context is about. Your sources simply do not support this claim. The term "deutschnational" could be used either simply to highlight the focus of the party to Germany or in the context of a focus of the party on people of Germany. Yet both has nothing to do with "german nationalism" in the actual sense. Also a newspaper as in this case can use this term without even intentionally refering to the actual meaning. What your sources backup is the claim of a nationalist attitude of the party. Nationalism already covers the aspects you brought up here. --Joobo (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You continue to make unsourced assertions in this discussion. Please provide sources for your claim that AfD is somehow only "nationalist" and not specifically nationalist with regard to the nation of Germany, with all the baggage that comes with that - in other words, German nationalist. The IP and I have provided plenty of sources. If all that you wish to do assert that others are ignorant and that you alone know the answer, based on your own authority, you have already said that plenty of times. Please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I dont need to "...understand what that term means.", nor do i have to. I use reliable sources to describe them as it should be done and not my personal oppinions and assertions. Or am i mistaken in how Wikipedia works? Is this about personal oppinions or the collection of reliable sources of which i provided a couple and am willing to collect more if i thought it would be in any way benefitial, which i do not after the previous ones have been completely disregarded. You on the other hand make the same assertion over and over without any sources to back your claim. I just do not get what you actually want from people of another oppinion. So i ask again, what would you like, accademical sources describing their positions as "deutschnational" or "völkischer Nationalismus"? More sources? You simply state your OPPINION against reliable sources and claim you are right. I am just at a loss as to how to go on from here. 91.49.68.199 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
"with all the baggage that comes with that" It is very clear that @Jytdog: is pushing for the term he advocates out of a distinct POV and theory that one word in the infobox will somehow persuade readers to not for the party or something even though they would probably read the German article anyway so this is pointless to continue dragging on especially given it's 1 user and an IP against several others who have provided more than an enough evidence for a matter that already destroys its own argument ipse facto. This has gone on long enough, just end it already..."nationalism" by itself is fine.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
yep i would say the holocaust is some significant baggage attached to german nationalism. That is an NPOV statement and well supported by many sources. The AfD has German nationalism at the core of its platform - a fairly aggressive and oppositional German nationalism at that. Which is probably again one of the main reasons the party is widely written about. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is insanity, you clearly have an axe to grind for something that won't even make a difference. This RfC has dragged on way too long and I can understand why most users wouldn't even care. I give up because there is no more to be said and there is enough evidence against your sentiment.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Funny that you say they would read the german language article, which makes a distinction and calls them nationalist AND german nationalist. Also one user and one ip? Am i not a user and dont have to be looked at equally? 91.49.68.199 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC) And also, which sources have been provided that make clear they are not german nationalist? I may well be blind but i cannot see any in this discussion 91.49.85.205 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Jytdog has significantly changed the scope of the German nationalism article in response to this discussion. His contributions to the 1945-present section are fine, but someone might want to have a look at the rest - the lede in particular, half of which now focuses on post-war nationalist issues (and therefore in a sense re-defines German nationalism in his favour), with some accompanying WP:OR about how the German question "has not been resolved". Unfortunately, I don't have time to war with him over this at the moment. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, as noted above I simply brought it up to date, exactly in line with what I mentioned above and exactly in line with the source that you cited and that I quoted at length above. The german question not being resolved is exactly supported by the quote above. Thank you for the diff which blatantly misrepresents the sources and what I did. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog has informed me on my here on talk page that he will report myself and "others" to ANI over this dispute, seeking a TBAN, presumably to enforce his views over the consensus. I will not participate in the drama that unfolds. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting Jytdog, german nationalism is in the "core" of the party? It is not. Ostensibly, you Jytdog have a personal subjective understanding of the term, either because you like to have this personal association to it or, just like the IP, you still do not understand at all what this term actually means. I noticed Jytdogs edits on the main article of GN. And i will have a closer look at them some time. It is against all basic WP guidelines to push POV. Some edits appear fine from what i saw, some not too much, particularly if it comes to style. --Joobo (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote above is "The AfD has German nationalism at the core of its platform". And yes as the article now discusess the party's most recent congress quashed the moderates, elevated hard right elements, and affirmed a platform that, according to the Wall Street Journal: "urges Germany to close its borders to asylum applicants, end sanctions on Russia and to leave the EU if Berlin fails to retrieve national sovereignty from Brussels, as well as to amend the country's constitution to allow people born to non-German parents to have their German citizenship revoked if they commit serious crimes." The first, third, and fourth elements are explicitly concerned with German nationalist themes - who is German who is not, and German sovereignty vis a vis Europe. Yes German nationalism not handwavy general nationalism but specifically what it means to be German, and German sovereignty, is at the core of what the party is doing now. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2017 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alternative for Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Populism

Talk pages are for discussing concrete changes to content, based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. They are not for airing personal opinions per WP:NOTFORUM. See WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2017 (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.

Why u didnt accept and reverted my edit, which (my edit) was in removing leftliberal propaganda slogan "populist" from AFD description? I bet that u will remove immediately "populist" or "demagog" addition to CDU/CSU and SPD description in same manner.. when they do populists (demagogs, emptytalk) talk and actions, so they also easily can be called populists, as, actually, most of politic parties and so on. But wiki place that "populist" slogan only to rightwing parties...

Term is insult & propaganda 4m leftliberals to haul down their opponents..

It is same as u write in description of CDU/CSU and SPD word liers or demagogues (do u understand what picture already is created.. demagoguers, unrealistic proposals..).. "CDU/CSU and SPD are leftlibheral demagog parties... CDU/CSU and SPD are populists parties..." That termin is offend and propaganda from 1 side to bite and insult other side. It is insult, and u understand that, and that insult, as u clearly can see if u walk around sphere of politics, is directed always only to right parties, when leftliberal parties depicted as "puffy and pure and angels".. and all insult words are removing from their descriptions immediately.. That is not how wikipedia should work.. It is not right to do offending propaganda and insult against 1s, while whitewash others...

Yes, word "populist" has some meanings, but most major of those are insulting 1, it mean like emptymeaning talker, tub-thumper, ranter, like emptywords without deads talker. It is insult. Only to rightwings..

"Reliable sources", who used that insulting termin usually are leftliberals or their mass media... who specially call rightwings or other their oppnents with those words, u should understand that. Leftliberals has much more money then conservators and rights, so those leftliberals own a lot of "reliable sources" .. u should understand that. it is politic. About that termin "populist" we should go to it basic definition, and

"Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Do u understand? So that termin to AFd is Pejorative. Specially. By their opponents on the ground of politics.

Let wikipedia not go down to propaganda and insulting of 1s, while whitewashing worshiping others..

If u want to do some addition in naming rightwings parties (AFD for example, u can call them neutral not offending word like "rightwing advocating party", or "rightwing representing party" or another neutral not insulting word, but i think it is no need and is gross(words no neded burden), it as already understood 4 people what is rightwing party. And in German version it called just rightwing party.Mosquitozzz (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. Neither your opinions nor anyone else's matter here. If you continue to abuse the talk page with your personal opinions your posts will be removed and you will eventually will be blocked from editing. Please read and follow WP:TPG; please also read and follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, for example, reliable sources (mass media in internet or other media so on) owned by rightwings, will call some leftliberal party "lier" (cause they catched them lying on some issues, 4 example), then u also would write in description of that leftliberal party word "liberal lier party"???

What sourses u mean??? THAT IS POLITIC. We should go here not in politic sourses, but in main definition of the word, and 1 of MAJOR definition of the word "populist" is insulting pejorative 1.

"Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

NOW U WANT TO SHUT me down because of MY NORMAL CONVERSATION WITH U BY HIDING ON "reliable resources" ground? Reliable resources is definition vocabulary, and that vocabulary says that 1 of meaning of "populist" is like i have written above. Insulting 1. It is like Dumb or Idiot word - it has 1 normal meaning, and other insulting 1, and insulting 1 is used more often.

I AM NORMALLY INTELLIGENTICALLY(RESPECTFULLY) do CONVERSATION WITH U providing logic statements and facts. But u threat to delete me.. nice.. nice position.. Mosquitozzz (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/populism political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want: Their ideas are simple populism - tax cuts and higher wages. Thesaurus: synonyms and related words http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/populist representing or relating to the ideas and opinions of ordinary people: a populist manifesto a populist leader

"Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Addition to that, 1 of meaning is "mean support of ordinary people by giving them what they want" - ordinary people are different, 7 000 000 000 of people we have there, many of them do not want what propose AFD or other rightwings, not mention that how u would know who is ordinary voter who is not? and which voter to which class is related so on.., so again, that word can not be used to rightwings or to leftliberals parties and peoples on such place as wikipedia. 1 of major mean of "Populist" word is insulting, offending, propaganda meaning.

Please see your talk page Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2017 (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.

AfD not "far-right"

The only well known far-right party in Germany remains the NPD who clearly includes a fascist Hitler endorsing wing being anti-constitution, endorsing a fourth Reich and using sometimes even violence as a tool for political gain. The AfD at the top supports Israel, Nato, the rule of law and opposes or uses any kind of violence against political opponents. The AfD leader in Bavaria, Petr Bryston, is born in the Czech Republic and came to Germany as a refugee himself. You also can find many people from eastern Europe living in Germany supporting the AfD and secular Persians doing the same as well. Achille Demagbo, a black person, got elected as a party executive in the most northern state in Germany, Schleswig-Holstein. Also the party manages to achieve massive support within the group of Russian-Germans. The AfD overall tends to be more a free-market liberal, christian-conservative, law and order, patriotic party rather than a nationalistic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.54.207 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The AfD says they support Israel, yes; but their official program (if I remember correctly) says that they will forbid people to circumscise their children on religious grounds. I fully grant that their original aim is not anti-Jew but anti-Muslim, but if they could do as they liked, they'd certainly be the secularist consequentialists who wouldn't exempt the Jews.--2001:A61:20DC:CC01:484E:3C64:8A2C:65EB (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The label "far right" is not defined in any objective sense and is being applied to any party to the right of the proposed "center", whatever it is. Venqax (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Election results

User:Ritchie333 thanks for protecting the page, however an IP editor slipped in this diff just before you protected. Would you please remove that? Thx Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm normally loathe to touch articles I've full-protected; however I can take this as a reasonable edit request; since the seats have not been announced yet, it seems reasonable to revert for the time being, so I've done so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 September 2017

Add as the second sentence of the lede:

In the German federal election, 2017 the party won 13.3% of the popular vote, putting it third behind the CDU/CSU and SPD.

This edit is needed to keep the article up to date with the election results. It is uncontroversial because there is no dispute about the election percentages. It is time sensitive since there is likely to be a lot of page access in the immediate aftermath of the election, that is, now. I don't think there is a reference needed over and above what is already reported on the 2017 German federal election page, but if you'd like to include one, this would work:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/24/germany-elections-afd-europe-immigration-merkel-radical-right Warren Dew (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece, not news reporting, and is not OK for this content. Right now it appears that all we have are exit polling results, and not official results. (e.g this Guardian page still says "provisional results") There is no hurry. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: I believe official results are now available. Please update request with correct source if this is still needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Protection level

Does this article really need full protection? Wouldn't extended confirmed protection be sufficient? --Tataral (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is only three hours more.... Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Percentage of vote in the 2017 federal election

The party received 12.6% of the vote in the 2017 federal election. Also according to the other Wikipedia article, German federal election, 2017, the party also received and 94 seats. See also Bloomberg quoting the Federal Election Commissioner in Germany, official preliminary results.--2601:2C7:880:E4BD:5086:6F82:A1DB:47D7 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. We can say something like "As of September 25 the provisional result was that Afd won 12.6% of the vote and would receive 13.3% of the seats in the 2017 German federal election".[1]

References

  1. ^ Clarke, Seán (September 25, 2017). "German elections 2017: full results". The Guardian.
-- Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand and agree with your comment. But I did provide a non-Wikipedia source for the information which is Bloomberg, which quoted the German government official results. I provide the link to that source. Also, The Guardian from London is reporting the same information here: The Guardian: "German elections 2017: full results", Monday 25 Sept 2017.--2601:2C7:880:E4BD:5086:6F82:A1DB:47D7 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The "official" results are still preliminary. Final vote tallies have not been published. Yes the bloomberg ref is fine as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: The result is called "preliminary", but the "preliminary official result" is the only result there will be, until the Federal Diet itself in their first sitting (convened according to the "preliminary official result") says that everything was okay with the election (against which assessment there is recourse to the Supreme Court).--2001:A61:20DC:CC01:484E:3C64:8A2C:65EB (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Improve ref tag on "anti-islam" in infobox

The BBC ref says: "AfD's programme is heavily anti-immigrant, and particularly anti-Islam. It calls for a ban on minarets and considers Islam incompatible with German culture.". I have removed the "better ref" tag. User:Hunter9502 please say what exactly is wrong with the source in your view. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC source on the AfD page mentions Anti-Islam but provides no other sources for that claim. As a German speaker, the AfD does not self identify as Anti-Islam and only as Anti-immigration. The German version of the AfD page supports this. Hunter9502 (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
See above. Your objection has no validity here in WIkipedia. BBC is a very reliable source (and one of many, many refs that say that Afd is anti-Islam; this is also well supported in the body of the article. As to AfD's self-identification, this is not relevant in Wikipedia; what matters is how independent, reliable sources characterize it. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No Edit Function for the Intro or the Table

Where is the Edit icon for the introdution or the Table? Since the AfD just won 94 seats in the Bundestag, as mentioned in the text of the article, that at least needs to be updated (currently says 0 seats.) Venqax (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD is far-right

These articles are recent, and state AfD is far-right. Many reputable sources make outright Nazi comparisons. As a minimum, this article should list AfD as far-right, or right-wing to far-right in the header. My edits were reversed which I think is unfair. Almost every source lists AfD as exclusively far-right. [1][2] [3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dw.com/en/afd-what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-far-right-party/a-37208199
  2. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-21/angela-merkel-s-bold-vision-for-germany-can-wait
  3. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-elections-2017-live-updates-latest-news-angela-merkel-cdu-polls-votes-martin-schultz-close-a7963876.html
  4. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2017/09/germany-afd-neo-nazis-170921093140573.html
  5. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/afd-german-elections_uk_59c5053ae4b01cc57ff18158

2601:982:4201:D40:3DA3:4CB:B247:F090 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Anonymous

Maybe stop reading far-left sources. According to them, everyone apart from far left is far right and nazi. --Novis-M (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Er, this is a far-left source, not those listed above. (I assume the general consensus is still someone like Stalin is far-left?) A party that talks about opening gunfire on anyone crossing the border into Germany is a party not incomparable with the Nazis (Yes, I know....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that 'reliable sources' are making inflammatory Nazi comparisons is evidence that, when it comes to current politics, they cannot be trusted as reliable. Xcalibur (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Who can be trusted then? Breitbart I suppose? AusLondonder (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. What I am saying is that the more extreme statements and labels from the mainstream media must be taken with a grain of salt, due to the turbulent political climate. Xcalibur (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that considering AfD both right-wing and far-right is appropriate. Media often uses hyperbole to hype stories, and many of the outlets cited here use both right-wing and far-right to refer to AfD. In addition, if AfD is even perceived as anti-Islam, it may be reasonable to say that an Islamist source like al-Jazeera might be biased against AfD. In addition, on the note of Stalin logic so to speak, a wide variety of ideas associated to AfD like "national liberalism" are not far-right, and we can more or less by extension state that the main/only qualified, verified far-right party at the moment is NPD; although you can obviously see some issues with how subjective and not fact-based this logic is, the fact remains that this is a cause for controversy, and Wikipedia should not take a point of view on the viewpoint of AfD. Nuke (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
First, you're not supposed to fling WP:COMPETENCE at people you disagree with. Secondly, I think we need to understand that the media's reliability can be somewhat compromised when it comes to current politics. Therefore, I think we should avoid the strongest labels and descriptions in articles. Instead of far-right, I would recommend right-wing/populist. Xcalibur (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
AfD is indeed overwhelmingly described as far-right by mainstream English-language sources, and should be described as such in the opening sentence. The reaction of the Government of Luxembourg was: "Seventy years after the end of the war, neo-Nazis are again sitting in the Bundestag."[1] --Tataral (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Remember that the Nazis were around far longer than World War II; when people make legitimate comparisons between the AfD and the Nazis, they're talking about the Nazis of the late 1920s, who were trying to win seats in the Reichstag by democratic means on a populist ticket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 September 2017

The party is considered far-right inside and outside Germany (not centre-right)

http://www.dw.com/en/afd-what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-far-right-party/a-37208199 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/24/afd-far-right-party-set-enter-german-parliament-first-time/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37274201 http://www.leparisien.fr/international/allemagne-le-parti-d-extreme-droite-afd-entre-au-parlement-24-09-2017-7283814.php http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/09/24/news/germania_risultati_elezioni_merkel_schulz_destra_afd_cdu_spd_bundestag-176394900/ https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/24/german-far-right-party-official-hails-political-earthquake.html 213.152.180.5 (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Merkel's party is centre-right. Even The Telegraph is willing to describe AfD as far-right. AusLondonder (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure what the IP wants changed. The article already describes the AfD this way. It started center-right but moved way right over time. The infobox, lead, and current description all describe it per the sources... Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe right-wing is the correct description of AfD as originally conceived; it was never really centre-right like Merkel and the CDU. Over time it moved from being merely right-wing (Eurosceptic populist right-wing) to a far-right party with ties to Neo-Nazism and prominent members who are clearly neo-Nazis (Björn Höcke and others). More or less the same thing happened with Breitbart, which started out as right-wing and became far-right white supremacist only over time. --Tataral (talk) 09:5
I can only guess you haven't a clue who the founder of the site was if you throw those labels so superfluously.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 14:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC), 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done no changes needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Right-wing populist to far-right" in lede description

Seriously, the AfD has been described as far-right, even before the current media circus outside of Germany surrounding the party. Omitting that this party has been described as "far-right" in the lede/infobox seems POV by omission, IMO. MeemSupreem (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What part of the article, specifically, are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The lede section of the article. I'm not against describing the party as "right-wing populist" (I think it would make sense to have that descriptor after the "Eurosceptic" definition, personally), but the party should be described as "right-wing to far-right" in the lede, as this corresponds with the infobox of the article (and with most WP:RS, as far as I can tell). MeemSupreem (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. You did it here. yes that is a good change. That should match the infobox and the content has been well-sourced and accepted in the infobox for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! MeemSupreem (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Seat numbers

Change seat numbers from 0 out of 630 to 94 out of 709 in Bundestag column Christy McM (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source that supports your change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Last resort

User:Aréat your use of "last resort" is not supported by the sources. If you believe it is, please explain here. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. In the source I added : "Armed force is there as a last resort", said Ms Petry, according to a translation by Reuters. No policeman wants to fire on a refugee and I don't want that either."--Aréat (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for talking. Yes you are correct, not sure how I missed that and I apologize. I've added that to the body, and noted that Pretzell said the same thing. In the lead this is clutter -- "if necessary" is a "last resort" kind of thing already. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I'm relieved I wasn't being dragged into a flamewar, with the party being this controversial and the elections nearing in. I feel like the sentence should be edited again, though, to something akin to "may fire at illegal migrants as a last resort to protect the border". Because it was the advocacy for the use of firearms specificaly which provoked the mentioned criticism, and it was Petry's explanation that she only approved of it as a very last measure when confronted with illegals refusing to follow the lawful way to enter the country which made her supporters dismiss the criticism.--Aréat (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

Having been reverted by Jytdog with the edit summary "Much of this has been heavily negotiated. Too aggressive", I'm wondering what the particular concerns are as I can't imagine there could be any objection to 90% of the changes made. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

the three diffs are here.
  • removal of refs from infobox. If you review this talk page and its archives, you will see that almost entry in the infobox has been heavily negotiated. That is how the refs got there, and they unfortunately need to stay
  • Removal of Right wing populism and Economic liberalism from infobox ideologies. That might be OK but needs discussion. If you feel strongly about that, please open a section to discuss that.
You made a bunch of cosmetic edits that were fine. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 September 2017

I would suggest to add "direct democracy" in the infobox as part of "ideology", since it's a cornerstone demand of the party. BountyFlamor (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No source provided and this is not a common description. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Source number 96 under "Public Image" does not support the cited claim

Line in question is:

"At the outset AfD presented itself as conservative and middle-class, catering to a well-educated demographic as more than two-thirds of its initial supporters held doctorates"

Article is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/world/europe/elites-flock-to-anti-euro-party-alternative-for-germany.html

While the article does say:

"More than two-thirds of the supporters listed on the group’s home page have doctorates."

Obviously "supporters listed on the group's home page" and "initial supporters" are not equivalent sets. The listed supporters are only those the party chose to display, and are obviously not all of the party's supporters. I checked the party's website archive for around the time the article was published (link is in German, you will need to translate if you do not read it) and found that it does not say that the people listed are the only supporters, only that the party is "The alternative for Germany is supported by:". This is the equivalent of any product listing testimonials from people who support them. I do not know if the 2/3rds comment is still correct, but the link does not support it. I also doubt there are many sources post-edit that can verify this due to citogenesis.

I added the Failed verification tag already as I don't know whether the phrase should be removed or reworded. PM ME YOUR HARASSMENT (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the whole article. It also says "Eager to portray itself as a moderate, academic and middle-class party, Alternative for Germany is trying to sift out far-right opponents of the common currency who have praised the party’s anti-euro policy." Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant. I'm only saying that the claim that "more than two-thirds of its initial supporters held doctorates" is not supported by the source. The phrase "two-thirds" only appears once in the NYT article, in the sentence I referenced above. "Initial supporters" is not the same thing as "listed on home page". PM ME YOUR HARASSMENT (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh i see. I will fix that. not a big deal. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC re German nationalism or nationalism

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Clear consensus for German nationalism. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In June we ran on RfC on whether the infobox should say that AfG advocates for German nationalism or nationalism in the infobox. It is here.

There were 6 !votes and the close was nationalism; this result was extended to the body of the article as well. The issue remains unsettled, as people come by and change it back and forth.

Re-running this now, to see if we can get a stronger consensus. So, which? Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

!votes

  • I'm not comfortable with a designation of either political position or ideology based on the sociology of the party's electorate, which should necessarily say nothing with regard to the leadership of the party. (For example, in the past some descriptions of party positions have merely been based on voters' self-described political position – which is prone to concerns about how voters will state their own political position; SD voters in Sweden, for instance, naturally insist that their own party is centre-right, despite clear evidence to the contrary that they're farther right than the other Nordic populist/hard-right parties). Also, "policy nationalism" isn't a political ideology, and has been established, mere policies shouldn't be described within the ideology section of a party infobox. Mélencron (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The current label in the infobox is sourced with the following:

  1. Taub, Amanda; Fisher, Max (18 January 2017). "Germany's Extreme Right Challenges Guilt Over Nazi Past". The New York Times.
  2. "Understanding the 'Alternative for Germany': Origins, Aims and Consequences" (PDF). University of Denver. November 16, 2016. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  3. Beyer, Susanne; Fleischhauer, Jan (March 30, 2016). "AfD Head Frauke Petry: 'The Immigration of Muslims Will Change Our Culture'". Der Spiegel.</ref>
  • Source 1 puts AfG very much in its German context:

Mainstream parties in Germany have long eschewed charisma-driven politics — in the style of personality-centered movements — and have avoided shows of overt nationalism. But that leaves an opening: A populist party like Alternative for Germany can indulge those ideas just enough to excite its supporters without scaring off larger groups of voters.

The Alternative for Germany supporters who were gathered in Dresden, the capital of Saxony, seemed animated in a way that is unusual when it comes to modern politics in Germany. Most Germans rarely feel allowed to get excited about their political beliefs or, just as sensitive an issue, about their national identity.

The atmosphere lent the evening a feeling of thrilling transgression, as if the act of cheering half-forbidden ideas was as important, or perhaps more so, than the ideas themselves.

In my view this unambiguously puts the nationalism advocated by AfG squarely in its German context -- in other words, the AfG is a German nationalist party.
  • Source 2 is unambiguous:
  • "Abenheim: The AfD embodies a revival of German nationalism at the expense of the EU, NATO and US world leadership, despite German prosperity and strength in a united Europe. The refugee crisis in 2015-2016 made into reality the propaganda of blood and soil struggles of the party’s world view."
  • "What is core to AfD, however, is the celebration of German national feeling, and love of fatherland as well as an open tendency to dismiss most foreigners, but especially Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Americans, Israelis and others as proxies for multi-national and remote alien entities of the European Union and NATO"
  • Source 3: An interview with the head of the party, Petry, who says:

Petry: Germany's currency and migration policies are currently destroying European solidarity, and the return to the idea of one's own nation in all European countries is a natural corrective to Brussels centralization. We believe that a healthy patriotism should be natural in Germany. This stance includes taking responsibility for our history, but it also presupposes a healthy relationship to our identity, without which it's impossible to act in a forward-looking manner both domestically and externally. We think it's wrong that German politicians are exclusively wrapping themselves in the cloak of guilt.

SPIEGEL: What do you mean by the cloak of guilt?

Petry: Germany's past is used to justify all kinds of things. People say: We have to do this or that because we Germans have weighed ourselves down with a special kind of guilt. One hears that we need to merge Germany into a larger Europe so as to forever prevent the resurrection of German nationalism. But nationalism and patriotism are regularly thrown in the same pot. Even Germany's current, disastrous migration policy can't get by without references to Germany's past. Just a few weeks ago in Dresden, the former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Charlotte Knobloch, warned against equating guilt and responsibility, and encouraged us to have more values-based patriotism. The real responsibilities that we should draw from Germany's past are the preservation of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

Again here we see AfG unambiguously embracing a specifically German nationalism.

So based on what RS say, the answer should be "German nationalism". Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I would prefer "german patriotism". Again, it does not make any sense to me that the local AfD leader in Bavaria coming to Germany as a czech refugee would get elected in a pure nationalistic party. Neither would such a person run for the leadership of such a party nor would his base elect him.
Also keep in mind how far on the left most of the german mainstream media is. And from a left-wing point of view even the centre looks right-wing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.148.27 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 September 2017(UTC)
Content is based on what reliable sources say... Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And if your sources are biased and driven by an own political agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.146.252 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You need to show that most reliable sources support your proposal. I provided the ones already used in the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The Republic states not only that non-Germans support the AfD, but consistently uses the term "nationalist" to describe it. Is that a reliable source? Nuke (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
To the extent that AfD is distinguishable from previous forms of German nationalism (as each was distinguishable in turn from its predecessor), this can be dealt with in the article text and in WP:SUMMARY style at German nationalism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • User:SMcCandlish, the sources are reviewed above. if you like you can review the things that were said in the last RfC as to why this should not be "german nationalism" -- in my view they boiled down to bogus attempts to define "german nationalism" as meaning only pan-germanism (as in, the words are strictly interchangeable); people actually wrote things like "AfD does not advocate annexing Austria so no, it is not a german nationalist party". Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    That does seem a bit arbitrary (and to be OR). This stuck out from the original RfC: "[Claims] that 'German nationalism' means only calls for territorial expansion are bizarre, not supported by sources, and no sources have been brought to support the claim." That seems to be the case. If German nationalism and pan-Germanism were identical, we'd merge them. The fact that some people treat them as synonymous is immaterial when others do not, and WP does not. We can easily disambiguate for those who do. WP has articles on nationalism for various countries, including Germany, and they're summarative histories of nationalism in those places, not descriptions of highly specific, singular historical political positions (i.e., German nationalism is about nationalism in Germany, not a specific politico-philosophical thing with the proper name German Nationalism, or we'd move it to German Nationalism). German nationalism dates to at least the Napoleonic Wars, and arguably to at least 1474, the date of first appearance of [what we translate into English as] "Holy Roman Empire of the German People". It's often been entwined with pan-Germanism, but the threads are distinct. German nationalism's opening sentence is "German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation, promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state, and emphasizes and takes pride in the national identity of Germans." This scope clearly encompasses the intent and focus of Alternative for Germany.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry here but the "Spiegel" itself has a clear left-wing agenda and is hardly a credible news source. It`s like using the NY Times as a source to destroy Trump. The NYT is tilted to the left,too.

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.

Economic liberalism

What is the economic policy of the AfD? It mentions in the infobox that they support economic liberalism and their former leader Bernd Lucke appears to be centre-right petit-bourgeois. Are they essentially the same as UKIP or do they have more of a populist, Germany-first economic policy? Since they are more popular in East Germany, where the population have been exposed to Western decadence for less time, it would seem odd if this was a neoliberal economic party. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a link to their manifesto. The views are consistent with German liberalism: lower taxes, balanced budgets and strong currency, combined with a guaranteed annual income and retention of minimum wage laws. Note the party's connection with economic liberals such as Farage and Wilders. However since secondary sources have largely ignored detailed coverage, we cannot expand information in the article. While the party was founded on economic issues, its main focus has become anti-immigration. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Lemma translated

G'Day, why do you use the english translation of this Party and not it's original German name Alternative für Deutschland as title for this page? Best regards. --Wienerschmäh (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Wienerschmäh (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Because this is English Wikipedia and not German Wikipedia, and we don't expect our readers to understand German or be comfortable reading it. Why wouldn't we translate the name? In general it is standard practice to translate the names of foreign political parties. See, for example, Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Freedom Party of Austria, Free Democratic Party (Germany), Swedish Social Democratic Party, People's Party (Spain), National Front (France), Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), etc. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wienerschmäh: For that matter, let me point out that German Wikipedia also translates the names of foreign political parties (or at least of American ones), like de:Republikanische Partei or de:Demokratische Partei. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank your for the information, I found as well that the most english-language media (like New York Times) use this translation, and you are right we do it on German Wikipedia, too but not in every case - for example Labour Party exists in it's English name in the German Wikipedia, which I think is the right way to handle proper names. Best regards! --Wienerschmäh (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wienerschmäh: No problem. I did notice that the British political parties are all given their English names on German Wikipedia, so the standards are different, but at some point even German Wikipedia has to draw the line with languages that are too different or too distant from German (like with Japanese political parties since you can't expect Germans to understand or read Japanese; but even a lot of the Hungarian political parties have their names translated in their article titles on German Wikipedia, and for that matter German Wikipedia imposes German language order on Hungarian names, so obviously we all make some kinds of adjustments with proper names). The difference is that the bar is much, much lower in the English-speaking world since you can't reasonably expect the average English-speaker (or at least the average American) to be comfortable reading any language that is not English. So we tend to translate everything that's translatable by default. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"expect Germans to understand or read Japanese" sure but we can put the Japanese into Latin, then we put the translation into the text, so that readers will get used to handle the proper names, which is part of the education that Wikipedia offers to the public.. 😊 --Wienerschmäh (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wienerschmäh: That's a nice theory, but my point was that German Wikipedia actually just decides to translate at some point. For example, de:Fidesz – Ungarischer Bürgerbund and de:Liberaldemokratische Partei (Japan). The native Hungarian and Japanese names are given in those articles (and explained) but they are not used anywhere in those articles, which is exactly the way English Wikipedia treats those parties (translate the names and use the translated names, but provide the untranslated names for those who want to know). We just do the same thing for less exotic languages like German as well. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, so this is something we should probably discuss on de-WP. However, what I wrote was just a suggestion. Proper names are given and should not be translated, but the translation can be redirected. It also helps to setup articles in a uniform way. Thanks and best regards. --Wienerschmäh (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wienerschmäh: Kein Problem. Viel Glück damit! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Also see the policy on article titles. --Boson (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hit piece

Recent edits to this make it seem like Alternative For Germany is a Neo-Nazi party. I've removed them. CornFlakes (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

are you serious? --Wienerschmäh (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
that user was blocked for sockpuppetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.113 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Content removal

User:Apr108, here and here you have removed content, but this does not seem to have a basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (you gave no edit note the first time, and said Supporters normally stand against mass immigration, however, they show no signs of racism or anti semitism the second time, which seems to be your own opinion. It is clear that you don't like this, but content in Wikipedia is based on what we call "reliable sources" -- what we do here is summarize reliable sources -- and this is well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Similar kinds of edits are being done by another account. The text is reliably sourced and if it's reliably sourced in the body it also belongs in the lede as a summary. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The content was not removed from the article, just from the opening. On the basis of your reasoning everything in the main body should be summarized in the introduction, which is completely unreasonable, only key information is necessary. Going by your basis of summarizing all reliably sourced information in the introduction, you would also need to include: information on the party's finances, information on leadership changes, co-operation with FPÖ and exclusion from ECR group etc. All this is of course completely unreasonable. Why allegations should take priority or be regarded as key information when giving an overview of the party, you have yet to explain. Helper201 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, in a way. There's undue weight given to that in the lede in its current (short) state, but that doesn't mean that it has to be removed – but that the lede should probably be expanded to include more information about the party's history. Mélencron (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

Missing part: christian conservative values( against gay marriage, in favor of traditional marriage, pro-life etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.63.26 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

neo-nazism

To say this party is connected to neo-nazism is not only completely exaggerated, it is wrong. There might be a few members who have sympathies for the identitarian movement, but neo-nazism is something different. --JFM01 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, can someone please explain why my adding the "which" maintenance tag was reverted? I am not going to edit-war, but I want less WP:WEASEL. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Since I received no response, I'm readding. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the lede

This needs to be posted here due to edits by User:141.70.80.5... I have messaged the user on his talk page regarding his numerous edits, many of which are edit-warring and one of which is outright vandalism, but anyway... Per my edits and the sources (of which there are reputable sources for each accusation, see WP:RS) , there is enough information to justify my wording, which is taken nearly verbatim (albeit translated) from the German Wiki article, which has had the same section for almost a year now.

Does anyone have any feedback on this?

Aside from myself, User: Volunteer Marek, User: Autospark, and User:Shellwood reverted such edits, and I feel would have an opinion.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of biased sentence

"Many supporters of the AfD have shown racist,[19][20] Islamophobic,[21] and/or antisemitic[22] tendencies connected to movements such as Neo-Nazism[23] and identitarianism.[24][25]"

This is a partisan, biased statement that many supporters of the AfD are racist, Islamophobes, etc. This is not a fact and is backed up by biased far-left sources which provide opinion, not evidence. This statement should be removed due to it's partisan nature as well as keeping the page informative, factual and bi-partisan. - Diak4 5:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Biased, far-left sources". You mean Vox? The BBC? Newsweek?
No. Just no. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that Vox isn't left-wing? That Newsweek saying that the AfD is "neo-nazi" is not biased, unfactual,etc?
This statement is highly opinionated, and the suggestion that most supporters of this party are neo-nazi's, racists, etc, are allegations and opinions not facts, thus the sentence should be removed.
Opinions have no place on Wikipedia pages.
-Diak4 6:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The content does not say that "most supporters" are anything. Please deal with what the content actually says. Also the sources are fine per our WP:RS guideline. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It does still say that "many supporters" are something. This is purely an assumption/allegation and this sentence and does not comply with WP:NPOV. While it is okay to use biased sources according to WP:RS, it should not be written as fact. If this sentence is to be included, it should use in-text attribution. And since it does not comply with WP:NPOV, I will again, remove it.
-Diak4 7:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, User:Diak4, you cannot act without consensus. If you would like content to be changed, you need to start an WP:RFC, but in this case the part of the article you keep removing has reliable sources (see WP:RS) and a neutral stance per the sources. (see WP:NPOV), and I agree with many others on this, including User:Jytdog.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 11:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
(addendum: I would also like to pointedly remind you that this section is translated directly from the German Wikipedia article, where it is unsourced because it is simply matter of fact based on evidence of the behaviors of the supporters of the AfD. I added sources per the insane amount of trolls and vandals that keep blanking the content...
"Seit etwa 2015 gilt die AfD als rechtspopulistisch mit Offenheit zum Rechtsextremismus. In der AfD gibt es völkisch-nationalistische, rassistische, islamfeindliche und antisemitische Strömungen mit Verbindungen zu neurechten Gruppierungen, beispielsweise der vom Verfassungsschutz beobachteten Identitären Bewegung."
Basic translation: "Since about 2015, the AfD is considered right-wing populist with openness to right-wing extremism. In the AfD there are nationalistic, racist, anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic tendencies with connections to new right groups, for example that of the (?)constitutionally legal identitarian movement.")-- Wilner (Speak to me) 11:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Climate Change Denial

The party does not deny climate change, but man-made climate change. It clearly says in the linked source http://www.dw.com/en/what-does-the-afd-stand-for/a-19100127 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.43.22 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

please read Climate change denial. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
ok, but still the term man-made should be added, because the party clearly makes that distinction. Climate change cannot be denied if you see that the climate is changing. Not much to discuss about that. The causes of change however require more evidence than just the change itself. 85.149.43.22 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on removal or amendment of sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consenus was in support in regards to keeping the sentence, but I have amended it to appear more neutral per user concerns. Vote was 2 Broadly Keep, 11 Keep, 1 Remove/Amend, 9 Remove -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 21:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the sentence "Many supporters of the AfD have shown racist,[19][20] Islamophobic,[21] and/or antisemitic[22] tendencies connected to movements such as Neo-Nazism[23] and identitarianism.[24][25]" be removed or amended due to concerns of it being biased and opinionated and not complying with WP:NPOV . Diak4 (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove remove the sentence entirely.
  • Amend amend the sentence to make it more neutral, bi-partisan.
  • Keep, keep the sentence as is.

Discussion

  • Remove. I am concerned of the partisan nature of this sentence and it disrupting the neutrality of the page since it is making an allegation that many supporters of this party are racists, neo-nazi's, etc. I am even more particularly concerned with the sources being so biased against this party as well as being partisan, left-wing sites. I understand that this is not against WP:RS however it brings the opinion of these sites and states them as facts on the Alternative for Germany page . Diak4 (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Diak4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, as per above. I don’t see partisan, biased sources being used.--Autospark (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. I think this is fine. --RevivesDarks (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove from lede and amend (as a sentence under "Ideology#German nationalism")
    AfD has been criticized for its perceived racism[19][20] and Islamophobia.[21]
By moving the sentence from the lede, and recasting it as a criticism leveled at the party, rather than as a factual matter of the party, we can better serve neutrality. In this amendment, I specifically remove the claims of anti-Semitism, because from the sources that are listed, this may be an overreaction to the facts at hand. Some members of the AfD have expressed the opinion that Germany should end its period of national penance for the crimes of their grandfathers and move forward. Whether or not one agrees with this position, I don't think that it is anti-Semitic. No one is advocating a return to a time when Jews are persecuted, or even a denial of a past in which they were persecuted. It is a sensitive topic, and such opinions can evoke cries of anti-Semitism. The text might be amended to better reflect this source of the anti-Semitism claims. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
What you say contradicts the Jewish mainstream. Times of Israel ref; Ha Aretz ref; The Tablet ref. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is well sourced, neutral and not partisan in nature given the record of this party. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove from lede and amend per WikiDan61 Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the sources are plenty and reliable. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove It put into question the neutrality of the page. Would be different if it was party members, but not mere supporters. --Aréat (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • keep it is just summarizing content in the body of the article and as is typical in articles like this where "fans" want the lead shiny and clean, the focus has all become on this sentence in isolation from its role in the lead. Read WP:LEAD. There is no way this can be a valid lead without discussing this. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove in the current state of the lede given undue weight. As I've stated before, however, I would prefer to keep it if the lede were expanded to include a broader overview of the party's positions and history. "Many" is an extremely unhelpful weasel word within the context it's used here, and it might be better to make it more explicit (i.e. [prominent members of the party] or something along those lines – otherwise, the "many"/"some" IP-edit warring is never going to cease). Mélencron (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove from the introduction largely to keep neutrality as it is unnecessary when giving an overview of the party itself and for the other reasons aforementioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper201 (talk • contribs)
  • Remove per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Also agree with WikiDan61's point about criticism vs. fact. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Broadly keep I endorse Jytdog's argument that removing mention of the accusations of 'racism', or 'appealing to racism' from the lead, would fail to do justice to the subject. This is one of the central debates about this party. Having said that, phrasing the text in terms of its supporters is vague, and less than ideal. The sources I was able to read were more specific than that, though I was not able to read enough to suggest a better phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove or Amend - currently it looks not to be summarizing the article per WP:LEAD, and yes this is not WP:NPOV because it has a vague "Many" followed by laundry list of vague WP:LABEL claims stating it as fact in WP voice rather than providing a general paraphrase summary of the Public Image section stated as a report or putting in any other views. If should be stating without inflammatory labels the Public Image section in general descriptive, something like 'The far-right policies and occasional statements were causing criticism' would be more appropriate. Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm noticing that the exact statement is on the German Wikipedia article summary, and seems to have been translated directly. It is also properly sourced, which even furthers this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarmaps (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — Polarmaps (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Broadly Keep
The part of the article you keep removing has reliable sources (see WP:RS) and a neutral stance per the sources. (see WP:NPOV).
I would also like to pointedly remind you that this section is translated directly from the German Wikipedia article, where it is unsourced because it is simply matter of fact based on evidence of the behaviors of the supporters of the AfD. I added sources per the insane amount of trolls and vandals that keep blanking the content...
from the German Wikipedia article de:Alternative für Deutschland "Seit etwa 2015 gilt die AfD als rechtspopulistisch mit Offenheit zum Rechtsextremismus. In der AfD gibt es völkisch-nationalistische, rassistische, islamfeindliche und antisemitische Strömungen mit Verbindungen zu neurechten Gruppierungen, beispielsweise der vom Verfassungsschutz beobachteten Identitären Bewegung."
Basic translation which is used on the English Version: "Since about 2015, the AfD is considered right-wing populist with openness to right-wing extremism. In the AfD there are nationalistic, racist, anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic tendencies with connections to new right groups, for example that of the constitutionally legal identitarian movement.")
So, essentially, this RFC should be irrelevant because this was a year-old portion already taken from an existing article that shouldn't need sources in the first place.
Let's also point out that you blatantly committed vandalism THREE TIMES in nearly 24 hours by blanking the content.
1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

-- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep There is a consensus in reliable sources for this information. It's not a matter of opinion that the AfD has roots in Nazism and makes similar appeals to xenophobia. TFD (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove The POV in the sources is staggering. Just like there, the wording here suggests the AFD is the new Hitler party where a new holocaust must be feared. Complete nonsense. If we write about "many AFD voters" here, there are at least equally many AFD votes who simply do not agree with the mass influx of migrants from muslim cultures to Germany and Europe. PS: saying many AFD voters are antisemitic because of Höcke's "memorial of shame" comment is even more nonsense. In fact the party largely criticizes Islam and its antisemitism (Islam and antisemitism) --Ribo512 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) — Ribo512 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi User:Ribo512, this same section is taken directly from the German Wikipedia, and is directly translated from the German Wikipedia article de:Alternative für Deutschland "Seit etwa 2015 gilt die AfD als rechtspopulistisch mit Offenheit zum Rechtsextremismus. In der AfD gibt es völkisch-nationalistische, rassistische, islamfeindliche und antisemitische Strömungen mit Verbindungen zu neurechten Gruppierungen, beispielsweise der vom Verfassungsschutz beobachteten Identitären Bewegung."
Basic translation which is used on the English Version: "Since about 2015, the AfD is considered right-wing populist with openness to right-wing extremism. In the AfD there are nationalistic, racist, anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic tendencies with connections to new right groups, for example that of the constitutionally legal identitarian movement."
I should aslo add, it is unsourced on the German version because it is matter of fact. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 05:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wilner, there is no need to copy&paste what you already stated. You voted, and so did I. BTW: "islamfeindlich" is different to "islamophobic". So the translation is partly even wrong. Besides it requires sources, no matter how much you think something is a fact. The claim the party is antisemitic is nonsense and requires sources. In fact they communicated their concerns about imported antisemitism from muslim cultures. --Ribo512 (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "POV in the sources". There's only POV in what Wikipedia articles write. Sources are either reliable or they're not. And the sources here are reliable. Your comment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and hence should be properly discounted in closure of this RfC.
First, "It is unsourced [..] because it is a matter of fact", and then "There's no such thing as POV in the sources." OK I'm outta here ;) --Ribo512 (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! So if you hadn't noticed, I had even researched it and added many sources such as The New York Times (arguably the best voice in English journalism), Vox, Deutsche Welle, etc. It should be no problem because all those article corroborate the statement! :) -- Wilner (Speak to me) 01:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@User:The Quixotic Potato, how is this regarded as one of the articles most important elements? I don't know of any other major political party where the attitudes of its supporters are highlighted in the introduction and why this can't just be moved to one of the other sections, or get one of its own. Helper201 (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, is your question: How are shared attributes among a large percentage of members of a group relevant when describing that group? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You have simply assumed this 'large percentage'. What is written in the paragraph is 'many', a word which is also to a large degree subjective (one may regard 30% as many, another 40%, another may say over half etc). As I mentioned, describing attitudes of supporters is not something which is done in the introduction of political party pages on Wikipedia. What is important is the views and policies the party actually advocates. Helper201 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Helper201"describing attitudes of supporters is not something which is done in the introduction of political party pages on Wikipedia." Right on the German Wikipedia Page de:Alternative für Deutschland it does exactly that, and has for almost a year now. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 08:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wilner, fair enough, I don't use other language pages on Wikipedia outside English. At least its not typical on English political party pages and I still don't see it as worthy for the introduction. Helper201 (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2018 (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.

Cite bundling

Due to the apparent need for us to add up to six citations per adjective in the lede, could we do a bit of cite cleanup and bundle a few of them together. Suggest using unique ID names if the same sources re-occur in the body ushttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_for_Germany&action=edit#ing different text from the source and a single ID for each bundle. This way we can add relevant quotes to the quote field for each citation. I've done one. My handling of code is notoriously awful, please check my work. Cheers. Edaham (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, multiple sourcing usually indicates that none of them are strong, and more are added to bolster the claim. But really there should only be one or two definitive sources. TFD (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
That seems a little strange to me. Many articles implicitly need multiple sources per some controversial claims. Usually if there are only 1-2 sources, then edit wars ensue and it is easier to claim "not well sourced," as when only one or two sources are added, it usually indicates it is not well reported, in my view. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome to delete the ones you think are crap. Cite bundling doesn't hurt though. It makes it easier to pick through the source code and identify the weak ones, which I will not do at this time. Edaham (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "controversial claims?" Do you mean claims about which reliable sources disagree? In that case we should use a source that says there is disagreement rather than stack numerous sources to support what we have decided is right. Or do you mean controversial in the sense that there is academic consensus but opposition in fringe sources? Then all we must do is provide one reliable source and ask the fringe theorists to find a reliable source presenting alternative facts.
The problem is none of the sources appear to be particularly strong, which probably explains why there are so many of them.
TFD (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
you keep saying that, but they’re still there. Which ones should be removed? Edaham (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:Alternative for Germany#Discussion. Rather than whittle them down, I would rather see a good source, although I cannot find one. Hoping someone could. TFD (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

national pride

The quote "has said that Germany should make a "180 degree" turn with regard to its sense of national pride" seems a fuzzy description. It was a controversial statement of the Dresden speech related to the specific "memorial culture". The phrase "sense of national pride" looks empty and does not explain the actual significance of the Höcke statement. --Froschmaterial (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_for_Germany/Archive_4&oldid=1084062506"