Talk:Alternative for Germany
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alternative for Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Party History and page bloating
editWith the AfD's election victories in Thuringia, them coming second in Saxony and theme leading in the polls in the Brandenburg. I went to this Wikipedia page to edited, just to see the History section is getting bloated. my suggestion is to merge some sections and or split a page off to create a page on the "History of The AfD". Zyxrq (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did, @JustAPoliticsNerd:@Zyxrq:. It was promptly reverted again. As someone who lives in Germany and is involved in its political landscape — if my name wasn't a giveaway — this article is bloated with random trivia, long quotes, and repetitive statements.
- Inappropriate for @Ixocactus: to revert the edit. This is becoming a coat rack. DerApfelZeit (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- No. Your oppinions, political involvement or living country are irrelevant here. We follow what the WP:RS say about the subject. The presented diff shows that you are removing that sources and this is really inappropriate. Also, you are engaged in a WP:EW and violated the WP:3RR rule. Ixocactus (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're correct that it is irrelevant.
- This doesn't mean that we need
When party founder Bernd Lucke had left the AfD in 2015, he cited, among other reasons an “anti-Western, decidedly pro-Russian foreign and security policy orientation” as well as increasing calls to “pose the ‘system question’ with regard to our parliamentary democracy” as reasons for his departure from the party.
when we could just say that theparty is divided on foreign policy; some support maintaining Germany's current geopolitical system, others hold an anti-Western and pro-Russian policy orientation, particularly within Der Flügel.
- The same applies to their opposition to environmentalism. DerApfelZeit (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- No. Your oppinions, political involvement or living country are irrelevant here. We follow what the WP:RS say about the subject. The presented diff shows that you are removing that sources and this is really inappropriate. Also, you are engaged in a WP:EW and violated the WP:3RR rule. Ixocactus (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Even worse bloat
edit@JustAPoliticsNerd: and @Zyxrq: brought attention to this issue a few months ago but it's gotten far-worse.
Now, several individuals want to go further, wanting quotes (unseen in any other political party page) from Bernd Lucke and Jörg Meuthen.
... when all of this claims are repeated elsewhere on the article. DerApfelZeit (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Compare:
Not sure why many editors on here want to tack on several paragraphs that could be summarized in one sentence... DerApfelZeit (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- In your proposal the pro-Russia stance of the AfD and AfD pro-Russia movement isnt even mentioned in the introduction, let alone the shifting away from the liberal democratic basic order (according to former party leader Meuthen) or the system question with regard to the parliamentary democracy (according to afd-party-founder and former party member to Lucke). That the AfD is the only party represented in the Bundestag whose environmental and climate policy is based on the denial of human-caused global warming is also an unique identifier of the AfD. All of this is nowhere to find in your proposal. LennBr (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
"far-right"
editThe 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.
Another left-wing smear term. A party polling close to 20 percent of the vote can hardly be "far-right". 2003:DA:C71C:3400:A065:1438:7859:59D2 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see no reason why polling figures should reflect the labelling of a far-right party, especially when we have evidence otherwise; nonetheless, we describe the party as sources described them – so, far-right. — Czello (music) 22:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Campaign poster
editSomeone claimed this is intentionally evocative of you-know-who. It does remind me of propaganda from that era. I haven't looked for secondary sources commenting on it. If there are some, it might be worth using in the article, whose current illustrations are less interesting. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
NPOV Problem and Incomplete Citation
edit"Having moved further right on economic issues and remaining strongly right on socio-cultural issues, despite attempts to normalize, AfD's manifesto for the federal election was deemed to be still too radical for the party to take part in government."
Aside from its clearly NPOV problem, the cite (pointing to the manifesto) supports only it's content, does not support the claim that the manifesto was deemed (by whom?) to be still too radical " -- despite the party already taking part in government, as described in previous paragraphs. 97.116.16.179 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Ideology section - violation?
editOut of curiosity, why is there a right-wing to far-right label, when there was consensus on the far-right only label back in 2021? What changed since then? The discussion can be found here: Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 6#Political Orientation of AFD 2A02:587:4C1B:AF00:65AD:32C1:CED:1CF2 (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- IMHO the biggest issue in this section (and the article in general) is over-reliance on mass media do the detriment of peer-reviewed research works. Especially this reliance on media (and WP:primary sources) is noticeable towards the end of the section. This is really not needed, as AfD is important enough to attract attention of researchers. In my experience, researchers tend to be way more careful with words than journalists. Therefore, when researchers say "far-right", they at least explain why is it so, eliminating the need for discussions on this talk page or at least shortening them. My suggestion is therefore to (gradually) replace sources here with research works first. Викидим (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a book on extremism by Eckhard and Mannewitz, where a full chapter is dedicated to the AfD. As expected, they have a very detailed introduction that can be useful to describe the evolution of the ideology, and explain (in section "Provokationen") why other parties and the media vie AfD as extremist. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not my personal view (actually, I think differently here, but I am no expert), but a (very recent) view of two very respected experts in the field of extremism, who live in Germany, speak the language, and understand the culture. The book is in German, but then Google Translate is our friend. Викидим (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)