Jump to content

Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 5

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

right-wing[9] to far-right[10]

I was summoned here by LB on a different RfC. I read through the article and found the above description in the lede. this is WP:SYNTH. This wording is almost certain to bring to mind a point on a scale between the two points on a political spectrum. Most of the sources however either use the term right wing or far right. Some of them use both. It is undue and synth to suggest that sources give as specific a description as being Right to far right wing. better wording needs to be found for this. Suggestions welcome Edaham (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, 'soft-core Neo-Nazi fascists' would be more accurate, but that has other problems. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Not helpful. You can put humor on my talk page, and I can fail to see the joke in a more appropriate location. Edaham (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
While the terms right wing and far right derive from a scale on the political spectrum, they refer to specific groups. Right-wing is ambiguous because the Christian Democrats are also right-wing. TFD (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the new wording. Putting just 'far right' would be misleading due to the connotations. An alternative would be something like 'Right wing nationalist' but I think the wording is fine. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

well I'm glad you like it. It would probably be better to attribute it as one or another or even both, but not imply it lies between if that's not what reliable sources say. Edaham (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case right wing appears to be the predominant name according to most reliable sources. Both labels are sourced, I don't see the problem with the current wording as it is not clear-cut whether or not they are right-wing or far-right. As I stated before, right wing nationalist may be more accurate and descriptive. a discussion may be needed. I propose something along the lines of this below, with three choices:

(1) How it is now (2) Right Wing (3) Far Right

I would imagine the outcome would be either 1 or 2 but it may be worth having the discussion to be sure. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

on the BBC I cannot find one single source referring to it as simply right wing. They all say far right. Based on that we should just wp:duck sorry, wp:due Edaham (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have just had a look at the BBC source which agrees with that. Interpretations of far-right vary - it could be argued either way so this is why I propose a discussion. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As per wp:due a discussion may be needed to find the majority opinion as both terms are prominent and can easily be backed up. In a discussion I can't see consensus being reached so an admin would probably need to use discretion. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

here's an idea: you worry about your talk page and I'll fix the article. Edaham (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I will do it tomorrow - it is a university IP. I will create my account tomorrow. The state of the talk page has no bearing on the (lack of) consensus on this issue. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

there's a good chap. Edaham (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • jytdog thanks for your involvement in restoring material. I can understand why you want it there based on it being a summary of the article contents, however the reason I think removing those items improved the article is that putting all of those terms in that specific position along with the word "also" seems to create a false equivalence relationship with the initial descriptor and hints of some contention with, or alternative to the far-right descriptor, where in fact there is none.
    Would you consider moving all of that additional information down into the ensuing paragraph, or below it. The first sentence as I wrote it is very clear and uncontraversially defines the subject in the way in which it has been most commonly described with no additional flack. Edaham (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The OR here seems to be you picking one aspect to elevate. If I had to choose one it would probably be German nationalism... but I would not do that. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I Hadn't really thought of it like that. I Simply did a search because I didn't like the unwieldy look of the sentence and wanted to make it simpler and found the site to be unanimously referred to in a particular way by RS Media - like, really unanimously. The BBC article I used as a reference literally says: "Is the AFD far right? Yes." I could easily say that it's OR to stuff the sentence full of convoluted obscurely sourced terminology written in the passive voice. I think it's worth just simplifying the sentence and moving all the other crufty academic refs and speculative musings further down the paragraph. Do consider, but I'm not going to push it much further though because I don't really want a history record of having appeared to care that much about this issue. Edaham (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Edaham:, @Jytdog:, so we still have it listed as both right-wing and far-right in the infobox. I agree with specifying to far-right but unclear on how to proceed with the userbox. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 07:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't really see the issue. It should be described as far right in the info box. We are just confusing our readers by blurring things in order to treat the subject with kid gloves. It's a far right party and when people talk about it they further subdivide or specify it using other terms. It isn't for example, German nationalist without being far right. It's both. Why then would you use a conjunction or second clause to say it has been described as - as if those were other alternative things it attests or has been attested to be? Edaham (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposal

Alternative for Germany (German: Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) is a German far-right political party.

Founded in April 2013, the AfD narrowly missed the 5% electoral threshold to sit in the Bundestag during the 2013 federal election. In 2014 the party won seven seats in the European election as a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists. After securing representation in 14 of the 16 German state parliaments by October of 2017, the AfD became the third largest party in Germany after the 2017 federal election, claiming 94 seats in the Bundestag, a major breakthrough for the party as it was the first time the AfD had won any seats in the Bundestag. The party is chaired by Jörg Meuthen; its lead candidates in the 2017 elections were AfD Co-Vice Chairman Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel who now serves as the party group leader in the Bundestag.

Since about 2015, the AfD is increasingly open to working with far-right groups such as the Pegida movement. The party has been described as a German nationalist, right-wing populist, and Eurosceptic party. Portions of the AfD have racist, Islamophobic, and/or antisemitic tendencies linked to far-right movements such as Neo-Nazism[28][27] and identitarianism.

Edaham (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I support the content addition, but not the placement. I think it seems unnatural to lodge it where you suggest.(No offence!) It should be before "Since..." or after "...identarianism." at least, perhaps at the end of the previous paragraph of the article. ("...in the Bundestag.")-- Wilner (Speak to me) 00:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I really have no idea why people are suddenly picking an issue with this now. Its been right-wing to far-right for over a year. Both positions are very well cited and having two positions in the info box is not uncommon for political parties. Both positions have plenty of evidence from well respected outlets. Different outlets have labelled the party differently for a long time and continue to do so. You will still see it being labelled as right-wing and still labelled as far-right today. Both positions have been highlighted for a long time in both the info box and the opening paragraph for the sake of neutrality. I can't see how anyone can have a problem with that, unless they want to misrepresent the party either because they are against its views and ideologies or because they are supportive of them. Helper201 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope you realise that the AFD has shifted to the far-right. Per this discussion it's plainly obvious that the consensus was to keep it that way. 90% of the sources in the past year call it a far-right party. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right" is a subset of "right wing". The former is more descriptive, informative and encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Example: If you see a pig, you call it a pig, not a mammal. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
If that was a slur, it's not helpful, but the idea is more or less correct. Per this discussion, I moved info I previously removed from the lede to a more appropriate section. If the initial sentence can be as succinct as possible per a pyramid editing structure, then I think it can do without portraying a bunch of cherry picked terminology as alternative positions for the party. That's not to say that the info isn't useful - it just isn't DUE if given false equivalence with as reliable a statement as "It's a German far right party". Edaham (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I've used the proposed version per R9tgokunks's suggestion. Edaham (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So first of all, where is the evidence they have shifted to the right and are now only far-right, sources? Secondly this 90% of sources refer to the party has far-right is WP:OR. The German press itself still refers to the party as right-wing = http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-populist-afd-seeks-to-turn-online-censorship-to-its-advantage/a-42004730

Also it doesn't matter if one position out weighs the other. Just look at the Free Democratic Party, centre-right massively outweighs the centre there, yet centre still stays because its cited, as right-wing should in this case. Helper201 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The subset argument is also pointless, as it disregards the fact that there is a difference between right-wing and far-right, they are not the same thing. A party can be right-wing without being far-right or sit between the two. Cited information from reliable sources, especially that which is up-to-date and highly relevant should not be disregarded. What is more descriptive and informative is largely down to personal perspective and largelly irrelavant either way, what matters is what is correct, not what looks best. Helper201 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need evidencing in terms of percentage values. It's an article not a legal case. It needs to be clear and verifiable, not unanimous. There's more than enough reliable information to write it the way it's been written. Edaham (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The point is right-wing is evidenced and this is the way it has long stood. Right-wing to far-right is and was clear and verifiable, as it has been for a long time. Also you are ignoring what I said, just because far-right may have more evidence than right-wing recently, doesn't mean you can discount or remove cited evidence for right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The amount of sources on the page now clearly constitutes Wikipedia:Citation overkill by an editor presumably trying to prove a point. It has not been suggested that far-right should be removed, so I don't see the point. Just that regardless of the weight one way or the other, if the claim is cited, as right-wing is, it should still be included. Please see the example I gave of the FDP. You could also look as Citizens. Weight of citations doesn't matter. If credible sources still make the claim then it shouldn't be removed. Helper201 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


What you are saying seems like willful ignorance. There is no evidence that people use right wing to far right as a descriptor. I have found at least 10 sources published in late 2017-2018 that all say Far-Right. Sources I found are:

Feel free to read them, as all instances have a quote or it is in the headline itself.

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add you have reverted or removed my additions of valid content at least 3 times today. Please seeWP:3RR. Also, please note from the WP:CITATIONOVERKILL page: This page is an essay on the Verifiable policies and the Citing Sources guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 05:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am willfully ignoring? Please read my posts. As I said its not about the amount of sources either way, as seen on the page Free Democratic Party (Germany), its about whether or not the party is still being cited this way, as AfD is. As seen by the citation I added and gave in a post above, which is from 2018, where a reliable German news outlet explicitly still refers to the party as right-wing. There has been no good reason given for the removal of cited content from reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • You aren't listening to what other users are saying. I think that seems like it qualifies. There is ample evidence for numerous arguments against putting what you want into the article. Just because you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, doesn't qualify as a reasonable argument. It's implicit in your edits and words.
  • It is not encyclopedic to list "right wing to far right." Per my previous statement:"When you see a pig, you call it a pig, not a mammal." The more specific it can be, that one will be used.
  • Most sources since mid 2017 have the AFD categorised as a far right party anyway.
  • "There's more than enough reliable information to write it the way it's been written." - per Edaham (talk · contribs)

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 05:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You aren't listening to a single point I'm making. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF SOURCES. If you look around at other political parties there are plenty that use "position X to position X". Yes, MOST, not ALL, this is not justification for removal of up-to-date cited content. There is more than enough to write it as right-wing to far-right, as it long had been. The fact is your not writing it in any better way or adding information, your attempting to justify removing content. Also, I'm addressing each one of your points, your mostly ignoring mine. Look here is a recent source, reliable German outlet, 2018, explicitly says RIGHT-WING = Germany's populist AfD seeks to turn online 'censorship' to its advantage. Helper201 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You're apparently projecting onto me. I'm not arguing about the amount of sources, per se. Also, I'm listening to all your arguments. You however, have gone against more than one other user and failed to listen to and accept their words. Plainly, and basically... It is unencyclopedic and not constructive. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, again I must point this out, due to the misconstruing of my point about sources: Most sources since mid 2017 have the AFD categorised as a far right party' The AfD has shifted over the years, and this has been well reported. To be current, we must reflect this. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
At the very least this supposed rightward shift in 2017, that to your view subsequently classifies the party as only far-right, should be made clear in the 2017 section of the page. How, why etc, with cited sources. For the whole of 2017 the page had the party cited as right-wing to far-right, it should at the very least be made clear to readers how and why this change occurred. Helper201 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Those changes sound like they belong in the body of the article in a history section. Regarding your other suggestion, I'm sorry, you cannot combine sources to arrive at a result. If one source says there are x lemurs in some location and another source says there are y lemurs in some other location, then we quote the sources and their text independently. We don't say there are x+y lemurs worldwide for the simple reason that an unspecified third article may or may not say there are more lemurs elsewhere. Right wing to far right implies a position like this L.......|...@...R
None of the sources we quote from specify to this level of detail. If they specify at all they say "far right". Specifying otherwise, or sandbagging the term with alternatives may confuse our readers. There are ample sources which allow us to plainly state that this is a far right party. The problem with your points is that you are arguing from a what-you-want-the-article-to-say position, where as what we need is verifiable clarity so our readers don't have to chew on their finger nails or the ends of their mustaches (if they have them), while trying to work out what we mean. Edaham (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(copied from talk page)

You gave a misleading edit summary. I wasn't the last person to remove that. We have been having a discussion about this on the talk page. Maybe you'd like to join before unilaterally editing things? Edaham (talk · contribs) was the last person to remove it, and Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) also has taken part. I find it personally offensive that you shout these baseless claims before doing any research OR collaborating with the other editors. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You also deleted good edits by Edaham (talk · contribs) that bundled sources. Your edits are borderline vandalism. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
There hasn't been significant discussion on the talk page of the change, and you didn't attempt to seek consensus for removal before that, either. WP:BRD – you've been reverted several times already by other editors active on the page (namely Helper201, who also keeps tabs on many political party articles for uncited changes/additions/removals of cited content), and this is consistent with that. There isn't a clear consensus on the talk page, and I suggest that you cease reverting and, instead, initiate a RfC on the topic rather than engaging in POV pushing with other editors – both labels are well-cited and have been long-established without challenges until recently, and you would do well not to accuse me of "vandalism" with your kind of conduct. Though neither a policy or guideline, WP:REFBOMB also explains part of the reason that I made my edits: you don't need to excessively source every single statement, especially short statements or lists like those in the infobox or body text of the article – each source already sufficiently substantiates each statement, and adding more in the infobox causes formatting issues and also seems a bit WP:POINTy to me. The only edit by Edaham I outright reverted in my edit was this one, not his revert of the IP's deletion of the terms "anti-Semitic" and "xenophobic" – look carefully before accusing me of things I didn't do and implying that I'm biased in a way I'm not. Mélencron (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As explained on the discussion on the talk page, when time goes on, things change. The AFD has moved farther to the right and is now seen as a far-right party almost exclusively per the reporting since mid last year. 90-95% of the sources I pulled up on the AfD in the past 6 months have plain use of "farright", and even if you find it pertinent to include it, it is unencyclopedic. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm... unconvinced of that. A quick Google test shows that it's not remotely as disproportionately as you assert – in English-language sources such as the BBC, for example, I've got 52 results for "right-wing" (excluding mentions of "far-right"), compared to 146 for "far-right", and contrary to what you claim, there are still plenty of sources from the past year alone that substantiate this: say, just from page 1, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. I've been involved in RfCs litigating similar issues in the past, and I'd suggest that's the best course of action here rather than arguing on my talk page. Mélencron (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Publication Right-wing Far-right Right-wing %
BBC News 52 146 26.2%
Financial Times 30 195 13.3%
The Economist 412 1,020 28.8%
The Guardian 33 204 13.9%
Politico Europe 57 491 10.4%
The Telegraph 31 174 15.1%
The Times 169 195 46.4%
The New York Times 37 308 10.7%
The Washington Post 48 209 18.7%
The Wall Street Journal 57 154 27.0%
NPR 25 58 30.1%
Reuters 825 2,220 27.1%
Deutsche Welle 354 2,220 13.8%

As above: the usage is hardly disproportionate, and there's really no reason why both terms can't be included. Mélencron (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's, say, a second comparison under the same parameters in French publications:
Publication Right-wing Far-right Right-wing %
Le Figaro 83 217 27.7%
Le Monde 145 338 30.0%
Le Parisien 198 179 52.5%
L'Express 147 204 41.9%
Libération 25 99 20.2%
Les Échos 92 84 52.3%
L'Obs 73 118 38.2%
Challenges 79 193 29.0%
Mélencron (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: I used a similar argument here at the (third) RM request for La République En Marche!, suggesting that the page be moved given the disproportionality of sources using a certain term (in that case, a specific name) as opposed to another. Here, I'm making an argument in the same vein: the usage of the term "far-right" is hardly disproportionate compared to "right-wing"; even R9tgokunks's suggestion that this doesn't hold true in more recent sources... doesn't hold true. Mélencron (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, If the results you are tabulating, (which is not how we research/write articles by the way) were dead 50/50 or even tilted (by your presentation of the data) in favor of "right wing", it would still be perfectly acceptable to write that the party is far-right based on the facts that 1)they are and 2)its very well sourced. We do make distinctions on some articles, its true. The British Labor Party article describes them as center left. This is because there are lots of sources which describe them as center left. There aren't any sources which reliably distinguish this party from the far-right though, and on a scale of 0-1 nought being center and one being extreme right, a bunch of noughts and ones from various sources don't equal point five. By the same token we don't describe humans as creatures having between nought and two legs, because there are sources which don't specifically state their number of legs. Edaham (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here – I've never argued that the party shouldn't be described as "far-right", which is, after all, how most sources tend to describe the party – that's what's shown above. I assure you that I haven't tilted the distribution of data (it's simply a comparison of numbers of results for x site:sitename and y -x site:sitename, so as to eliminate duplicate terms, probably in a way that slightly inflates the count for x – which in this case is "far-right" – as it doesn't also exclude y). Also, are you attempting to argue that the infobox should only show one political position? If that's the case, then I'd argue that's completely permissible and a very common occurrence on political party articles, and also very common on articles on European political parties classified as "right-wing populist": National Front (France), Party for Freedom, Danish People's Party, Freedom Party of Austria, Sweden Democrats, etc. In most of these cases, as here, you'll find that the distribution shows that "far-right" is a more common descriptor (I'd be surprised if you find a time where that's not the case). However, as Helper201 noted above, it's perfectly within reason to note secondary descriptors if not insubstantial number of sources use them: the FDP is typically now considered right-of-centre, but there are a substantial number of sources which also state that it lies in the centre. Mélencron (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From your analysis I'm even more convinced that only far-right should be used. Your analysis shows that by in large the AfD is widely perceived and reported as a far-right party. We need to be as specific as we can be and far-right is a subset in itself of right-wing, which I would argue doesn't require us to include it as far-right implicitly indicates that. It's just like I keep saying about pigs. When you see a pig, you call it a pig, not a pig and a mammal. Specificity is much more encylopedic. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 21:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
For instance, I'm seeing that a whopping 90% (308 vs 37 uses) of the time, The New York Times uses "far-right". Deutsche Welle is similar with even more uses 2,220 vs. 354 uses in total for far-right at around 86% of the time. I'd say using those two highly reputable sources alone indicates that we should use only farright. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Closing from request at ANRFC. Both terms are adequately sourced. There seems to be no policy constraint involved, which drops this in editorial discretion. The !vote count is 6-5, giving a slight edge to option A. This could lead to an obvious finding of no consensus, but I do note that option A includes the phrase "far right", which seems to make it inclusive of option B. As there are not any strong arguments as to why "right wing" must be excluded and "far right" should be exclusively used, I am going to close this as option A but note that this is a very weak consensus.

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.

How should the AfD be described within the infobox?

  • A: right-wing to far-right
  • B: far-right
  • C: another option (describe below)

Mélencron (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • A, as the initiator of the RfC and as I've argued above, the proportion of sources using the term "right-wing" is a substantial enough minority that it merits inclusion within the infobox. Mélencron (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • B - Far-right: Firstly quoting you above

    it's simply a comparison of numbers of results for x site:sitename and y -x site:sitename, so as to eliminate duplicate terms, probably in a way that slightly inflates the count for x – which in this case is "far-right" – as it doesn't also exclude y

    . You've literally defined Wikipedia:Combining_sources with that argument. In any case, for what it is worth to a closing editor, my choice is based on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Clarity "The goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion, while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting. Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording", with a large helping of WP:RS and WP:DUE on the side Edaham (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A, in total agreement with the points made by User:Mélencron. Having two positions such right-wing to far-right is common practice on many poitical party pages, right-wing is well cited from multiple reliable sources and citations can be given from as recently as this year to support the position claim of right-wing, no evidence has been given in the history section of this supposed shift further to the right than now apparently only classifies the party as far-right. Helper201 (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A, it fit the party's stance and it isn't unusual for many others parties all over the political spectrum to not be solely defined by one category.--Aréat (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B the vast majority of reporting currently describes it as a far-right party, per your analysis in the above post showing that by in large most people consider the AfD to be far-right. Some sources for instance that single it as being explicitly far-right: The New York Times, NPR, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, The Guardian etc.
Publication Right-wing Far-right Right-wing %
BBC News 52 146 26.2%
Financial Times 30 195 13.3%
The Economist 412 1,020 28.8%
The Guardian 33 204 13.9%
Politico Europe 57 491 10.4%
The Telegraph 31 174 15.1%
The Times 169 195 46.4%
The New York Times 37 308 10.7%
The Washington Post 48 209 18.7%
The Wall Street Journal 57 154 27.0%
NPR 25 58 30.1%
Reuters 825 2,220 27.1%
Deutsche Welle 354 2,220 13.8%
Also, per my above statement that "For instance, I'm seeing that a whopping 90% of the time (308 vs 37 uses) The New York Times uses "far-right". Deutsche Welle is similar with even more uses 2,220 vs. 354 uses in total for far-right at around 86% of the time. I'd say using those two highly reputable sources alone indicates that we should use only farright." Also bolsters this, just for example.

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's cherry-picking, no? The median English publication is 81.3%; the medium French-language one is 65.9%. These are all (imo) particularly reputable sources in their respective languages. Mélencron (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A: Per Mélencron -- there is a sizable proportion of mainstream sources that refer to the AfD as "right-wing", in addition to "far-right." We should include both labels because of the number of RSs using the terms, as well as the fact that the AfD is a controversial current political party and "far-right" is frequently used in a pejorative sense (and it would not help WP if readers think it's biased against AfD). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Strongly disagree: What you just said in the latter half of your statement is absurd, and aside from the issue at hand being discussed. It is ridiculous to assume that it's a "frequently perjorative term." Per Mélencron (talk · contribs)'s analysis,(with whom you claimed to agree) it is the preferred descriptor in reporting on the AfD. Most major journalists use it. Including what is reported is by and large what we do here at Wikipedia, and there is no bias in that. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
In case you missed it here is that analysis i spoke of, wherein "far-right" is used by every outlet the majority of the time.
Publication Right-wing Far-right Right-wing %
BBC News 52 146 26.2%
Financial Times 30 195 13.3%
The Economist 412 1,020 28.8%
The Guardian 33 204 13.9%
Politico Europe 57 491 10.4%
The Telegraph 31 174 15.1%
The Times 169 195 46.4%
The New York Times 37 308 10.7%
The Washington Post 48 209 18.7%
The Wall Street Journal 57 154 27.0%
NPR 25 58 30.1%
Reuters 825 2,220 27.1%
Deutsche Welle 354 2,220 13.8%

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So if 51% of the sources say "far-right", we should only use that term to the exclusion of all others? There is no consensus among the RSs that the AfD is "far-right." Yes, a majority, but there is still a substantial minority that use "right-wing", and some of the publications listed above use it a lot. So you want to take out a frequently-used descriptor because it still doesn't have the 51% majority?
Also, I agree with Mélencron's reasoning about the proportion of sources first and foremost -- the fact that "far-right" is frequently used in a pejorative sense is of significantly lesser importance to me. But still, if many people also refer to the AfD as "right-wing" (as Mélencron shows above) and WP's article only says "far-right" (a term also used for outright Nazi and fascist parties), they would think the article is biased and purposely excluding the many RSs mentioning the party as "right-wing." Not good for the encyclopedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B, or nothing. The large number of sources analyzed above show fairly clearly that a preponderance of sources use the term "far-right" to describe this organization. So I'd be fine with including that. There are a few sources which just say "right-wing", but they are clearly in a minority. Therefore, giving them equal weight to those that use "far-right" is not appropriate. If we feel this set of descriptions is too complex to be captured by "far-right", then remove that infobox parameter altogether, and analyze the sources in depth in the body. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B - It seems to me that we have reliable sources regularly referring to AfD as "far-right" and that it is merely a more specific form of right wing (the "right wing of the right", if you will). Much as all people who are "very tall" are also "tall". Describing someone who is exceptionally tall as simply "tall" -- while correct -- is missing the point. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • B - far-right -- ^ Agree with above comment ^ It should be specified. It helps that Most sources most often use the term "far-right." The article should reflect the general public image and reporting of the party. Polarmaps (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC) — Polarmaps (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • B - Far-right: clearly the most commonly used descriptor for the party.--Autospark (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A per User:Mélencron, consistency with similar articles and sources (a substantial number of them refer to AfD as right-wing), even though, in my personal opinion, the party is just right-wing and not far-right. I would use "far-right" with more caution, prudence and parsimony. --Checco (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A: Even if many sources refer to AfD as far-right party, I think it's incorrect. The Nazi Party or the National Fascist Party are considered far-right parties, we cannot have AfD in the same category. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A: I would never classify the AfD to the right of the FN, PVV or FPÖ, especially since Jörg Meuthen and Beatrix von Storch refuse to cooperate with the FN because it is nationalist.[8] Braganza (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • B - far-right - supported by the vast majority of the cited sources, and not really contradicted by any. I agree with SummerPhDv2.0 and others who point out that sources using the term "right" do not contradict sources that describe it as far-right. To analogize, when describing the Reuben sandwich, some sources may describe it as a "sandwich" but this is not in contradiction to sources describing it as a "hot sandwich." Also, the two comments immediately above - from Nick.mon and Braganza - should be discounted by the closing admin because they make no argument at all beyond "I personally disagree with the sources." Neutralitytalk 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think it's helpful to cite news stories and what terminology they use. In many cases they may use terms such as far right or right wing for brevity. There is a distinction between right-wing populism and the far right, and it's not clear where this party sits, although obviously it draws elements of both. In the case of older parties, such as the BNP in the UK, we can consult academic works about the far right in the UK or in Western Europe. I cannot find any such sources that mention the AfD except in passing. It seems they began as right-wing populists but were taken over by the far right. Can anyone point to sources that about right wing politics that explain where they should currently be placed? TFD (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a few from The New York Times, NPR, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, and The Guardian. They seem to all use far-right specifically.
(2 December 2017). "Germany's far-right AfD chooses nationalist as co-leader". Reuters. Reuters.
(13 October 2017). "German election: How right-wing is nationalist AfD?". BBC.com. The BBC. "Is it far-right? Yes."
(24 October 2017). "Far Right Upsets Tradition of Consensus in New German Parliament". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. "the first far-right party to enter Parliament in decades,"
(24 September 2017). "AfD: What you need to know about Germany's far-right party". DW.com. Deutsche Welle.
(10 October 2017). "The 'Very Different' Leaders Of Germany's Far-Right AfD Party". NPR.com. National Public Radio.
(3 December 2017). "Germany's far-right AfD sidelines moderates as police and protesters clash". The Guardian.

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Helper201: I wasn't sure about the usage of "right to far right" as a commonly employed term on Wikipedia so I put it in quotes and searched for it. You are right, and thanks - it does appear in many situations where, like previous renditions of this article it is similarly un-sourced or combined from a number of sources in exactly the way I described above as being counter-policy per our editorial recommendations on combining sources. Many thanks, for the heads up. I'll be sure to correct this error where I see it. Edaham (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Mélencron, Aréat and all others involved. There is clearly no consensus here. Being there was no consensus for this highly disputed change (and no evidence given for this claimed rightward shift) I advocate we go back to the way the page long stood. The burden of proof for change is with the one wishing to make it in the first place (which is those who wished to get rid of the right-wing label entirely). There hasn't even appeared to be any sign of compromise. The only other option I can see is to remove the position entirely, although I wouldn't say this is a preferable option but at least its more neutral. In terms of the news sources I think its quite obvious that most news articles are going to favour labeling the party as far-right rather than right-wing if they sit somewhere between the two or have been labelled both ways before. News companies want clicks and views and claiming to be discussing a far-right party is more sensationalist, headline grabbing and will get more views. Without strong academic sources I see no way these loggerheads could be settled. To reiterate we should either restore the removed cited material or remove both positions. Helper201 (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

yes lovely, unfortunately not achieving a consensus isn’t a reason to combine sources, nor is it a reason to restore your preferred version of the article. No consensus would mean no change. Thus leaving it as it is (along with the billions of sources which justify writing it like that). Edaham (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
No one is combining sources. Yes, no consensus, no change. There was no consensus to change it in the first place from the long standing version. The initial change, the one being discussed, was the one requiring consensus because it was and is a huge shift from what had long stood using clear cited material. Your being hypocritical by denying any advocacy for change to keep your own preferred version. You have suggested no compromise and are denying clear evidence for the alternate position and as mentioned have provided no evidence in the article that the party shifted further right to warrant this change. Helper201 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Darn tooting there’s no compromise. You want to take a handful of sources, average them and say that this party is between two points on a scale (or at least imply that idea to readers). No evidence is required to be presented beyond the sources, which allow us to uncontroversially make the article nice and clear. Everything you wrote after the word “your” (sic) is incomprehensible to me. I don’t sit around watching how this party “shifts”. I altered the lead because it looked like a mud pie of partisan snipings, and I did it as sensitively as I could by moving all of the bollocks away from the first sentence so as to ensure there was at least one succinct and verifiable piece of information in the lead. How that amounts to hypocrisy is a species of conjecture which belongs in the mind of whoever conceived it and doesn’t have a place on a board where personal attacks are not allowed. Edaham (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This isn't an "averaging of sources", it's a consideration of the fact that there are many sources do actually describe the party as right-wing or far-right, as I've demonstrated, even if the proportions are not equal. This is completely within practice for political parties on Wikipedia, even in cases where there's a primary political position given the weight of sources, as here. Compare with Freedom Party of Austria, Vlaams Belang, Danish People's Party, National Front (France), Jobbik, Party for Freedom, Sweden Democrats, etc. which all use the appellation "right-wing to far-right" to describe these right-wing populist parties despite the fact that English-language sources disproportionately describe them as far-right; as in this case, there's still a significant enough proportion of sources which describe these parties as "right-wing" to merit inclusion in the infobox. This is far from lacking established precedent, and isn't "averaging sources" in the slightest. (Also... it's pointless to snipe at other editors about spelling errors when you're making them yourself.) Mélencron (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the spelling! I corrected it for you. It's never been my strong suit. Many thanks again for bringing up another bunch of pages which need attention for precisely the same reason this one did. I don't have time to go over them now, but rest assured, if someone took a bunch of differing terms, combined them into one term and then used that term to describe the subject of a Wikipedia article, then the resulting text deserves a great deal of scrutiny, which they will promptly get - from me. Cheers again. Note: I searched online for a bit because if we can find some text that actually uses “right wing to far-right” as a term for the political placement of a party, we could cheerfully include it. Such an effort revealed that the only place the term is to be found in abundance is actually on Wikipedia. Someone might want to have a stab at explaining that on the relevant noticeboard. Edaham (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To me, the reliance on observing what terms journalists use in their headlines is a bit funny. It's not like those journalists have held a meeting where they assess the political stances and review literature to determine the appropriate term. You can't go too wrong when you use the most widely used term, however, but it shouldn't be an authority on itself. Right-wing populism is a very researched topic in political science, after all.

I'd say a bigger issue is bundling every name they have ever been called, as "health warning" labels in the lead: "The party has been described as a German nationalist,[2][3][4] right-wing populist,[14] and Eurosceptic[15] party. Since about 2015, the AfD has been increasingly open to working with far-right extremist groups such as Pegida.[16][17][18] Parts of the AfD also have racist,[19][20] Islamophobic,[21][22][23] anti-Semitic[24][25] and/or xenophobic[10][26][27] tendencies linked to far-right movements such as Neo-Nazism[28][25] and identitarianism.[29][30]" Especially the Newsweek source is rather shoddy journalism by a journalist whose expertise is on "guns and drugs", where she just calls the whole party neo-Nazi in the first paragrah and not elaborating on it later. I really doubt any scholars call AfD a neo-Nazi party. --Pudeo (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Mélencron. Freedom Party of Austria, Vlaams Belang, Danish People's Party, National Front (France), Jobbik, Party for Freedom, Sweden Democrats, etc. are all described to be "right-wing to far-right" and, in my view, only Jobbik is actually far-right. The others are all merely right-wing. Commentators and journalists too often use "far-right", while there is clearly a group of so-called "right-wing populist" parties which are between the centre-right represented basically by EPP and northern European parties, and far-right ultranationalist or neo-fascist parties: those parties are merely right-wing. I don't like the "right-wing populist" categorisation, but I am referring to it here just to highlight that its name is not "far-right populist", but "right-wing populist". Let's use "far-right" with more caution, prudence and parsimony! --Checco (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
In my view we cannot consider a clearly rightist party (as AfD) like the Nazi Party or the National Fascist Party. I usually deal with Italian politics, and for example, parties like Lega Nord or Brothers of Italy, which probably are more on the right than AfD and are labeled by almost every foreign journalists as far-right parties (1 2) are considered in their articles right-wing parties. In my view, we can consider far-right parties only the neo-nazi and neo-fascist movements like the Greek Golden Dawn, the Italian CasaPound or the Hungarian Jobbik. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Most of the current AfD positions have been previously held by Merkel`s Christian Democrats until 2002. The term "far-right" is just wrong and not accurate. The NPD can be considered a far-right party, most current leading AfD members have come from the Conservatives or the free-market liberal party FDP. And please stop relying so much on the media. They have their own bias and use slurs to delegitimize the party. Do you seriously believe that Rafi Eitan, the Israeli Jew capturing Eichmann would support a "far-right" party with ties to neonazis? 46.93.242.225 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 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.

German federal authorities agree not to call AfD right-wing extremist

[The original heading was ' Federal authorities in Germany not allowed to call the AfD "far-right" ', which was inappropriate, because the the cited source used the German rechtsextrem and "not allowed" might have implied a court judgment), so I subsequently changed it. Sorry for any confusion --Boson (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)]

https://www.merkur.de/politik/bundesbehoerden-duerfen-afd-nicht-mehr-rechtsextrem-nennen-zr-8488975.html(article in german)

I don`t know why this article does in the opening sentence.46.93.242.225 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As per the multiple sources this article calls them, "far-right" and "German nationalist" but NOT "right-wing extremist" as the sources do not support your statement. Only you are saying "right-wing extremist", not this article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That was partly my fault, so I have added a note above. I didn't notice that the text referred to the heading. Sorry! --Boson (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
English Wikipedia describes far right thus:

:Far-right politics is a term used to describe politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist, and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.

German Wikipedia describes rechtsextrem thus:

Rechtsextremismus dient als Sammelbezeichnung, um neofaschistische, neonazistische oder ultra-nationalistische politische Ideologien und Aktivitäten zu beschreiben. Deren gemeinsamer Kern ist die Orientierung an der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit, die Infragestellung der rechtlichen Gleichheit der Menschen sowie ein antipluralistisches, antidemokratisches und autoritär geprägtes Gesellschaftsverständnis. Politischen Ausdruck findet dies in Bemühungen, den Nationalstaat zu einer autoritär geführten „Volksgemeinschaft“ umzugestalten. Der Begriff „Volk“ wird dabei rassistisch oder ethnopluralistisch gedeutet.

So, while the English term far right and the German term rechtsextrem overlap a lot and may be used to describe the same parties, they have different meanings. "Far right" is wider, including anything to the right of the standard right-wing parties (particularly on the defined criteria). The German word rechtsextrem implies the farthest (i.e. extreme) right-wing and might have legal implications that "far right" does not.
What is described in the cited source appears to be an agreement to desist going back to July 2017, after the Bundeskriminalamt allegedly depicted a screenshot of an AfD Twitter account in a personnel ad for someone to monitor right-wing extremist content on the Internet.
--Boson (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But here is the problem: wikipedia calls the political home of Mr.Orban, Fidesz, a center-right to right-wing party but the AfD "far-right". The AfD is not to the right of Mr.Orban, the real difference remains that the entire political system in Germany looks to be way more on the left than in Hungary. "Far-right" in Germany is probably "center-right" in most eastern european countries where even most Social Democrats oppose the mass migration of current years. The political role model for the AfD in Germany in terms of creating a successful political home to the right of the center-right Conservatives has been the FPOE in Austria. Wikipedia calls this party a "right-wing to far-right" party and not just "far-right", also using the terms "right-wing populist and national-conservative" to describe the party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria

Why not using the same terms for the AfD as well? The AfD leader Joerg Meuthen is sitting in the more moderate european group EFD including parties like UKIP, The Patriots in France or the Five Star Movement in Italy(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Direct_Democracy#Former_Members) while the FPOE works together with more right-wing groups(FN, Wilders,Northern League) within the ENF group. Based on the fact you can make the case to call the AfD to the left of the FPOE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Nations_and_Freedom

It simply looks false to label the AfD "far-right" when its leader sits in a european group being more on the left compared with the group ENF joined by the FPOE wikipedia calls only "right-wing to far-right".

I prefer the term "right-wing" or "right-wing to far-right".

But I have to apologize for my original comment confusing far-right with the german word "rechtsextrem". Far-right means "rechtsaußen" in german which is a different term. Sorry.80.131.63.111 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The many sources cited are what is quoted, and that is what wiki uses for evidence, not the German courts. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
+1. Also, servers are based in Virginia, so Wikipedia abides by U.S. law, not German law. Mélencron (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The article deals with a german party, not an american one and the media in the US manages to be nearly as bad as the german one. And sources are using both terms "right-wing" and "far-right". And from a far-left wing point of view most of the liberal media propopes even the centre looks right. wikipedia is not the place to demonize a legitimate party by using false or one-sided terms.80.131.63.21 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I also prefer the term "right-wing" and really only that, without "far-right". "Far-right" should only be used for Neo-Nazi-movements like the NPD, BNP, Jobbik, Golden Dawn and Casa Pound. That also accounts for other AfD-like parties, but that is another topic... So I am in favor of deleting the "far-right"-term there... Lt2903 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Far-Right

How can a democratic party (although right-wing populist) be classified as exclusively far-right when openly fascist parties like "Golden Dawn" in Greece still get placed in between right-wing and far-right?

This shows an ideologically motivated inconsistency and a lack of neutrality of head editors on Wikipedia and ruin its credibility as a source.

Therefore I am in favor of re-classifying the party's political position to "right-wing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riegel2222 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism

The section "Antisemitism" does not contain actual examples of antisemitism but only the criticism of a speech of a right wing member as being antisemitic in its motivations (that was refuted by other leaders inside the party). In any case "Antisemitism" is no stated objective of the party. Certainly the difficulty arises that we cannot transform allegations by opponents into facts. As a litmus test the article should describe the parties ideologies in a way that members of the party do not feel their views entirely misrepresented. Here the allegation of antisemitism is a perspective of their opponents that is not substantiated by anything in the article than a criticism of a controversial speech by a specific right wing member via representatives of the Jewish community in Germany. The headline does not fit that part of the article. it is about memorial culture, not aversion against the jewish community. --Froschmaterial (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC) You are right here. Mr. Hoecke`s speech in Dresden one year ago dealed with german culture of remembrance rather than Judaism. The AfD itself has many jewish members viewing Islam and its followers as the main threat for their security. The party voted in favor to install a federal commissioner to fight antisemitism. An antisemitic party would not have done so.

4 out of 38 AfD candidates have been jewish at the state election in Baden-Wuerttemberg 2016: http://www.zeit.de/2017/15/muslimischer-antisemitismus

"Doch allein in Baden-Württemberg sind vier von 38 Direktkandidaten jüdisch." is the german quote here.

Federal commissioner against antisemitism: "Auch die AfD votierte dafür." The AfD voted in favour as well.

https://www.domradio.de/themen/kirche-und-politik/2018-01-18/bundestag-fuer-einsetzung-von-antisemitismus-beauftragten 80.131.57.60 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The above is all personal interpretation/argument from primary sources. We use secondary sources and summarize them. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But the sources are biased and tend heavily to the political left. Not trustworthy.80.131.56.233 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

völkisch not Volk

The phrase "For example, Petry, who led the moderate wing of the party, said that Germany should reclaim the German word "Volk" from its Nazi connotations" seems to be misleading and put out of context. The context was that she wanted to defend the use of the term "völkisch" from its Nazi and Weimar reactionary connotations, a term coined by naturalists around 1880 originally meaning democratic rule in times of monarchy which later became a slogan for the far right related to an ethnic community watching its purity. The term Volk (people, demos) does not have any "Nazi connotations" as is found in the constitution and political writings of the whole spectrum. The term "völkisch", however, is usually exclusively used to describe various historical racist and antisemitic movements prior to 1945 (with the haydays in early Weimar) and certain post war rightwing movements like the Ludendorffer religion. Petry suggested that "völkisch" was just an adjective of Volk, sort of "folksy" or "popular". As the AfD party ideology was criticized/smeared as "völkisch" by political opponents and media observers she simply embraced the term. The phrase as it stands in the article is false as "Volk" is not a controversial term. "Völkisch" is. And Petry's suggestion reclaiming "völkish" as a normal word, that roughly translates into a call to reclaim the swastica as a far eastern peace symbol. --Froschmaterial (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The context is clear. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Froschmaterial is correct here. Petry was talking about reclaiming the word "völkisch," which has very different connotations than the word "Volk." Here, for example, is an article from Die Welt discussing this incident: Petry will den Begriff „völkisch“ positiv besetzen. The article should say "völkisch," not "Volk," because there's a big difference, and she was talking about the word "völkisch." -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing parts in ideology section

What about the free-market liberal positions in economic matters? 80.131.63.209 (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I do realise the AfD is xenophobic (as defined by anti-immigration/ deportation ideology) by most standards. I am very liberal myself, but I think the assertion that the AfD is about or even has significant Neo-Nazi ties is a pretty bold statement. They are strictly opposed to immigration, just like Trump supporters are, yet that does not make them Nazis; they aren't literally planning to set up gas chambers and murder millions of Jews. Quite frankly, to even SAY they are linked to Nazism or Neo-Nazism would be disrespectful to someone genuinely from the terrors of the Holocaust. At most you can say less than 1% of AfD voters in private belief are literal Nazis, legit praise Adolf Hitler, and have tattooed swastikas etc. Since the end of WWII, Germany has undergone among the most rigorous processes in the world to erase fundamentals of Nazism. Introducing a moderately far right-wing party doesn't mean Nazism has returned to Germany's parliament, that's absurd.

By today's standards they are right to moderately far-right wing, but there's no comparing Weidel to Hitler. Links to Neo-Nazism? Perhaps in a few, very singular cases there might be certain closeted Neo-Nazis in Germany today that endorse the AfD (although there's no knowing them). But to be honest, even a genuine Nazi would consider the AfD way too left-wing for *their* taste. Nazis are about murdering minorities, not just deporting them; the goal of the AfD. In addition, the US Republican party does in many extreme cases (see Arthur Jones) have open links to Neo-Nazism... Comparison: Trump and Weidel? Both xenophobic, one can fairly assess. I don't think they're racist, just both very opposed to refugees. Both have links of racist supporters? Definitely some out there. Neo-Nazi supporters? Maybe in FEW, very extreme cases. But you can't flat out say they have obvious links to Neo-Nazism or even general racism right on the front of an Informative Wiki Page. I don't see the main Republican Wiki page even writing anything about xenophobia by Republicans, which is pretty ironic since they both have them.

I looked over the sources utilised to define them as having relations to "Neo-Nazi" movements. Neither had any evidence nor were reliable. The Newsweek article listed them as "Nazis" without any valid reasoning, whatsoever. Just flat out stated they were Nazis. The Haaretz article was somewhat more credible, even if the title was clickbaity. At least that article recognised:

"Not all AfD candidates or voters are anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and racists (although some definitely are)." But same can be said for any right wing party in the world significant right now; US Republicans, France's National-Front, AfD, even UK Conservatives will have many bigoted supporters? It doesn't mean that's what they fundamentally represent. The best thing you can reasonably assume of AfD voters, without genuinely labeling them as actual Neo-Nazis or racists: they are older generations (which will die out soon anyway), or former East Germans, who feel their voice isn't getting heard, question the very liberal status quo in today's Western Europe, oppose coming immigration and multiculturalism in Western Europe because they irrationally fear an increase in crime by minorities (this can apply to Trump supporters as well). Yet hardly any of them you can call Neo-Nazis. If you have any real evidence that the AfD is linked to actual Neo-Nazism, other than sources that exhibit no evidence in themselves, I'd like to hear it.

So my proposal is to tone the article down a bit. Less hyperbole. The only mainstream anti-immigration party in Germany with less than 13% of the votes comes into play, and everybody automatically associates it with Nazism, I guess because of Germany's Nazi past.

Even the most right wing parties in Germany (NDP) are accepting premises like democracy, German law, and human rights; they are bound to (by law). By German law there can be no Neo-Nazi supporter, at least not openly, or else they would go to jail. These parties are completely following of democracy and human rights, because modern Germany is one of the 19 of 207 countries officially classified as a full democracy. No way are right-wingers like Nazis that gained power and overthrew the extremely flawed Weimar Republic democracy in the early 20th century a good basis of comparison to a completely right-wing but rule-following party in ANY way comparable to an actual Neo-Nazi party. AfD isn't going to continue gaining support, fricken murdering their opponents, and overthrowing the German government as the Nazis did. Even the assertion that they are far right is pretty hyperbolic; I'd say they're as about as right wing as the top 20-30% of US Republicans. This article needs to tone it down.

The AfD prevents former NPD voters, an even more right wing party, from even joining their party in the first place. They are not Neo-Nazis by any means, perhaps the NDP has some distinct links to Neo-Nazism at best.

Spectrum of right-wing German party affiliations: AfD (members cannot have links to NPD) <-- NPD <-- Neo-Nazis (illegal) <-- Nazis (illegal).

Homophobic? They favour civil unions but are anti-gay marriage, which I don't like but in all honestly they're extremely progressive if we compare them to the Nazis; see Alice Weidel, an openly lesbian. Also, it's against first wave feminism and political correctness, but you can't say it's looking to achieve "traditional gender roles", look at Alice Weidel for example. The only example the article gave for the AfD supporting traditional gender roles was of a biased article from a biased site cherry picking probably the most extreme person in the party, Wolfgang Gedeon, whom, even mentioned here, was turned against by his fellow party members and even called for investigation. If what Gedeon said (some ridiculous Jewish conspiracies) is true and not exaggerated, I'd be surprised if he wasn't arrested yet.

Nazis: put gays in concentration camps. AfD: about some equality, supports civil unions, and never murdered anybody. There are quite a lot of flaws with this article.

which sources exactly are you contesting, and what if any alternatives are available? Edaham (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Not the return of Nazi Germany, but a cause for concern. To associate the AfD with Neo-Nazism is ridiculous, it's concerning and might have a fair amount of xenophobes within the party but Nazism is a whole different level of extremes, absurd to even think of comparing.
How the Nazi Flags in Charlottesville Look to a German. Mentions even the vast majority of AfD parliament members and AfD voters believe Germans should still reflect back on Nazism, remembrance of the Holocaust etc. Neo-Nazism/ Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany.
See question: How does the AfD deal with the memory of the Second World War?
Despite justified fears of the AfD, not all nationalism is Nazism. Definitely among the most useful articles.
It’s NOT return of Nazis… it’s the voice of people Angela Merkel ignored. Yes this article is right wing biased and anti-Merkel, but I figured I'd include it (probably not as a source) because it brings up a few good points within it. AfD's increase in support has nothing to do with Nazis or fascists, it has to do with certain right-wing Germans feeling their voice isn't getting heard by the other parties, since every other major parties is very liberal when it comes to immigration.
Quote: "The idea that AfD’s rise represents a return of fascism does not stack up. It is a libellous insult against its voters, a majority of whom are normal people who want to see certain social issues taken seriously. Yes, some pretty horrible hard-right people, including racists and fascists, have cheered on the AfD. But mercifully, these prejudiced politicos are a minority, mostly on the fringe."
Look through some of these. I don't think it's fair to cherry pick articles, mainstream or not, alleging the AfD is a Nazi Party without any valid evidence provided, whatsoever. They might be a lot of things, but you can't label them Nazis or racists; that's extreme & absurd.
See Frauke Petrys' speech (with English subtitles) where she better established AfD fundamentals. In fact, the AfD has very strong support from assimilated foreigners. The AfD had higher support among assimilated foreigners in Germany than any other party does. As she mentions in the video, in Freiburg over 36% of foreigners with a German passport voted AfD, significantly higher than any other party. How are they racist if adapted foreigners are voting for them? I don't like the AfD for it being anti-immigration. But it isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, extreme or Nazi-related, or whatever labels people want to push on it, by any means. Especially because there hasn't been an ounce of evidence presented for any of these claims- other than articles labeling them as this (again, without an ounce of evidence). The majority of this Wikipedia article relies off of unreliable sources, be it mainstream or however they present themselves, there is no evidence or relevant evidence to support any of the extreme claims that it has ties to Nazism. One right wing party in Germany and it's immediately publicized for having links to Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw11 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
so what’s the text you want to include from those sources and/or remove from the current article text? Edaham (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Title and argument are misleading.

To quote the article as saying ""the AfD has links to Neo-Nazism"", as you have put in the title of this section is misleading and a blatant misquote. The content is "Parts of the AfD have racist,[22] Islamophobic,[23] anti-Semitic[24][25] and xenophobic[11][26][27] tendencies linked to far-right movements such as neo-Nazism[28][25] and identitarianism.[29][30]"

Nowhere is it implied that the AfD itself is linked to neo-Nazism, but that some supporters have shown those behaviors. For what it's worth, if you still have issue with that wording, there was also an RfC on this exact section here in which a consensus of users expressed that they supported the current wording. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you think it’s wrong now. Can you briefly outline the alternative text you wish unto include? Edaham (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the same logic could apply to any right-wing party. Point is it's very misleading to include that in the lead, because it represents a slim minority of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw0207 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This is why there can't be a legitimate conversations between the left and right and I'm only talking on the one point that I see in many conversations

text book chat closure Edaham (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When a conversation is started out with such an outrageous accusation like they're neo-Nazis or antisemitic ? This is so out of line ! How can these peoplel get away with calling others that ? So theres no discussions after someone lobs that type of brain dead accusation In order to silence the other side, that in its own way is a neo-Nazi tactic and should be illegal to toss that type of allegation , because legal germans citizens want to curb the immigrant population and work on the crime spikes especially the rape and murder rate that has gone up drastically since Merkel decided Islam and western society would be a great match and could live hand in hand ? Its like oil and water its impossible when you have religious beliefs that call for the death of gays and non believers and treat women like second or 3rd class citizens. Reichwein1983 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reichwein1983: Wikipedia is not a forum to chat on, nor a pulpit to preach from. If you do not have suggestions how this article can more closely summarize cited professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, don't post on this talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting judgements on Pegida

The AfD article called Pegida a far-right extremist group while the article about Pegida rates them as a right-wing group. Why the different judgements? 80.131.63.209 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been reviewing a few German articles this morning (going down that research rabbit hole) and found that--as a person on the other side of the planet with no knowledge of the groups involved--there seems to be an extensive bias involved with Germany parties that do not hold pro-migration stances. Most of the aspersions seem to be supported by schlock yellow journalism websites and other sketchy sources that barely meet the criteria to be used as sources in the Wikipedia project. The issue where I would draw a hard contention and utterly remove it as garbage is when there are primary sources conflicting. I've made one edit so far, however I took a softer approach in the interim to allow those with a dog in this race who seem to be highly motivated to present one point of view in the article a chance to respond before utterly removing it. But from the outside looking in this article is teetering on the edge of NPOV - Wikipedia articles aren't meant to read like hysterical tabloid hit pieces. I get that we don't like the 'right wing' here - but that doesn't mean we're allowed to outright lie about them. Vergilianae (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been living for more than 3 decades in Germany and still have a bond to it. Yes there is an extensive bias regarding pro-migration stances. There are studies (in German) substantiating it.
PEGIDAs logo [9] is symbolizing its motto "nonviolently & united against religious or proxy war on German soil". A person is disposing the symbols of the major extremist/violant organizations in Germany National Socialism, PKK, Antifa and ISIS. Since now 4 years PEGIDA organizes a demonstration on every Monday evening to ‘‘‘peacefully’’’ demonstrate in Dresden, capitol of Saxony. It’s one of the biggest citizen movement in Europe. Every week a few thousand people are taking part. All mainstream media and most people in Germany are highly sensitive towards any sign of nationalism
.. like swiveling the German flag, singing the German national anthem or being proud of Germany & its accomplishments) .. here are some examples:
.. and have been/are overly positive on migration from islamic nations “Wilkommenskultur / welcoming culture” .. and overly negative on people criticizing it.
My advise is to have a look at live streams without comments of the PEGIDA demonstrations on youtube and form your own opinion:
PS: I am a migrant from East Europe by myself, grew up in Germany in a so called “social hotspot” with high proportion of migrants from Turkey, Morocco, Russia and Poland. This disclaimer is needed as I have been attacked, defamed and ostracized for expressing ‘‘not-negative‘‘ opinion on AfD, PEGIDA, migration or any criticism of islam before.--Fund24 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The vast AFD majority don´t want to collaborate with PEGIDA and there is a party resolution not to do so. In March 2018 it was authorised that AfD representative can communicate AfD positions at PEGIDA ntv.
All AfD officials have been condemning any kind of violonce or extremists. In addition the AfD is the only party in Germany with an extremist incompability list. AfD statute §2 membership is not allowing anybody to become a memeber that is also a member of any extremist organization. All persons wanting to become a member must disclose former memberships with such organizations. If they do not so they will be expelled. etc. I could give some more arguments against "right extremist". But to make a long story short my conclusion is, that the AfD should not be labeled "right-extremist". And I would like to change it accordingly - ok?--Fund24 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Germany has one political party giving home to such an ideology, its called NPD. The party itself looks to be pretty clear here: You cannot join the AfD if you have been a former member of the NPD nor the right-wing extremist DVU. An incompatibility list is including a larger number of neo-nazi groups.

https://cdn.afd.tools/sites/75/2017/01/22152046/Unvereinbarkeitsliste-Mitgliedschaft-AfD-2017-02-22.pdf

Newsweek can hardly be described as a credible, objective source here and the Haaretz article, a left-wing newspaper, is quoting the former foreign secretary Mr. Gabriel speaking tough on the campaign trial trying to demonzine one political opponent. The AfD is basically a patriotic party with free market liberal economic policies. Please delete this statement in the opening part of the article.80.131.53.239 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The cited sources do not provide evidence for the idea that the party is neo-nazi or has neo-nazi ties. I will be deleting that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on independent, secondary sources, not on what article subjects say about themselves. Newsweek is a fine source for the statement. You can test that at WP:RSN if you want. This has also been discussed to death here - this talk page has archives linked in the beige box above - please see discussions there. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The article from Newsweek simply calls it a neo-nazi party with no supporting evidence. The problem is not that the article is from Newseek, but that the article does not provide any evidence for the idea that it is a neo-nazi party, it is simply claimed in the headline. The article for that matter does not make the claim that it has ties to the neo-nazi movement, but that it is a neo-nazi party. If the Newsweek article is used as source, the party should be described as a neo-nazi party, not as a party with ties to the neo-nazi movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you can see it but Newsweek isn't the only cited source. what you are doing on this article and on Median income at this point is vandalising the page (repeated removal of cited content against consensus that is sourced) and edit-warring from a POV that is unsupported by sources. That's not allowed on WP. R9tgokunks ⯃ 19:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC

You're good at moving the goalposts i see. The Newsweek article does not claim that the party has ties to the neo-nazi movement, but that it is a neo-nazi party. The Haaretz article does not make the claim that it is a neo-nazi party or has ties to neo-nazism. It quotes a politician as making that claim, but does not actually endorse that claim. Thus, neither of the two cited sources provide any evidence for the statement that it has ties to the neo-nazi movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they both do. Read the articles. R9tgokunks ⯃ 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I did read the articles and explained why they do not provide support for that assertion, while you explain none of your reasoning and make the extremely arrogant claim that i have not read the articles. As for the talk page you cite, it consists exclusively of people repeating "the statement is supported by the sources" despite the fact that neither of the two articles provide evidence for the claim. The only people actually bothering to provide any reasoning for their stance is people who support removing or altering the section. Are you aware of how this kind of stuff makes wikipedia look to people who are not a part of the political cult that you seem to be a part of, or are you so lacking in self awareness that you cannot see this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you guys know decide what to do with this part of the article? The two sources are still lacking any credibility for the claim in the article. And some left-wing newspapers and politicians trying to demonize one legit political opponent can hardly be described as an objective source.80.131.63.209 (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone unrelated to Germany with no knowledge on this topic, and having reviewed the sources mentioned, I'm shocked that they would be used to cast aspersions as severe as nazism. Many things fit WP's standards as a source, but we don't want to turn the project into an extreme turd flinging match based on the ridiculous things the media say. I for one don't think media should be a source at all for anything in this project as the media are utterly unreliable and do no due diligence or investigation into their own claims anymore - but when there's obvious primary sources contradicting the secondary sources you've got to admit that given you have no credible argument for the claim that you're doing it for reasons that may be personal and otherwise undetectable to the average editor which on it's face should be enough for you to excuse yourself from editing the article given you have a dog in the race. Vergilianae (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As someone who lived more than a decade in Germany and its neighbours, and having reviewed the sources its ridiculous to put this label to AfD. See also in the other sections for rigth-extremist label. --PLO69 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a recent article by Spiegel which goes into the topic of links to neo-nazism in the base and leadership of the party. Here is the article, but it is paywalled and in german. So if anyone has access to it, perhaps it could be a useable source on the issue 91.96.115.124 (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of the articles on AfD are not objective but rather one-sided/defamatory. That is why I have provided some information & studies that there is a massive left-wing bias in media - especially with regard to anti-migration (from islamic staates) positions. AfD is the only party directly criticizing migration from mostly islamic staates. This is their USP. How can one put on a whole party and therefor its more than 11.2 mn voters labels like nazi/anti-feminism/xenophobic here on Wiki mostly based on 1-2 articles (often just stating an opinion of another person/sociologists) .. instead of facts/stressable data/scientific studies?--PLO69 (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, there we have it then. No, the article is not defamatory but reflects what reliable sources say. That you don't agree with stating negative sides of a party you obviously sympathise with is just tough luck, but not Wikipedias problem. You have also not provided anything but a list from a "study", you still have not given a link to, which does not relate to any article content as well as a rather useless primary source by the AfD itself to say they are pro-Trump, which also is more than debatable even in the primary source you presented. This is really starting to get into righting great wrongs territory and i can tell you that you will not be able to whitewash the article and purge legitimate content that reflects negatively on the party simply because you don't like it. But at least now we know what your intention here is. 91.96.113.150 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
you disregard the scientific results on media bias, prefer to ignore primary sources but to use secondary sources that support your personal pov. your agenda is quite obvious. you are not striving for NPOV.--84.227.60.60 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It is not that i prefer to ignore primary sources, on Wikipedia they are just worth very little. What i want is that this article reflects what a range of reliable sources say, no matter if you think they are biased. If you have sources that say that parts the AfD do not have racist or xenophobic tendencies, are not anti-feminist and the like then please show them. Otherwise this all is rather futile. 91.96.113.150 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD not a "nationalist" party

Reliable sources are considered reliable. Conservapedia is thattaway. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2018 (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.

Many members with foreign roots, the party is supporting controlled immigration from people Germany would benefit from rather than welfare dependent "refugees" and they consider themselves "Patriots" rather than nationalists. Also the party even campaigned by using the russian language: http://afd-dd.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FlyerDD_RUSVorschau-500x340.jpg

http://www.metropolico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bystron_Russisch_2-696x696-700x450.jpg

The second link is showing Petr Bystron, a member of parliament for the AfD with czech roots who is speaking in english on this cover. Nationalist? Give me a break.

91.22.144.79 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says they are not nationalist. Arguments by editors are considered synthesis and not allowed in articles until writers in reliable sources become convinced of them. TFD (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Right... you even have conservative papers like The Telegraph (many more sources by many different outlets exist as well of course) calling the AfD nationalist in their own voice... Patriots? Give me a break. 91.248.244.97 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources are biased anyway, I prefer to look at facts. A party with members of foreign roots supporting legal migration cannot be nationalist. 46.93.249.176 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Zürcher Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften (ZHAW), Prof Vinzenz Wyss: international study on journalism 2014 – 2016 as cited e.g. TA 12.11.2017, nzz 13.11.2017 Self assessment of journalist on their on left-right position SRG (public swiss television & radio) 70% aller SRG Journalisten as left-wing 16% aller SRG Journalisten as center 16% aller SRG Journalisten as right-wing private media 62% aller SRG Journalisten as left-wing 16% aller SRG Journalisten as center 16% aller SRG Journalisten as right-wing


Really, you take the articles of these left-wing marxist "journalists" as credible source?46.93.249.176 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh calling the Telegraph "left-wing marxist"? Do you honestly believe that the journalists working for them are either "marxist" and/or work without any supervision and editorial process? Or that anyone left of center is a "marxist"? Also, "look[ing] at the facts" and deciding content and positions yourself is totally counter to how Wikipedia actually works, Wikipedia does not do original research but relies on reliable secondary, preferably even tertiary, sources. If you cannot accept that, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you, no offense. 91.248.244.97 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 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.

AfD is overall Pro-Trump

Does any of this matter? WP:FART: not every opinion is of encyclopedic value. First there is a need for secondary sourcing, then there's editorial judgment. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2018 (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.

Here are some official AfD statements on Donald Trump & his politics.

AfD magazine "AfD Kompakt":

  1. AfD: Trump´s politic is reliabel 4. October 2018
  2. AfD: Trump's approach to Russia is to be welcomed from a German perspective on 17. July 2018
  3. AfD: Foreign policy is state policy on agreement with Kim Jong-Un on 13. June 2018
  4. AfD: Protectionist measures are the wrong answer to US punitive tariffs on 8. March 2018
  5. AfD: Congratulatory telegram of the AfD to Donald Trump on 20. Januar 2017

or AFD press conference: Video: AfD press conference on Trump on 12.06.2018

Please let me know, if you need translation/keywords.--PLO69 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted double entry of my text on reliable sources.--PLO69 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What is your intention with all of this? I mean, what specifically do you want to achieve by posting a list of german language newspapers(and bild) or these links from the AFD itself(primary source)? Why attach a political viewpoint to the papers(which seems like original research and way over the top for some)? Do you have any specific suggestions for the article? I see you disagree with their links to neo-nazism above, but again not actually suggested anything concrete. 85.16.226.206 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You need to provide a secondary source that analyzes the comments in order to be able to add them to the article. TFD (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really "pro-Trump". Just not "anti-Trump" - I would say. From your own sources:
On Trumps Korea-deal: "Should the disarmament-agreement, details of which have not yet been made public, prove to be sustainable, the defusing of one of the longest and most dangerous conflict zones on the planet could be at hand."[10]
On Trumps leaderhip style: "D.T. practices an unusual style of politics. But he becomes more calculable, if one knows his pattern of success."[11]
BTW, those are primary sources, you should go for WP:Identifying and using independent sources. Alexpl (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
the concept to use independent sources makes perfect sense (in order to compare it with primary sources), if there is a balance between competing views. in general there is a bias (to the "left") in media (see discs above). this media bias is larger still when it comes to germany and anything related to topics like (islamic) migrantion and related problems, national pride, nationalism. so why not start with primary source/own description, complement it with secondary sources taking into account potential bias. most of the reference here and negative labels are based on news from one source stating the opinion(vs. facts) of one/few writer/sociologist/politologist. it is like that Jehova--188.155.75.111 (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
it sounds like you are saying that because there’s an awareness of an inherent left wing bias in the sources we encounter, that we should offset that by using a proportionally balancing number of right wing sources. Wikipedia doesn’t work like that. We don’t make those assessments, therefore if the sources we use to write political articles lean one way or the other, then those biases (in keeping with our NPOV policy) will ultimately influence the article. The fact that this happens is one of the defining principles of Wikipedia, and our handling of reliable sources. To discern the presence of such a bias and cherry pick sources to offset it would be by definition original research. Edaham (talk) 03:50, 16 October 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.

Editors beware

I just blocked an entire drawer full of socks, all arguing that it's the liberal media etc.--you've seen the argument. If you're interested who all on this talk page was affected, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PLO69. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Already seen that lol. Should i notify you, or another admin, if i see a similar MO on this and related pages should i encounter them? Or would i have to file that SPI thing myself... Because looking at the users you blocked and the contribs of the article and this talk... they probably won't stop. 91.248.244.97 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, like I need more neo-Nazism in my life. Yes, you can go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, plug in the name (PLO69), and file a new report, citing some evidence. I'm pretty sure you can do that as an IP editor (Deskana, Berean Hunter?), and we'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough and can't blame you for that. Not really planning on filling reports anyway. If i do i am sure there is some template/guideline or the like i can use at SPI. Or someone will be helpful if i ask, socks are certainly even less popular than IPs :P Have a good evening anyway. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I just blocked another one. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this, I was finding all the watchlist-bumping here really strange. Mélencron (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Major newspapers & magazines in German .. as reliable Wiki-sources

Sock contributions, with some useful information about German newspapers etc. Not useful here. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Major newspapers & magazines in German .. as reliable Wiki-sources:

  • Bild ... populistic
    • circul. 1.608.113 / reach 9.900.000
  • Der Spiegel ... left wing
    • circul. 713.600 / reach 6.560.000
  • Focus ... cnservative
    • circul. 420.227 / reach 4.620.000
  • Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) ... left-wing / socialist
    • circul. 343.540 / reach 1.240.000
  • WAZ ... regional .. conservative
    • circul. 397.145 / reach NA
  • Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) ... formerly conservative / now left-wing
    • circul. 237.780 / reach 760.000
  • Die Welt ... conservative
    • circul. 164.441 / reach 710.000
  • Handelsblatt ... economically liberal
    • circul. 128.033 / reach 450.000
  • Cicero (magazine) ... conservative
    • circul. 65.860 / reach 390.000
  • Die Tageszeitung (taz) .. far left-wing / communistic
    • circul. 49.737 / reach 210.000
  • Neues Deutschland (nd) ... extreme left / communistic
    • circul. 24.477 / reach NA
  • Tichys Einblick ... conservative / liberalar
    • circul. NA / reach NA
  • Junge Freiheit ... conservative / right wing
    • circul. 29.287 / reach NA
  • Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) ... Switzerland ... conservative / liberal
May i ask where those labels you attached come from? For example the Süddeutsche being a socialist paper, according to you, when its Wikipedia article describes it as center-left. Or the taz(new left/green left) which you describe as 'communistic', when, again, their own article does not describe them as such at all. Same for the FAZ(center-right) and ND(socialist) which also don't have the labels you attached, at least according to Wikipedia(which is not a reliable source in itself of course). Maybe give this about original research a read in regards to synthesis and personal analysis. But more importantly really, what does any of it, labels, list and circulation, have to do with this article? 91.96.115.124 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Source is a german study on media and its bias (towards left / pro-migration) in Geermany.--PLO69 (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you link it? I would like to give it a read. Not that i don't believe you of course, i am just curious by whome it was conducted among other things. But cheers for the answer anyway. 91.96.115.124 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I have links to these studies for German/Switzerland at hand:
Zürcher Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften (ZHAW), Prof Vinzenz Wyss: international study on journalism 2014 – 2016 as cited e.g. TA 12.11.2017, nzz 13.11.2017 Self assessment of journalist on their on left-right position
  • SRG (public swiss television & radio)
    • 70% aller SRG Journalisten as left-wing
    • 16% aller SRG Journalisten as center
    • 16% aller SRG Journalisten as right-wing
  • private media
    • 62% aller SRG Journalisten as left-wing
    • 16% aller SRG Journalisten as center
    • 16% aller SRG Journalisten as right-wing .--ad (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advodiaboli (talk • contribs)
a very similar study was done for 17 countries incl. Germany and USA. It has been first presented in Denmark. Covered e.g. here BAZ 06.06.2018 study on journalism in 17 countries – most are left-wing & environmentalist --ad (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
and a study by Prof. Haller 2017: the migration crisis and media--ad (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Reliability has nothing to do with the editorial position of a newspaper of magazine. While one expects left and right wing newspapers to publish different opinions on their leader page, one expects that they publish the same facts in their news stories. It is not a secret that most journalists are left of center while most of their employers are right of center. That's because left-wing people are more interested in writing, while right-wing people are more interested in making money. ad - the Süddeutsche, being center left probably supports the Social Democratic Party, which is technically a socialist party as are many major parties in Western Europe. TFD (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Social democracy is social democracy, not socialism, technically or otherwise. But anyway, this entire secion really has no relation to the article whatsoever. 91.96.113.150 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
From my pov its quite usefull to put the media sources into perspective and be aware which sources to use.--84.227.60.60 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

Fix the Bavaria 2018 election results because the provided reference (173) is for a different election. Georglink (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It says that the AfD has 188 seats in the State Parliaments, but if you just do the math in the table, they have 209 seats currently! This number is outdated and inaccurate, it does not include the results from the Bavarian State Election. And, with the Hesse State election going on, it will have to be updated! I would update it, but apparently this page is locked. To the detriment of accurate information being displayed. The Bavarian State election took place over two weeks ago, and no one has updated this page! Because its locked! SHAME! Travesty! Inaccurate!

Also, under Elections, the Federal Election for the Bundestag does not list the ranking (ie: AfD got 3rd place in the national election). The ranking is listed for the EU elections and the State Parliament elections, so this is inconsistent. And needs to be made consistent. It should be added to the first table. I am unable to do so, as the whole page is locked.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm not sure what's being asked with this edit request please clarify and reopen the request. Thank you. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No need to put the AfD into "fascist" category

Patriotic, conservative, nationalist, law and order. Fine but "fascist" looks like demonizing a legitimate party by coming up with left-wing smears.80.131.49.223 (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, its actually one source and that should be an objective truth? I consider that the use of a straw man argument. 46.93.254.51 (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruckus at de-wiki

Moved from Talk:Alice Weidel § Ruckus at de-wiki

Not sure if it made it into the mainstream press, but Weidela functionary under Weidel was at the center of a ruckus on German Wikipedia ArbCom in 2016. SheHe was an ArbCom member (MAGISTER (talk · contribs)) for years, and outed herhimself at some point, which caused multiple ArbCom members to resign; or better said, numerous ArbCom members resigned without giving a reason right after her identity as a major Afd figure was made clear to ArbCom. The mass resignation left ArbCom with fewer members than a quorum, so it basically self-destructed and conducted no more business that session. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The user says they are from Wismar, and Weidel is not from Wismar by any reasonable reading. This means that the user clearly does not idetify themselved with Weidel, and one would need a body of reliable sources to add this to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You're right, it wasn't Weidel, but someone working under her (and male) The fall-out was most visible afterward on this page starting with #3. I'll see if I can find the smoking gun, but if there are no outside sources, the whole issue is moot anyway.
Bullet 2 at conv #10 on that page summarizes it, but isn't a proof. Still looking. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I see, but the name has not been mentioned, and we need external sources anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
And, indeed, they clearly say "he".--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it did make the press, at least once; in Die Zeit.[1] However, given the identity, maybe this whole discussion should be moved to Talk:Alternative for Germany, and not here? Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I think moving to AfD is better, Die Zeit article does not even mention Weidel, and she was likely not involved in the incident.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Agreed; executing the move to Talk:Alternative for Germany#Ruckus at de-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it definitely had it's day in the press; see these refs.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] This is probably enough, that a section or a sentence could be added to the article referencing the brouhaha. Mathglot (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt at a draft in section #Influence through Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schmidt, Patrik (14 December 2016). "Hat die deutsche Wikipedia ein AfD-Problem?" [Does German Wikipedia have an AFD problem?]. Die Welt. Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  2. ^ "Streit in Wikipedia-Community: AfD-Funktionär "Magister" ins höchste Schiedsgericht gewähl" [Dispute in Wikipedia Community: AFD official 'Magister' in Highest Arbitration Tribunal Election]. Meedia.de. Hamburg: Meedia GmbH. 14 December 2016. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  3. ^ "Alternative für Deutschland: Wird die deutsche Wikipedia von der AfD unterwandert?" [Alternative for Germany: Is the German Wikipedia Infiltrated by the AfD?]. news.de. Leipzig: MM New Media GmbH. 15 December 2016. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  4. ^ Schönherr, Maximilian (9 September 2017). "Schiedsgericht der Wikipedia: Wenn Schiedsrichter streiten" [Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee: When Arbitrators Argue]. Deutschlandfunk. Cologne: Deutschlandradio. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  5. ^ "Heftiger Streit um AfD-Funktionär in Wikipedia-Schiedsgericht" [Violent Dispute About AfD Official in Wikipedia Arbitration Committee]. Der Standard. Vienna: Standard Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H. 14 December 2016. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  6. ^ Oppong, Marvin (23 February 2017). "Wikipedia: Wer steckt hinter Afd-Freund "Lukati"?" [Wikipedia: Who's Hiding Behind Afd-Friend "Lukati"?]. Frankfurter Rundschau. Frankfurt: Frankfurter Rundschau GmbH. Retrieved 2018-12-31. In the discussion about 'Magister' there was talk of 'an attempt to infiltrate Wikipedia. ... 'Magister' also prepared on a subpage of his user page a draft for a Wikipedia entry about the AfD politician Alice Weidel. And this is where user "Lukati" come into the story.
  7. ^ Oppong, Marvin (January 2017). "Unterwandert die AfD die Wikipedia? Eine Recherche über schreibende Helfer der Rechtspopulisten" [Is the Afd Infiltrating Wikipedia? An Investigation into the Friendly Editors of the Right-wing Populists]. de:Startnext. Dresden: Startnext Crowdfunding GmbH. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  8. ^ "Wikipedia-Schiedsgericht nach Rücktritten beschlussunfähig – Rechter Zugriff hält an" [Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Post-resignations: Rightist Access Continues]. Semiosis. 19 December 2018. Retrieved 2018-12-31. According to our investigation, the person behind 'MAGISTER' is a member of the district executive committee in a northern district of the right-wing populist party in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and had organized their local state election campaign.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

The second paragraph from "Since about 2015" should be deleted. It is a thinly disguised attempt to disparage by association and the claims are not backed up with any evidence in the main body of the text. It consequently diminishes the credibility of the article. Quant analyst (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Every statement in the sentences you're requesting to be removed is exceedingly well-sourced, including sources such as the New York Times, Reuters, the BBC, and Al-Jazeera. No further evidence is required. If it's not backed up by additional explanation in the main body of the article, that tells me that the article needs to be expanded, not that the lead needs to be trimmed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

New Year's Eve speculation on "Influence through Wikipedia"

User:Mathglot included a story about german Wikipediauthors "MAGISTER" real ties with this party in his 31. December 2018 edit. I dont rate those to be appropriate for this article. The edit by User:Mathglot is based on insufficient references, which, even with conceding very generous paraphrasing, do not give enough reason to speculate about a conspiracy of this political party to undermine Wikipedia.

Used references by User:Mathglot were:[12]

  • [13]"semiosis.at" is the private webblog of de:Sebastian Reinfeldt a political activist, researcher and writer from Austria. He repeats user "MAGISTER"s own statement about his partymembership in the AFD from 9/2016 and then continues to complain about a perceived "flooding" of the Wikipedia with articles about Nazi-heroes, Nazi-medals and (Nazi-)fraternities. I dont rate that as a credible source.
  • [14] "news.de" a small news-portal, which repeats in this 12/2016 article parts of the public discussion in the german Wikipedia, pointing to a report by the "meedia.de" newsservice, by Mr. Marvin Oppong.
  • [15] A 02/2017 press release focusing on german Wikipedia author "Lukati", again written by Mr. Oppong, looking into that users changes on articles connected to the "Alternative for Germany". Oppong uses 2017 edits by "Lukati" in the article about AFD candidate Alice Weidel and a failed draft for an "Alice Weidel"-article by user "MAGISTER", to suggest some form of collusion between the two and tries to support that claim by one vandalism-report, where "Lukati" intervened to defend "MAGISTER" against an accusation of vandalism.

All of that has been reflected in the german wikipedia, and a collection of pressreports has been made available here. But as pointed out, those are about the concerned individuals (their WP-aliases rather), their like/dislike of this political party, about details of the wikipedia workings and the timeline. To my knowledge, none of the relevant sources claimed and prooved with certainty, that the wikipedia had been manipulated by the user in question for political gain.WP:RS/WP:Undue. Alexpl (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and the links on this discussion. I think if the material is to be removed, WP:RS would be an easier approach. Of the sources, the first (Reinfeldt's blog) may be the weakest. Blogs are a self-published source with user-generated content, and thus largely not acceptable as a realiable source. On the other hand, the reason we cast a doubtful eye on blogs, is that [a]nyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Conversely, however, actual experts with respected, 3rd-party reviewed and published content may also have their own self-published blogs, and some of them are widely used at Wikipedia and considered reliable, at least by some editors. (For example: the "Informed Comment" blog is often cited about Middle East affairs: 1 2 3 4 5. Whether this blog is citeable has been discussed here and here, and you can see from the discussions that there isn't universal agreement about using it.)
So, to me, the question about the validity of semiosis.at as a RS becomes two questions: first, whether Reinfeldt is considered an expert in his field, and secondly, if so, whether this carries over to his blog or not. For starters, I see from de:Sebastian Reinfeldt that he was a Lektor in Innsbruck, and has various books out on Racism, Populism, and other topics with an emphasis on right-wing politics. Whether this makes him enough of an expert and reliable enough to cite his blog, is not something I can say. It would be worthwhile having additional opinions on this. As far as the two other sites, as long as the they were quoted as the opinion of the authors, and not in Wikipedia's voice, I think that might be acceptable. We could always take this to the WP:RSN if that would be helpful. Finally, I only chose three sites in the end, but there many more, and I don't remember what they all were now, but I could find them again and possibly they would be more reliable, to supplement these.
Finally, Wikipedia doesn't have to wait until something is "proved with certainty" in order to report on it, or we wouldn't have articles about most of human history. It ony has to reflect what reliable sources have to say about the topic. If reliable sources are "reporting" or "speculating" or "denying" or "guessing" that the Moon is made of green cheese, then that's what we say here. We don't have to wait until the Chinese rover digs into it, and brings back some pieces of Dill Havarti. Mathglot (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
In response, I've added more sources; more doesn't necessarily equal better, but check them out. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw your post here a little late Mathglot, sorry I ment no disrespect with the my removal of the section.
Reinfeld is a politcal activist who has run for office in the 2014 European Parliament election himself, so he cant be considered as an independent scientist, offering a neutral analysis on a "competitor". His interpretation of Wikipedias mechanisms in that same blog-post isnt really convincing either. He seems just "unhappy" with the overall situation - which is ok for a personal opinion, but no proof of any AFD-party effort to undermine the Wikipedia. His point about the de:Günther Lütjens-article for example is pointless - the party didnt exist in 2012, when the accused user:PimboliDD made the bulk of his contributions there.
Members of political partys who edit wikipedia-articles are not a rare or unusual phenomenon worth reporting here, so if you really wish to keep that accusation in this article, we need sources to proove exactly that - a planned effort by the political party to undermine wikipedia - or the outspoken speculation by a reliable source. I didnt find that in the presented sources. I see Reinfeld and Oppong, but they (Oppong standing for various sources, as shown) are not enough for that. I guess nobody finds the only sourced information, that user MAGISTER had a low level job in this political party while editing wikipedia, noteworthy. And that is where we stand. Alexpl (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexpl: Thanks for your response. I see that you have removed the entire section from the article. (It looked like this before removal.)
First of all, I assumed no disrespect, so you needn't worry about that. For my part, please understand that I am not opposed to reducing the size of the section, or removing it entirely, if appropriate. However, any action should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and imho your arguments for removal above do not stand up to scrutiny. I want to go over them with you, and also, hopefully, solicit feedback from other editors to get some other views.
For starters, the edit summary on your removal of content reads: As announced on discussionpage: Removed user Mathglot 31. December 2018 "Wikipedia-Conspiracy-Theorie" per WP:UNDUE. I will address the UNDUE issue below, but first: where did the "Wikipedia Conspiracy Theory" quote come from? I did not see it in any of the sources. Even if it were a conspiracy theory, that would not make it invalid for inclusion in the article. In any case, this does not meet the definition of a conspiracy theory so the whole point is moot.
Now as to your particular points of discussion:
  • ...so he [Reinfeldt] cant be considered as an independent scientist, offering a neutral analysis on a "competitor" : I don't know anything about Reinfeldt. If you are right, this would make his analysis an opinion, therefore not appropriate for summarizing in Wikipedia's voice. Nevertheless, it could be used when "attributed in the text to particular sources", namely him. So by quoting the text as his opinion and providing full attribution in a citation, this would satisfy NPOV and could stay, assuming there is no other objection to it. As far as Oppong is concerned, I see that he is an award-winning journalist, and the de-wiki article about him talks about his studies about the effect of paid editors on Wikipedia content, both pro and con.
  • Truth vs verifiability: I think you might have a misconception about the requirements for the inclusion of content in the body of a Wikipedia article. You seem to confuse truth, or "proof", for verifiability. There is no requirement that material included in an article be "proved" or true. That would put Wikipedia editors in the position of judging what is "proved" or not, and we don't do that here. We merely find what is reported by the prepondernace of reliable sources, and summarize all significant viewpoints proportionally according to their due weight. Examples of this misconception in your argument:
    • ...none of the relevant sources claimed and prooved with certainty, that... You made this argument in your first post above. I already responded to that in my previous post, but you didn't reply. It's completely irrelevant whether sources "proved" anything "with certainty", or even, at all. It's enough that sufficient reliable sources make the assertion, for us to report them.
    • His interpretation... isnt really convincing either. "Convincing"? That puts us into the position as editors of being arbiters of truth. It's absolutely against policy for editors to do any such thing. We don't decide whether statements in sources are convincing or not; we simply report them. If other sources report them as "unconvincing", "fake", "false", "rubbish" or anything else, we can add those (attributed) opinions, but we cannot add our own.
    • ..which is ok for a personal opinion, but no proof of any AFD-party effort to undermine the Wikipedia. – as above, re: 'proof'.
    • [Reinfeldt's comment] is pointless - the party didnt exist in 2012... – we can report opinions that are illogical or false as opinions. It's not our position as editors to decide which assertions fall into in that category. It would be okay to add the opinion, if relevant, and then follow it with a contrary assertion proving it to be false. Of course, if his original opinion isn't pertinent to the section there's no need to add it in the first place.
  • Members of political partys who edit wikipedia-articles are not a rare or unusual phenomenon worth reporting here, so if you really wish to keep that accusation in this article, we need sources to proove exactly that – Nobody made any such claim, and it's not necessary to make any such claim, nor provide sources that "prove" (see above) any such thing. But that entirely misses the point about why this section was included, which is of an internal scandal at Wikipedia that was significant enough to be noticed and reported on by the press.
And finally, to conclude on a point of agreement, partially at least:
  • I guess nobody finds the only sourced information, that user MAGISTER had a low level job in this political party while editing wikipedia, noteworthy. – I totally agree! But that isn't the issue here, is it?
What is noteworthy for inclusion here, is that there are numerous reliable sources that have reported that an Afd member was on ArbCom on de-wiki, and that in the resulting kerfuffle, three other ArbCom members resigned. That is what was frequently reported, and that is what should be included in the article. Remember that standards for notability only apply to the subject, they do not apply to contents of articles.
You linked WP:Undue in your previous post, but did not say anything about your view of how that applies here. The article currently has 113kb of text with 178 references, of which the new section would add 5.4kb, or about 4.8%, and seven references. If you think that is excessive, compromise is possible: we could come up with some solution to whittle the text down to a smaller amount, perhaps just a couple of sentences. I would be okay with it not having its own section header, but the problem then would be where to put it, as the Public image section clearly is the best place for it. But I believe that it is worth reporting somewhere in that section, and that removing it entirely is not supported by Due weight or by other content policies. Mathglot (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
As I showed you in the Lütjens-example, the Reinfeldt-blog isnt an accurate analysis but a tirade about things he finds in the (german) Wikipedia to be some sort of excessive rightwing-editing and he then fabricates the connection to this political party. So, not becoming "arbiters of truth", if you want his blog included - I insist on giving not only a shortend, cleaned up, streamlined version of the stuff he wrote, like you in part did, but an actual representation of that blog-article. I guess there is some sort of rule for that.
Reading one of the the Oppong-source(s) (the same one on different platforms) I think even the "accusation of a deliberate manipulation" by this party isnt really spoken out there. But I could be wrong, I didnt check them all. In that case you would be left with writing about user "MAGISTER" and his party membership. Totally an undisputed event from a reliable source. But pointless.
The sources dont get any better, so I think best cause of action would be for you to propose some sort of text. If the appropriate level of "weirdness" for the Reinfelt source is reflected, it should be fine with me. Alexpl (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I actually did propose something, namely this, but you removed it. I don't want to mind-read you, on what might be acceptable to you. Do you think you could propose some text you might be comfortable with? Also, we don't even have to necessarily write about MAGISTER specifically if it's cut down, it could just be "a user", or "a member of 'Wikipedia's high court' " or some such. Mathglot (talk)

Anyway, this is getting longish, and needs some fresh eyes on it. I've listed this at related projects. Let's let others have their say. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I find Mathglot's proposal acceptable. I suggest changing the name to something like "controversy with Wikipedia" and maybe expanding on the controversy with another two or so sentences. Not enough to make a mountain of (yet), but still notable. –Vami♜_IV♠ 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Language note: Much of the original material on this topic is in German. If any users coming here to comment require assistance beyond what your fave translation program affords you, I can do a decent job for most materials and am willing to help; and User:Alexpl is a native speaker. Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Very well, about your proposal:
First, everybody should get an idea on what type of work you mainly rely here: In source 165, by Marvin Oppong, tries to make his findings, that the guy actually didnt do much, more interesting by adding a cliffhanger with no additional reveal: "...concerning the AfD, user „Magister“, at least with that useraccount, was conspicuously passive. But some wikipedia-authors have additional socalled socketpuppet-accounts." (quote: "...zumindest mit diesem Benutzeraccount auffällig zurück. Eine Reihe von Wikipedia-Benutzern hat jedoch noch weitere, sogenannte Sockenpuppenaccounts.")
165 also does not tell why exactly and when exactly the people left the Committee. The quotes in 165 suggest, they left after he revealed his party membership, not after some mysterious "press-reveal" had happened, like your formulation seems to suggest.
Your source 161 states on the matter that they left after it became public he "is a member of the AfD". His position or job in the political party dont seem to be relevant in that statement.(quote:"Als bekannt wurde, dass Benutzer „Magister“ der Alternative für Deutschland angehört, lehnten die drei Schiedsrichter die weitere Zusammenarbeit ab.")
Your Source 163 is "Motherboard", again with Meedia (Oppong) content, but, looking at understanding of the wikipedia, better than the Meedia-Work. At least the inappropriate socketpuppet-accusation is not repeated.
Source 162 (Meedia -> Oppong), Source 165 Oppong, Source 166 (Meedia -> Oppong), Source 167 Oppong - You basically use same source over and over again and claim "various German news media reported" - There were not various - I count one. Using that - 161 (Welt) is the one with the most readers, but that is also written with Meedia-relation. Parts of 163 also seem somewhat competent and useable (under en.wps more liberal source-policy).
Last, and least: the "Sebastian Reinfeldt"-Blog, source 164 is under no definition "German news media". Its not German, its not news and its not media (last one after my definition). On the matter of timing, Reinfeldt claims on 19. Decemember, that his (or his teams) researches have revealed, that MAGISTER is an AFD-official. (quote: "Die Person hinter “MAGISTER” ist, so haben Semiosis-Recherchen ergeben, Kreisvorstandsmitglied in einem nördlichen Kreisverband der rechtspopulistischen Partei in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und hat deren Landtagswahlkampf vor Ort organisiert.") But Magister had revealed most of that himself already, except for his name. Which was then delivered by a user named "JosFritz" and by that guys reveal at least publically available since 13. Dez. 2016 (see post 18:15, 13. Dez. 2016 (CET) in the original disussion) No Reinfeldt work - except of course he is "JosFritz", or quoting from a public forum is "research". Be that as it may, Wikipedia is no reliable source. But you use Reinfeldt to source the claim: "(...) that a member of the executive committee of the AfD in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern who had worked on the local elections in that state, had also been elected several times as a member of German Wikipedia's "highest tribunal", the Arbitration Committee.[164]". There is no need to use such a weak source for this claim, which has been made in every single one of the other sources, in slightly weaker manner. Use the 161 source and simply state, that they refused to work with him after his party-membership became public. Everything else would be, as shown, speculation.
Or just act upon the opening phrase of souce 161 and end this: Was the german Wikipedia infiltrated by the AfD? Short answer: No, it was not.(Wurde die deutsche Wikipedia von der AfD unterwandert? Kurzantwort: Nein, das wurde sie nicht.) maybe it fits in another WP-article.
regards Alexpl (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I was asking above if you could propose some text you might be comfortable with; it's not clear from your last comment whether you would be comfortable with any text at all about it. The terms Magister or sock puppet do not appear anywhere in the body of the proposed content; quotations in footnotes that contain it could be cut if you wish. As for infiltrated, we could say sources disagree whether it was or wasn't, or just remove the term in your proposal. Various of your other points above attack text present in the sources but not in the proposal, thus irrelevant. As far as the rest of it, I hope we hear something from other editors. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I´ve made my point. It doesnt belong in this article, as the connection to the articles subject is none existent, and, if that is not enough, I´ve clearly shown the sources are insufficient/"bad". If you want to keep it anyway, I will not press the issue any further. Totally en.wps problem. Alexpl (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

The article states AfD is pro neo nazism and has anti-Semitic views, but at the same time it states it has pro-Israel views. Can we put a notice of lack of partiality on this article? It's clearly a case of defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.128.8 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right, the AfD supports Israel and the party internal group "Jews within in the AfD" has been created in September 2018 showing jewish party members and a clear party support for jewish interests, here fighting islamic antisemitism.

46.93.246.23 (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

Change "The party is chaired by Jörg Meuthen;" to "The party is chaired by Jörg Meuthen and Alexander Gauland;" in the lede (see infobox or the German article; Gauland succeeded Petry as co-leader in December 2017). 141.100.201.16 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
See the source of the infobox, specifically [16]: Meuthen and Gauland are both "Bundessprecher" --141.100.201.16 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not racist or Islamophobic

Its not racist or Islamophobic if your country is being being changed through uncontrolled migration and you worried about it. If enough people of another culture arrive in a short amount of time.The original culture is being changed even if it is to make allowances for the differences. I can't change the entry but someone should at least add the EU policy of uncontrolled migration and estimates of numbers of immigrants settling in the country, along with the policies that have been put in places to help migrants adjust to living inside the EU. Then a link to the help given to average citizen if they become unemployed/ homeless. That would at least make the entry a little less one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesyoak (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesyoak: Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources, not your white-washed opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream media articles are actually the brainwashed one`s here. Hey, lets call an illegal immigrant "undocumented" or "refugee" and political forces who want to uphold the law and preserve their culture "far-right". Hey, commmunism reloaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.61.31 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Facism is totalitarian nationalism and socialism created by Mussolini, hardly anything the AfD represents and stands for. Less straw man arguments, more objective facts please. 80.131.61.31 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

APD shown in a misleading light?

"which planned to field candidates in state elections" - this passage gave me the impression that the party failed/disbanded. But it clearly has not (if you go by their Facebook page). Has it abandoned plans to field candidates?--Adûnâi (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to call the AfD "far-right" or nationalist at the bottom of the article site

The NPD remains the only political party in Germany demanding pure nationalism, patriotism is something entirely different. And in german speaking articles the media sometimes is calling the party "rechtspopulistisch" which means right-wing populist in english. "Far-right" looks to me like a left-wing term trying to demonize legitimate opposition to their failed ideas of mass immigration and multicultural influences.

80.131.61.31 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you still on about media bias, 'left wing smear' and all that? We had this whole discussion back in october, there was a lot of socking involved and nothing changed. And nothing will change now by you just asserting something because you believe it to be true. But, if you do have reliable sources that state the AFD is all unicorns and sunshine and in reality not the things they are presented as, then please go ahead and bring them forward. Otherwise this is just a continuation of the october behaviour (and yes i know you are most likely the same person as one can check geo-location via link on any ip talk page, creepy right?) Just give it a rest, it will just not happen UNLESS there are reliable sources that agree with you. But of course we can see your attitude to reliable sources in the linked discussion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.252.62 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

6. Homosexuality and Feminism.

RE. 2.2 Homosexuality and Feminism: "As AfD has campaigned for traditional roles for women, it has aligned itself with groups opposed to modern feminism.[108]" This doesn't only put it in opposition to feminism, but the much more widely-supported principle of gender equality. Only around 7% of people (20-25% of women) identify as feminists. 80+% of people, however, say they favour gender equality.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.255.147 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"According to its interim electoral manifesto, the party is against same-sex marriage and favours civil unions. The party is also against adoption for same-sex couples." The reference link to the german "Leitantrag-Grundsatzprogramm-AfD", in the german and english version "The Political Programme of the Alternative for Germany.MANIFESTO FOR GERMANY" (Chapter 6.1-5), is no proof of these thesis. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf

By the way, one of the mayor AFD politician leader (instantaneous AFD Bundestag parliamentary leader / 2017 AFD-lead candidate for Chancellor of Germany"), Alice Weidel lives in a long time lesbian civil union (adopted two kids). She see their party as „AFD-Garant der Rechte von Homosexuellen“ (AFD-Guarantor of the rights of homosexuals) "„Familie ist dort, wo Kinder sind.“ (Family is where children are.) source "Ehe für alle - Der Alice-Weidel-Effekt" ( Marriage for all- The Alice Weidel-effect). german: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ehe-fuer-alle-der-alice-weidel-effekt-in-der-afd-15080234.html

AfD's position on the Koran

I would like a new subsection under Section 2 "Ideology and policies" with heading "Islam". (It can come last or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned, I don't see any logical ordering in the headings in this section.).

There is a lot to be said on this. I suggest starting with the following.

-- begin -- The AfD advocates banning the distribution of certain passages contained in the Koran. The AfD grouping in the German Bundestag put forward a motion asking the Federal Government to do this in October 2018. [1]. -- end --

I apologise for any mistakes I have made, I am new to editing Wikipedia. That's why I can't edit a semi-protected page myself.

Best wishes,

--Sz9182 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — MRD2014 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2018/kw41-de-scharia-570752


Hi MRD2014,

OK. So who objects to the proposed change, and for what reason?

If no-one objects we have the ideal case mentioned in the referred page "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections" and the consensus exists. if not I think it depends the cogency of the reasons advanced. --Sz9182 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

European position

According to the Berliner Zeitung, the party has changed its position on an German EU exit from "positive" to "neutral" for the influential Wahl-O-Mat political profiler website. [1] Culloty82 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/wahl-o-mat-zur-europawahl-afd-aendert-aussage-zu-deutschem-eu-austritt-32528432

Climate change denial

Some parties have Climate change denialism added as a part of their outlook. AfD should be no different, since it is an extremely important issue.--31.49.140.212 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

“Ultranationalism” in ideology section

I dispute calling the AfD “ultranationalist” in the ideology section of the article. There are two reasons to this. Firstly, the source provided consists of one sentence of a Washington post article that happens to refer to the AfD as “ultranationalist”. Secondly, the source itself may not in this scenario be trustworthy, the Washington post is known to typically hold a bias that favors the left in their reporting, and since this is the only known instance of the AfD being called ultranationalist, this could be just another product of that. While I can admit that the AfD May nave ultranationalist factions that could be discussed elsewhere in the article, the ideology section is not the place to do it. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right about this. Neither the Washington Post and NYT have much credibility left. They have become a left-wing propaganda arm instead of news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.93.64 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So you want to whitewash that description, or at the least move that ideology out of the ideology section... because a source that describes them as such, a top of the line source i might add, is biased in your view? This is a far-right extremist party with strong ultranationalist overtones and dogwhistles. Are there any proper sources that actually dispute the description of ultranationalism? 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Here would be another source calling them ultranationalist. This time in The Sunday Times, hardly a liberal paper. And i have seen more as well, but this at least fits your criteria, ie a reliable source that is not leaning to the left but right. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Your first message is an extremely loaded statement I will not be bothering to reply to.

Your second message I will reply to. I’m not subscribed to the Sunday times, so I can’t read the entire article. Am I correct in assuming that later in the article they describe the AfD as “ultranationalist”? (I personally don’t think sources that require subscriptions should be used ok wiki but that’s irrelevant).

And again, I’m not saying that there are ultranationalist factions in the AfD that deserve mention in the article, I’m saying I don’t think they constitute enough of the AfD for it to be mentioned in the ideology section. Victor Salvini (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Times article actually calls them ultranationalist in the very first paragraph, still in the free bit. And again, this is reliably sourced content, now to two different high quality outlets with differing political views. Yet still you want to exclude it or move it to a less prominent position. How do you justify that policy wise? 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to quote the passage "A married couple have run into trouble for forging the first local pact between Angela Merkel’s party and the ultranationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) in defiance of the chancellor." Very first sentence of the article as well. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Look, is there any actual consensus anywhere on Wikipedia that something like WaPo cannot be used for sourcing of far right parties, figures and so on? That is your rationale for removing the label on this article and on an article about a greek party, sourced through the Guardian, given your edit summaries for the two edits. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess i was sloppy by not actually looking at the article itself more and just concentrating on the talk page. The label was also sourced to the Times article the whole time anyway. So you removed the label by saying "Washington post, in areas such as this, is not reliable" while completely ignorring that it also was sourced to the Times the whole time. So, can you please explain what is bad about the Times source together with the WaPo source? Also you "...don’t think they constitute enough of the AfD for it to be mentioned in the ideology section." which seems very much like original research when two high quality sources make the statement without any caveat. They call them just ultranationalist. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Salvini:
Firstly thank for your input.
Parts of the afd has racist, anti-semitic, islamphobic tendencies which linked to far-right movements such as neo nazism or identitarianism. I think those two movements are based on ultra-nationalism. It is not inadequate to see the party has ultra-nationalism as ideology. Also the times and Washington post are considered as reliable sources in WP. Jeff6045 22:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say the movements are based on supposed Ultranationalism, I would say they’re in the AfD because the AfD is the most electable party closest to what those people believe. Unless it can be convincingly argued to me that the AfD has Ultranationalism as part of their core ideology, I remain unconvinced it should appear as so on the article and instead be merely deemed a faction. Victor Salvini (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, then present some sources that say that. Right now you are arguing against top of the line print sources only with your opinion.2003:D6:2729:FF5A:381F:DA85:BB95:46D1 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You know what, i changed my mind after some input. Take it out with the current sourcing,i will look for more than a passing mention in two news articles, although i am not sure if it is worth the effort. And the german nationalism label is more fitting anyway, given the specific history of Germany. Sort of redundant, when sourcing could be stronger to also have a non-specific version of the same thing basically. Of course there are differences but that does not matter in this discussion. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:381F:DA85:BB95:46D1 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this change of heart. Unless Jeff or someone else has an opposing statement to make by tomorrow I intend to remove the edit. Victor Salvini (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Salvini:
Can you wait until Saturday? I want to make some research about it. Also I want to invite some users in this discussion. Jeff6045 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I just want to make clear that i did not change my mind because of any of your non policy based arguments Victor. Just that to source something like that, more in depth coverage would be needed than a passing mention in a story about something else. If that were in the WaPo or the Guardian, it would be perfectly fine. Same as if it were an offline source or behind a paywall. And as i said, it is sort of redundant. But anyway, there certainly is a strong ultranationalist, also described as far-right extremist, wing in the party and they are having a continued... battle almost, over the future of the party in recent times. That may actually deserve a small section in the 'history' part of the article. The german Wiki actually made it an article of itself here. Obviously in german language but it could be something to start with source wise. Now, i don't believe the english Wiki needs an entire article on that, but a section in this article summing up the other article, more or less anyway, would be very much due. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:1063:1A9D:4789:171C (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added some reliable sources that describe the party as ultra-nationalist. Please see the soruces and give some input about them. Thank you. Jeff6045 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

Based on the titles of those books, the first one is about democracy, comparing China and Italy, and the second is about the Vatican. Other than for possibly a fleeting mention or two, I don’t see how these could be relevant sources to the topic of whether or not the AfD is overall ultranationalist. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
So, instead of assuming good faith or checking if the specified pages are on google books, for example, and reading yourself, you only concentrate on the titles of the books? Come on. They even asked you to review the book sources and give your opinion on them. You either then do that, or you don't. But just casting clouds over something you have not reviewed yourself in the slightest is not acceptable. 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh and just for disclosure, i have not checked them either yet. So, i have no opinion on the matter yet. Will do so in the next few days if time permits. 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually looked at one of them, the Vatican one. And while it does most certainly use the term ultra-nationalist in connection with the AfD, it does so in what seems to be in a quote by MP Volker Beck. So i would say that is not optimal because he probably is no expert on the matter (if he is, then that changes things). The other i have not checked yet. So, i would say that 'In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy' is not good enough to use unless Volker Beck is an expert in political sciences. And i don't think he is. Otherwise it is the opinion of a single politician. But great work Jeff, some great dedication by you there :) 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Victor Salvini:
Please see the page that is mentioned on the citation. Those books are describing the afd as ultra-nationalist. I want to say that the pary is depicted as ultra-nationalist not only by foreign media but also by academic research. Jeff6045 01:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The character "ultranationalism" is at the moment very well sourced (if all political parties in Wikipedia had actual books in the source list for their ideologies instead of just newspaper articles, it would be a dream come true), the WaPo and the Times are perfectly fine and reliable sources, so I don't see the issue here (except for the Vatican book maybe). Of course if one finds more academic sources to replace the news ones it can only be better. PS: This whole discussion is part of Victor Salvini's efforts to remove extremist characterizations from right-wing parties. The same is happening at Identity and Democracy, the EP group of which the AfD is a member. This whole thread is probably POV-pushing, since also the OP's username is "Victor Salvini", an obvious homage to far-right politicians Viktor Orbán and Matteo Salvini, showing from start a non-neutral attitude on WP (which is OK, but then let's be aware of our biases). So in this occasion I would not consider their statements as driven by the will of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, but more as driven by a personal opinion on these matters (as seen also by their arguments in this thread, where they failed to cite even a single source supporting their statements). Remember, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy, I went to sleep and now I have people making accusations against me!
IP- I have not failed to assume good faith, if anything you failed to do so by your accusation, I gave my initial thoughts upon a quick look through of the cover and table of contents because I didn’t have time yet to scroll down dozens of pages to find the quotes, and since the Vatican one has been removed I suppose I can go on to try and look at the other.
Jeff - getting academic research is always good, and as a just told IP, I’ll try and look at the other book today.
Ritchie - I am aware of my biases, I am also aware of other people’s, (your calling Orban and Salvini far right kind of gave yours away), and biases in sources. This is why I’m opposed to using sources like WaPo who have a clear bias to the left. The times I’m not familiar with but IP has told me they have a slight bias to the right, if this is true and they’re calling a right wing party ultranationalist, then I see them as an ok source. And please try and remember I have not said the AfD is not at all Ultranationalist, I’ve been trying to say that it’s a faction of the AfD that deserves to be mentioned, just not in the ideology section which implies the party as a whole is ultranationalist. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
WaPo is a mainstream WP:RS, its reaching to say that they have a "clear bias to the left” and there is no consensus that there is *any* context in which a non-opinion WaPo piece can be denigrated. Your quest for a source that both fits wikipedia standards and your own is admirable but the second half is unnecessary. I second the assertions that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum or a WP:Soapbox. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
If anything you claim would be backed up by actual sources to underline things like "...trying to say that it’s a faction of the AfD that deserves to be mentioned, just not in the ideology section which implies the party as a whole is ultranationalist,...". Right now that is your opinion. There is nothing you have brought up to verify that it is the view of reliable sources as well. It is not about opinions here or how we see things but verifiable information published by reliable sources that others can look up and confirm. Like the sources that call the AfD, not parts of it, ultranationalist. 2003:D6:2729:FF14:89D4:2BF7:BE88:23B3 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have many people going against me with good sources. I can tell when I’m over my head. I’ll leave this matter to be continued by people who have more time on their hands to do the research than me, until then I guess there’s nothing more I can do about the UNDUE Ultranationalism addition on this page. Have fun. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well thats interesting, as far as I can tell this is the first time you have brought up WP:undue as your policy argument. Can you elaborate on your new position? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought I brought WP:UNDUE up earlier, but sure. Essentially, everyone agrees the AfD is beyond reasonable doubt a nationalist party, what everyone does not agree on beyond a reasonable doubt is whether it is also ultranationalist. The sources being cited refer to the AfD as ultranationalist only in fleeting mentions, and fails to give an explanation (a statement that is within reasonable doubt deserves to be explained). I view this as UNDUE for these reasons and that the editors utilizing the sources in the ways they are are doing the Texas sharpshooter. Victor Salvini (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't, I checked. You’re confusing me, "beyond reasonable doubt” is not a wikipedia standard but a legal one that doesn't apply here. You may well view it as undue, but you don’t seem to be advancing a challenge that is actually based in Wikipedia policy (which it must be). I respect your personal opinions but they are just that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If I might ask what exactly is the difference between ultranationalism and ordinary nationalism? Xanikk999 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

From my understanding of the terms, nationalism is essentially the interests or needs of (country) put above all other countries. Ultranationalism is putting the interests of (country) above even your own individual interests or needs. Victor Salvini (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Leftist biased

Empty criticism by anonymous users.

This article fails Wikipedia Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Sources which make claims of racism or Nazism are of questionable reliability at best.

on the opening section is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:DDDC:5C9:5BBB:9E08 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not written from a neutral perspective and rather from someone who prefers to hurt this party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.82.38 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Colbert). Should you have something more concrete to criticise, feel free to provide some reliable sources in support of your claim. Cheers ✦ hugarheimur 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


I raise in support of this issue. Left-wind liberals are all over AfD across multiple-language versions of party's articles. The Russian version just resolved an issue with a "Racist" tag and there are still talks of putting more stress on xenophobia and anti-Islam movement. I urge support of Wiki administration for the neutrality. Wikipedia is not a field of political battle and not the left-wing administred resource. By writing and editing biased posts on German politics authors are doing one thing and one thing only - mocking Germany in the face of the world community! 94.25.169.65 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Wolf3319

That is entirely correct. Alekaa20025 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed remarks having no proposal to improve the article per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References to Nazism scrubbed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there multiple references to how AfD members had made comments sympathetic to the Third Reich in this article? They appear to have disappeared.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert edit by Volunteer Marek

I want to ask why my edit on this page was reverted by one "volunteer Marek", as I believe he did not have any justification to do so and I was infact in the right to fix the bias and the slander against the AFD party which has been deliberately protrayed in a way that seems to defame the AFD and push a certain political agenda. Something which should be unacceptable on a supposedly objective and neutral site such as Wikipedia. I additionally gave my reasons for the edit and yet it appears as if he didn't even read them as he gave no reason for the reverting of my edit on the site. I was making the page neutral, unbiased, and objective. It seems to me this "Volunteer Marek" seems to want to political bias, and unfair, subjective portrayal of political parties. I would do well to add that part of my edit was taken directly from the page for the party "Die Linke". There it is stated that "while some journalists claim the party is far left the German government does not consider it extremist, or a threat to democracy". That was given as a reason for why the party is not far left, and that was approved my these moderators! Now while I directly use that same statement for why the AFD is motto be considered "far-right" my edit is immediately removed. If that isn't the definition of hypocrisy, bias, and subjective portrayal I truly do not know what is!!! Alekaa20025 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if you try to whitewash an article, that is what happens. You get reverted. Removing content based on the NY Times, CNBC and Al Jazeera, for example, clearly is a no go. And i did not even look at all the content that was removed, surely lots more reliably sourced content. A variety of reliable sources support the claims made. That you find sources to be biased is totally irrelevant in the end, if they are deemed reliable by Wikipedia editors. What happens on other pages is of no concern to this one either, bring it up there and talk about it. And finally, please stop pretending to be unbiased or claiming to make something more neutral, and so on, when it is based purely on your own opinion of something. On Wikipedia, it is less that we talk and decide content, but reliable sources and due weight of those sources do. But anyway, you could try to find some high quality sources that make the explicit claim that the AfD is not far-right or has no connection to far-right politics at all. Have a good day anyway. 80.138.65.122 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh it is very important as it shows that there different standards for different parties. I have no idea why you would claim I am "whitewashing" the article. That term has no relevance in this situation. So using it seems very strange. Additionally how exactly can you claim that the NY Times, and such others are good source material when

1. They are essentially opinion pieces inside news articles known for their left wing bias. How is removing biased subjective articles a "no go zone"? I may as well go and take out a source from Breitbart and according to your logic it should have the same amount of reliability. But see I won't do that because I actually care about sourcing neutral unbiased information unlike you.

Also are you admitting that you did not even look at the content that was removed? I am sorry but then how are you in any way qualified to tell me that my edit was unjustified?

To be socially right wing means to accept socially right wing policies such as a reduction in immigration, Christianity, and traditional moral values. Being socially "far right" means to establish a totalitarian state where opposition is not allowed, and where foreigners are forcefully kicked out. Or worse. Nazi Germany is considered far right. So why are you equating a democratic right wing party with a totalitarian regime. It simply doesn't seem fair and is a blatant attack on the AFD. But you are of course free to to explain to me in what world is the AFD politically the same as Nazi Germany. Until you do I am going to assume that the reverted edit was made on a politically biased and subjective nature.

Also my beliefs are irrelevant. Even if I was a fascist or an anarchist I wouldn't insert my views into a Wikipedia article so they mislead thousands of people and give them subjective information like yours are obviously willing to do. Alekaa20025 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... It is not up to you to define what right wing or far-right wing means. You have obviously not read RS OR NPOV or Verifiability. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, that you think they are biased is of no relevance. And there is no point in me explaining my personal position because it has no bearing whatsoever on deciding content anywhere on Wikipedia about any subject, be it benign or contentious. I told you the only way to change the content of this, and any other article, is through reliable sources. You just do not get to remove parts of articles because you do not like them or personally disagree with them. That is not how Wikipedia works. By the way, Breitbart is not a reliable source, per consensus of Wikipedia editors. You can read the RS board archives if you care about why. And you know i did not say i did not look at the removed content. I said i stopped looking for more once i realised what you were doing is not in line with policy. Otherwise, sticks and stones you know. Policy is not on your side so go ahead and call me things for following policy. Only makes me chuckle, so cheers for that at least :) Now i will say this again, the ONLY way to change this article is for you to cite reliable sources on this talk page (so give RS a read so you don't waste anyones time, especially your own). But anyway, unless you read and follow the policies i linked it seems your way is not compatible with the Wikipedia way, may i suggest Conservapedia as an alternative which may be more to your liking? 2003:D6:270E:8398:8192:3FA:5A40:1ADD (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, i did not question your beliefs, nor do i care about them one way or the other. I asked you to stop pretending to be unbiased and to stop claiming to make things more 'neutral' when it relies entirely on your opinion instead of on RS. 2003:D6:270E:8398:7D9F:A2BC:B7D6:4AFB (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't it up to me when everyone else on this website seems to be doing it? Who is it up to define what is right or left wing? CNBC? The NY Times? That seems very convenient considering they have an obvious left wing bias. Yet Breitbart isn't considered a reliable source. Now you you are not incorrect but also hypocritical in your position. To you the only articles that have some credibility are those that share your obviously left wing opinions.

As for the RS I have read them though still fail to see how you consider opinion pieces as objective content. You have not only failed to answer every single query that I have had for you but you also throw meaningless statements my way.

You tell me to read the RS board... Ah of course right away sir! I will get to reading all 286 archived lists and I'll get back to you. Either show me exactly what you want me to read or don't show me anything at all.

The RS itself states;

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Now please go ahead and explain to me how the New York Times expresses a neutral opinion in the sources which were reinstated because I've looked them over several times and I'm afraid I cannot find anything that isn't subjective opinion and it certainly shouldn't be used as a source on a Wikipedia page.

You have yet to proove that I am biased on the matter. You accused me of "whitewashing" the article yet you are asking me to admit that my edit was biased. That's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Especially if you haven't even read my edit. Well you always can since it's in the edit history, so what I would suggest you do before you reply again is read my edit and tell me what exactly is unbiased about it and what in the RS clearly backs your case to not allow my edit on the article.

I vehemently maintain my position that all I did was remove biased or otherwise irrelevant content with sources which shouldn't be there in the first place. I edited in a strictly neutral and unbiased manner in order to better inform the wider public. Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not only incorrect* Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I thank youf or the suggestion to turn to conservapedia, however I feel I must once again stress that my goal isn't to make opinion pieces but rather to create factual and neutral information and remove that which obviously has a political bias one way or another. Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a lot of text which says very little about improving the article. Breitbart is not reliable because it has a strongly negative reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and has a clear record of publishing falsehoods or overt distortions, almost always for political ends. This summarized at WP:RSP, among other places. Noticeboards mostly have search bars for their archives, and don't be too surprised if people are not eager to re-explain something like this for the millionth time.
Regardless of your vehement statements of being neutral, CNBC and the NYT do not have the same problems with their reputations. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Alekaa, what you did is remove sourced content. Content you disagree with on a personal level. Sourced content you removed without any policy basis or sources of your own that support your position. That is not good enough when it comes to Wikipedia. I am not sure what else to tell you. You have your opinion of how content should be dealt with on Wiki but... that is just your singular opinion. And despite disagreeing, you have two options. One is, you work within the structure despite disagreeing with it or two, you do not and will continue to be reverted and be eventualy be blocked from editing entirely. Which is most emphatically not a threat but the inevitable outcome.
Anyway, you quote the part of RS which talks about "making sure that all majority and significant minority views" are shown. How is that in any way compatible with what you did? As just one example, even if it were a minority view that he AfD is far-right, which in itself is arguable, it is a notable view and held by many sources, yet you removed it. How does that go together? Also, you make the claim of opinion being used, can you link to the pieces please? Keep in mind that just because you disagree with the reporting does not make anything opinion. Opinion pieces usually are specifically marked, for good reason, by the publications themselves after all. Also keep in mind that the sources you see in any given article are usually far from an exhaustive list. Say, the description as far-right in the lede has 12 sources (which almost is an insane amount for a claim anywhere on Wikipedia), but the list would not end there. It would go on and on. Same for some of the other things you removed. They may have only had one or two sources attached to them, yet there are an abundance of more RS that also make the claim. Not every claim needs 12 sources or that list would be thrice as long as any article. Which of course is not desirable from a usability standpoint alone.
And once again, i did not ask you to admit to any bias, i asked you to stop pretending to be unbiased. And i am sorry if this still is not good enough for you but i tried to explain, perhaps more than i should have. Does not look like you take anything on board at all. Despite that...the next time you use this talk page, please make actual suggestions to change specific things in the article, offer sources to talk about specific changes or the like. Enough of the 'everyone is biased but me' thing, not what this talk page is for. The rules have been explained, the expectations have been explained, please act accordingly. 2003:D6:270E:839E:4578:6BFB:E0B8:949D (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Biased left-wing smear article

If anything the german media is calling this party "rechtspopulistisch"(right-wing populist), here you can read a current article in which they use the term "Rechtspopulisten":

https://www.dw.com/de/ein-fall-f%C3%BCr-die-justiz-horst-seehofer-contra-afd/a-53732235

The AfD itself has an incompatibility list in which dozens of far-right extreme groups and parties are listed which former members are banned for life to ever join the Alternative for Germany.

The article itself looks more like it has been written by interested people on the left trying to smear a relevant political party right of centre. Thats hardly the job of an encyclopedia.

62.226.82.15 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You have brought up things like that in the past on this talk page, 1 2 (other person in 2 is me by the way lol). Seen someone with the same geo-location do the same thing on other articles about far-right topics as well, but cannot recall where that was. Same rethoric and all. You geo locate around Heide, highly unlikely it would be someone else. Why did you not mention that? What is your point even? One of their ideologies is right-wing populism. So the exact thing you want in the article is in the article. 2003:D6:2714:37F1:1D80:4E77:2BF1:DB4F (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Or here where you, as 46.94..., go on to state your opinion on RS like the Telegraph, the Tory mouthpiece paper. Your own words were "Really, you take the articles of these left-wing marxist "journalists" as credible source?". Says it all really. 2003:D6:2714:3741:D471:A1B0:53F7:22B6 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The german govt confirms members as fascist

Björn Höcke is legally considered a fascist in germany, it is considered verifiably fact, and as such the wing of the AFD that he runs (however failingly) is run with fascist ideology. It is a kind of synthesis of omission to not include such a piece of information. It needs to be mentioned in both the ideology section as well as in a controversies section, failure to do so is propaganda. Is wikipedia an arm of denialist propaganda or is it meant to inform. It is completely transparent that the word "fascist" does not appear once in this article except in reference to anti-fascists. Courage enough to call anti-fascists what they are, but not courage enough to relate the facts of a fascist party...The german article relates the word fascist no less than 4 times in its article, including an accurate description of Höcke's wing's ideology as fascist 89.12.86.107 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes... thank you "Berlin". Some sources for "(...)is legally considered a fascist in germany" would be helpful. A court ruled in 2019, that he can be called a "facist" by political activists on a demonstration, protected under the freedom of speech act.[17] That was it - afaik. Alexpl (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The commentar above is lying. No one has confirmed that someone in this party is a "fascist", its a left-wing lie and smear tactic to demonize a political opponent with straw man fallacies.

A judge has ruled that due to the access of free speech it cannot be banned and considered illegal to call Mr. Höcke a "fascist" such as you can freely call chancellor Merkel "a dictator". But neither does the freedom of speech mean that Mrs. Merkel is a dictator, same applies to Mr. Höcke.

62.226.82.15 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because the German government rules it as fascist, it doesn't mean that it necessarily is. However, in this case, it would probably be true. I think that the term "fascism" and "neo-fascism" are quite undefined, and it would probably work best if it was said what qualifies as fascism (the same goes for all ideologies on Wikipedia and the political positions).Dylan109 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideology section

Just a small thing here - shouldn't it be mentioned in the "ideology" part of the infobox that the party is neo-Nazi? That is a well-known fact, as these links may tell. [1] [2] The article also mentions the same - adding that fact under "Ideology" will make the article more uniform. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because they aren't Neo Nazi? They haven't supported Hitler not any of his policies. The very idea is stupendous. Alekaa20025 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The party is described as "far-right" by the BBC, and the BBC is a non-biased source (I know that the left say it's biased to the right and the right say it's biased towards the left, but really, it's probably just because the right and left-wingers see themselves as more centrist or unbiased as they actually are). I'd be inclined to call them Neo-Nazi, but I have my own biases. To call them Neo-fascist, on the other hand, would be entirely justifiable. There is no denying that they are Nazi sympathisers and they have a number of other fascist policies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37274201 Dylan109 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/10/weimar-east-germany-thuringia-afd
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/world/europe/germany-thuringia-afd.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_for_Germany/Archive_5&oldid=1184451617"