Talk:Alternative for Germany

Ideology

Should the ideology section not be expanded? Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering anti-immigration and euroscepticism is stated in the opening paragraph but not included in the ideology section Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the spam, why does this paragraph exist?

Since 2015, AfD's ideology has been characterized by Islamophobia, anti-immigration, German nationalism, national conservatism, and Euroscepticism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Islamophobia"?? Phobia?

A so called prophet such as Muhammad who engaged in sexual intercourse with a nine year old child can only be called disgusting. 2003:DA:C72E:1F00:A1AA:48F7:2C27:F160 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven’t read the Quran Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You're clearly WP: NOTHERE. KlayCax (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct. "Right-wing populism" is wrong it's pure Nazism and right-wing extremism, islamophobia, Euroscepticism, Racism, anti-democratism, Russophilia, Antisemitism, and all believes of Hitler. You can clearly see the Paralels between the NSDAP and the AfD. If you don't believe me or need a Source, ask the Verfassungschutz or a decent Antifa-member. Greetings. RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you; the ideology section is insufficient to describe the AfD's ideology adequately. In my opinion, labeling it as "right-wing populism" alone is a gross misrepresentation. Given the party's right-wing extremist nature, placing the AfD on par with your typical ECR party is inappropriate, especially given the fact that AfD state chapters and the youth wing of the AfD have been labelled as "right-wing extremist" by the BfV, not to mention, the plan of "remigration" being brought up in a meeting in Potsdam with renowned neo-Nazis such as Sellner, a step even Marine Le Pen considered a step too far. I would suggest including German or "Völkisch" nationalism, "anti-immigration", and anti-Islam in the infobox while retaining "right-wing populism" in the ideology section. There are many of good sources to back up this including those found in the article. Aficionado538 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aficionado538 I think there should probably be another section in the infobox which outlines the party's key positions, as the ideology section used to serve this purpose before it was narrowed. See Workers' Party (Brazil), Republican Party (United States), Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and Bharatiya Janata Party Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, we've already have recent RFCs which have settled on the current consensus. Please learn how Wikipedia actually works. Start another RFD is you want to overturn consensus, but be aware that 1.) Infoboxes are summaries, not essays, and only should list one or two ideologies. Articles have ledes and Ideology/Ideology and Platform sections for a reason! Repeat, Infoboxes are summaries – if you've ever studied higher education and read abstracts of academic papers, like that, but even simpler and more succinct. 2.) Ideology yields in Infoboxes should list political ideologies, not policy positions – anti-immigration, Euroscepticism etc are policy positions, not political ideologies.--Autospark (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark In your revert of someone's edit you said they should discuss it. There's no need to be patronising. My point is that the ideology section used to include key policy positions which was very useful for the layman to glance at. Imo the infobox should include another section called 'Key policy positions' which lists its main positions (less than 5). Abstracts are generally paragraphs that ouline/define/contextualise the objective, which this would do/contribute to. I don't see how the supposed clutter would outweigh the benefit for the reader. Is there another place I could have this discussion generally regarding the articles for political parties, rather than on the talk page for one? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Infobox is meant to be a summary, not an essay or article in itself. What is the point of a summary if it has (in your opinion) to list a whole host of policy positions of a political party like a manifesto? Why even have en.wiki articles at all then, if the summary is meant to be so long? Anyway, if you wish to explain which (ideally no more than two) ideologies that should be used in the Infobox's Ideology section, best bring it to a specific discussion, or an RFD if no new consensus can be reached. (My position is that right-wing populism should be listed. And FWIW, I do agree that this party is extreme, and not just a right-leaning conservative party.)-- Autospark (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Autospark I don't think you've read what I've said. In no way am I saying the infobox should be an essay, that is a strawman. I am not saying further ideologies should be added. I am saying there should be another section in the infobox which summarises/lists its key positions, no more than five (if someone wants to include another one, take one out after discussion). For instance, for AfD:

Key positions: (just including those stated in paragraph 3, I'd argue one outlining economic policy be included instead of Islamophobia)

• German nationalism
• National Conservatism
• Anti-immigration
• Islamophobia
• Euroscepticism

I appreciate you're probably sick of talking about this so if you don't want to engage please say that. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Here we are again. If anyone as much as hints at politics from the "other side", all hell breaks loose. But no, Wikipedia surely is neutral, unbiased and rational... sure.

This whole discussion is to try to put the label "Nazism" right away at the ideology section for censorship purposes. Instead of trying to develop and expand on the political problems of europe that have influenced the party and the voter's beliefs, the discussion goes right away to what "big scary word" should summarize the stereotype of the political party and its voters.

Not only that, the english wikipedia must probably be one of the first sources of information for university professors and school teachers worldwide due to the nature of search engines nowadays. These educators take the information here for granted and don't realize that wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information, it only tries to be one. It is actually a "working in progress" written by biased editors based on other sources that can be legitimate or not.

Even if they are white nationalists, pro-anglo nordicists, or hardcore nazis - this is one more attempt to get the only real opposition party in Germany banned or censored in the virtual world.

The discussion could focus on how europe's tight-knit social democracies are not compatible with immigration and that the german nation, just like the French or any other, never get a say on the resolutions made by the government, hence the reason why there is a significant portion of the population voting for the AfD or sympathizing with its beliefs.

Forget about political context, put "Nazism" right away like a good modern historian. ByronKierkegaard (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ByronKierkegaard they are not neo-nazis let alone nazis. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You certainly don't understand the irony of it all and how your arguments are completely senseless and useless. Expanding the article using relevant and well sourced information about the political atmosphere of germany would help way more. ByronKierkegaard (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ByronKierkegaard See Politics of Germany. Nobody sees Wikipedia as gospel, it is not trying to be anything it isn’t. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ByronKierkegaard I’m going to add a section on the legacy of nazism to the politics of Germany page, it’s a joke it’s omitted. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You are going on a crusade to add a section to one irrelevant article, that absolutely no one important enough gives a damn about it, just to try to prove a point - whatever the hell that is.

Not to mention that you are using 'Nazism' as your favorite trope by copying lines from other articles from this encyclopedia. And you seriously think this is original writing and real research?

It is beyond me how low this 'online encyclopedia' really is concerning some articles. I am leaving here, have fun ByronKierkegaard (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@ByronKierkegaard I am going to add its impact on German politics and how it is relevant today. There is no other article on the legacy of Nazism. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram you could be constructive.

Trope?? Nazism is a trope now?? No this is not original research because that’s not allowed on Wikipedia. Irrelevant article? Why are you here then. Seems to have hit a nerve.

Either be constructive or you might as well go. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You could really do with some reading comprehension.

I am not the person linking a completely unrelated and useless article and modifying it later on just to prove ideological idiosyncracies. There are far better classical books to learn about politics, or 'The Politics of Germany', written by actual professionals in the areas of economy and history.

I don't get power tripping fantasies for typing on a website of faceless and nameless spawn on a computer monitor.

I am not surprised that this place - and to a certain degree, every single talk page about politics, history and literature inside this website - is a complete freakshow. I doubt that any of these users modifying these articles are 'de creme de la creme' experts in the areas of history, economy or politics. ByronKierkegaard (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@ByronKierkegaard of course not, Wikipedia is done by amateurs. That section so far only includes context for what I’m about to write, which is how German collective guilt impacts their politics now and how it has evolved. If you look at the article, it completely skips over the post war period, I realise what I’ve included is quite heavy and ugly but it is necessary. You could really do with adhering to WP:Assume good faith and lay off the personal attacks, I don't value your opinion of me. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Does not oppose democracy," or better to say "generally does not oppose democracy?"

It is currently stated in the first paragraph that the AfD is "positioned within the family of parties that does not oppose democracy." This is a generalization to some extent, and it would be more accurate to say "generally does not oppose democracy," as some of these parties are considered, by and large, to have some undemocratic element, though it does not dominate any of them. 172.59.185.135 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"generally does not oppose democracy" would be misleading as the party does not want to halt any democratic processes in Germany. Many readers would think something like "AfD wants to stop democracy in some ways, just not abolish it". 185.227.191.35 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's really unclear what you was trying to write. What would be the difference between abolishing democracy and stopping it? IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have doubts, you can read about Jörg Meuthen on his article or the section about him here. As a frontrunner for AfD his opinion was that parts of them were opposing not only liberalism, but also democracy. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And in his opinion parts of them are quite totalitarian.IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes "generally does not oppose democracy" was better indeed. Thanks for raising the issue. I have done it several days ago already. Even better is "generally does not reject democracy" IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On this point of curbing generalization, I do think that there is enough of a (relatively!) moderate wing within the party to call it "right-wing to far-right," and in support of this I would submit to you that vastly more parties are called "far-right" than "far-left," an assertion which I have recently collected data on:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Support_For_Wikipedia-Labeled_%22Far-Right%22_or_%22Right-wing_to_Far-Right%22_By_Country.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Support_For_Wikipedia-Labeled_%22Far-Left%22_or_%22Left-wing_to_Far-Left%22_By_Country.png

Obviously these should not be exactly equal, as different sides will perform better or worse at different times, but there should not be this much of a gap, often in rejection of reliable sources. It should be noted that this bias is far stronger, even, when one focuses on parties listed as "far-left" or "far-right" exclusively. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok it is interesging (though complex if thinking about reasons). But anyway this section of talk page was not about the topic you have written about. "Far right" description discussion is talked about in the section above. This section is about relation to democracy. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

And I am afraid your maps are not right. As I watch on my country Poland it far right support is vastly over reported there. And it hapens to be the most reported country. PiS is in reality not described as far right - at least on English Wikipedia, though some obviously could disagree... IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox

the ideology in te infobox is outdated, "right wing populist" is not the leading ideology of the party, and way to simplified and abstract to begin with. the Party is Ethno-nationalistic and partially neo fascist. Its embarrasing to have them labelled as "right wing populist" like some ECR parties, while this party supports mass deportation of citizens and is so far to the right, Meloni and Le Pen don't want to work with them Norschweden (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not on us to decide, we just have to display the scientific consent, or, if there is no clear consent, present the dissent. (...) Alexpl (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Norschweden, the party is already described as such in the article lede and Ideology section. The Infobox is a summary, not an essay in itself. There were recent RFDs over the issue. If you wish to expand upon this descriptions of the party, expand, with reliable referenced sources, in the article body. (And yes, I agree with you that this party is extremist, not merely a right-wing conservative party. But this is an encyclopaedia, and our personal views mean nothing.)--Autospark (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no difference between them. They're all the same scum of neo-fascist totalitarian Putin lovers. 84.148.210.108 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

AfD Far-right Link Change

Do any of you It would be A good Idea to Change the link in the info box from Far-right politics to Far-right politics in Germany (1945–present). I think doing this for all far-right German political party articles for post ww2 politics, would give the reader a better understanding about far-Right Politics in Germany Today Zyxrq (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

For the moment I've only Changed the link in this article.Zyxrq (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel the references do not support the statement made in a section of the ideology. Should be corrected, supported, or edited out.

in the ideology section there is a reference to historical revisionism. This does concern me so i carefully read all the resources cited. No reference to historical revisionism is in the cited articles... so that reference needs to be properly cited. Its a serious accusation. Also... the same statement is about an AfD leader (Petry) but every article focuses on the fact that she left the party, and she was the extreme outlier (wants to shoot immigrants at the border). She is an independent. She is not AfD. I would correct it myself but experience with wikipedia says that is a waste of my time. Current statement: AfD's adoption of more hardline Islamophobic, anti-immigration positions, and historical revisionist remarks by leading AfD figures. Citing referemces 155, 156, 157. (Basically this article is padded with citations... makes it look legit when it is not. Its a common practice in university writing.)

Probably should read as: AfD's adoption of more hardline Islamophobic, anti-immigration positions, remarks by leading and former AfD figures. (?) Or a citation should be provided that specifically supports the accusation of historical revisionism. 185.44.146.188 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)