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: 60 days  |
 | 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ideology consensus
edit@52Timer @Holtz941 @User:Aficionado538 @Hidolo @ValenciaThunderbolt @Alexanderkowal
Do any of you disagree with the Inclusion of these ideology's in the info-box. As I am trying to reach a consensus. from what I can see the ideology's are generally agreed on by Wikipedia users and news sources. If any minor changes are going to be made, it should be made here.
Right-wing populism
National conservatism[1]
German nationalism
Völkisch nationalism[2] Zyxrq (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Impru20, Number 57, Autospark, Vacant0, Scia Della Cometa, Czello, Braganza, Checco, PLATEL, and HapHaxion: Calling others on their views to expand the ideology parametre in the infobox. I'm personally in favour of Volkisch and right-wing populism. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Right-wing populism and National conservatism, in that order (although I would consider listing right-wing populism alone as acceptable). I prefer use of the most broad and transmittable ideologies in Infoboxes; "German nationalism" isn't descriptive enough, and Völkisch nationalism should be left to the article body to be cited, and possibly elaborated upon, as although it is a component of the party's philosophy, it arguably isn't a broad-based political ideology.--Autospark (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Has anything actually changed since the 2021 consensus (See the discussion here)? From an academic perspective, AfD is still an ideologically right-wing populist party that is on the far-right (see #1, #2, #3, #4, #5). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say much has changed. I do think in my personal opinion the Völkisch faction of the party has gained more influence within the party. If any changes are made, we should at least add National Conservatism to the info-box. If we go beyond that, we could add Völkisch nationalism as a faction of the party.
- A example I like to use is the Republican party of the united States. Its generally considered a conservative party. But it has various factions within the party. Maybe We could use this as a stepping stone to create a new article about the ideological factions within the AfD. similar to this Wikipedia article, "Factions in the Republican Party (United States)." Yes the AfD is Far-right, but it also has a moderate wing and a extremist wing, I.e Alternative Mitte and Der Flügel. Zyxrq (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Being honest, I oppose listing any "factions" in the Infobox of this or any other political party article. Describing and detailing factions should be left for the bodies of the articles themselves. We should only use the broadest possible terms in the Infobox, its purpose being a summary.-- Autospark (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I support having right-wing populism and national conservatism. The latter could be well replaced by plain nationalism (not "German" or "Völkisch"). --Checco (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- And I also generally oppose have factional ideologies in the infobox, that should contain two or three ideologies, better just one. --Checco (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco Could we add right-wing populism and national conservatism under the majority section? Then, under a 'Factions' section, we could list other ideologies such as Völkisch Nationalism. This solution does not undermine their core ideologies but highlights their far-right tendencies. Zane Wilt (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I won't speak for Checco here, but factions should not be listed in the Infobox. We have an Ideology section in this very article, and part of the lede, for that very purpose. Any factions should be described based on what knowledge is gained through WP:RS, not WP:SYNTH and 'gut instinct', and not in the Infobox, which is meant to only be a brief summary. Personally speaking, the AfD party is very widely described as right-wing populist by the vast majority of sources, therefore I support its continued inclusion in the Infobox. That as the sole ideology listed would suffice in my view.-- Autospark (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree with User:Autospark and I have little more to add to what he and I had already said on the matter. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco: I'd rather have "German nationalism" added, as there is a page on its history. There could be scope to adding "national conservatism", but German nationalism has the latter ingrained into it, making it void in having it in the infobox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- My preference goes for "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism", but I would accept "nationalism", while opposing "German nationalism". --Checco (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco: Why do you object to "German nationalism"? I saw your objection to "Volkisch nationalism", but not the other. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose national varieties of ideologies when mother articles are better. Of course, each country has its own nationalism, liberalism, conservatism, social democracy and so on, but this parcelling out is not useful, in my view. --Checco (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, okay then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose national varieties of ideologies when mother articles are better. Of course, each country has its own nationalism, liberalism, conservatism, social democracy and so on, but this parcelling out is not useful, in my view. --Checco (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco: Why do you object to "German nationalism"? I saw your objection to "Volkisch nationalism", but not the other. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- My preference goes for "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism", but I would accept "nationalism", while opposing "German nationalism". --Checco (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco: I'd rather have "German nationalism" added, as there is a page on its history. There could be scope to adding "national conservatism", but German nationalism has the latter ingrained into it, making it void in having it in the infobox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree with User:Autospark and I have little more to add to what he and I had already said on the matter. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I won't speak for Checco here, but factions should not be listed in the Infobox. We have an Ideology section in this very article, and part of the lede, for that very purpose. Any factions should be described based on what knowledge is gained through WP:RS, not WP:SYNTH and 'gut instinct', and not in the Infobox, which is meant to only be a brief summary. Personally speaking, the AfD party is very widely described as right-wing populist by the vast majority of sources, therefore I support its continued inclusion in the Infobox. That as the sole ideology listed would suffice in my view.-- Autospark (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco Could we add right-wing populism and national conservatism under the majority section? Then, under a 'Factions' section, we could list other ideologies such as Völkisch Nationalism. This solution does not undermine their core ideologies but highlights their far-right tendencies. Zane Wilt (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I also generally oppose have factional ideologies in the infobox, that should contain two or three ideologies, better just one. --Checco (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral about it honestly, i was just finding sources. 52Timer (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. But, if there are no consensus for Völkisch nationalism, it would be ok to add ultraconservatism and ultranationalism. Hidolo (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with all of these, except for "German Nationalism" and "Volkisch nationalism," the latter of which is a little controversial, and both of which can be described more simply as "Nationalism." JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
In other words we have a general agreement to add National Conservatism to the info-box?Zyxrq (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any recent sources that describe the party as such? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Simon Franzmann (2015). "The Failed Struggle for Office Instead of Votes". In Gabriele D'Ottavio; Thomas Saalfeld (eds.). Germany After the 2013 Elections: Breaking the Mould of Post-Unification Politics?. Ashgate. pp. 166–167. ISBN 978-1-4724-4439-4.
- ^ Häusler, Alexander (2016). Die Alternative für Deutschland: Programmatik, Entwicklung und politische Verortung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. ISBN 978-3-658-10637-9.; Heinrich August Winkler, zitiert von David Bebnowski: Die Alternative für Deutschland. VS Verlag, 2015, ISBN 978-3-658-08286-4, S. 28.
Removal of Section concerning Tino Chrupalla's interview with Nikolai Nerling on the AfD Wikipedia page
edit(from my talkpage [1]) Sorry if I'm not following the correct procedures here, I'm rather new to Wikipedia and I'm unsure if posting here is the correct way to go about discussing the edit in question.
You stated: "'in 2018 party leader Tino C. gave an interview to Nikolai Nerling' - who is then explained to be various kinds bad, isn´t really relevant, since the content of that interview isn´t mentioned by contributor user"
Now, I don't see why the content of the interview is of relevance here? I find this to be moving the goalposts. The section I created concerns antisemitism, and it's about the current AfD co-chief having given an interview to a holocaust denier, which is certainly relevant to the topic, no? It is all the more significant given that the Verfassungsschutz specifically cited the interview the 2019 report concerning the AfD as being evidence of connections to the right-wing populist resistance milieu. That is also how I phrased it in my original write-up:
"As such, the interview was cited in the 2019 Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution report on the AfD as evidence of the party's "Connections to the framework of a so-called new right or right-wing populist 'resistance milieu'"."
To compare, here is the relevant section in my source: "5.2.6 Verbindungen im Rahmen eines sogenannten neurechten bzw. rechtspopulistischen „Widerstandsmilieus“" [...] "Im Juni 2018 veröffentlichte der Rechtsextremist und Betreiber des YouTube-Kanals „Der Volkslehrer“, Nikolai Nerling, ein Video, in dem er dem AfD-Bundestagsabgeordneten Tino Chrupalla einige Fragen stellte. Das Video soll den Anschein der Spontanität erwecken, doch ist Chrupalla in einer frühen Kameraeinstellung bereits wartend im Hintergrund zu sehen."
This is solid evidence for a concrete connection between a person at the literal head of the AfD to a figure so unambiguously extreme that the first sentence in his Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Nerling) is literally "Nikolai Nerling is a German right-wing extremist, anti-Semite and Holocaust denier." Carrot Powder (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. Sure. But no reason for putting the same material right back in.[2]
- And for the matter at hand: For a politician to talk to a content creator/journalist guy who is known to be antisemitic, doesn´t seem to be relevant for this article. If Chrupalla made antisemitic statements himself, the "Verfassungsschutz" should and would quote those. What I get out of the source, is that Chrupalla was interviewed by Nerling and that Nerling could use that interview to increase the credibility for the rest of his questionable content. Which may be relevant for a Nerling-article.
- BTW - stop using "tp-presseagentur.de" as a source when a report is available on credible websites [3]. Alexpl (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- As Chrupalla is the current co-chief of the AfD, the highest possible position, and the interview was explicitly named in the official Verfassungsschutz report on the AfD in 2019, it is indeed relevant to the AfD party, which is why I added it to the article. That there is a substantial connection between Chrupalla and Nerling which demonstrates significant ties of the AfD with the right-wing resistance milieu is not my assertion, it is that of the German Verfassungsschutz, as stated in my entry in the article. Feel free to add more content to Nerling's article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Nerling), but this passage is clearly relevant and deserves to remain on the AfD article. For further reference, here are 4 further articles mentioning the interview:
- "Chrupalla wird explizit in einem Gutachten des Bundesamts für Verfassungsschutz genannt, das Grundlage für die Einstufung der AFD als Prüffall war. Auffällig geworden war er durch ein Video bei YouTube, in dem er dem verurteilten Holocaust-Leugner Nikolai Nerling ein Interview gab."
- -https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/krefeld/krefeld-viel-polizei-bei-wahl-kundgebung-der-afd_aid-69122005
- "Chrupalla wird zum rechten Flügel der Partei gezählt und namentlich in einem Gutachten des Bundesamts für Verfassungsschutz genannt. Auffällig geworden war er durch ein Video auf YouTube, in dem er dem rechtsextremen Volkslehrer Nikolai Nerling ein Interview gab."
- -https://www.24hamburg.de/politik/tino-chrupalla-afd-bundessprecher-autounfall-herkunft-facebook-zitate-maler-90020200.html
- "Chrupalla war früher häufig bei Pegida und gab dem extrem rechten Compact Magazin und dem Holocaust-leugnenden Youtuber Nikolai Nerling Interviews."
- -https://taz.de/AfD-Wahlkampf-in-Sachsen/!5803245/
- "Im AfD-Prüfbericht des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz wird auf ein Video verwiesen, dass der Rechtsextremist Nikolai Nerling hochgeladen hat."
- -https://www.saechsische.de/plus/vom-malermeister-zum-oppositionsfuehrer-5145839.html Carrot Powder (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No consensus. These new sources add nothing, just a repetition on the fact, that Chrupalla´s name is in the Verfassungsschutz-report, repeated by different contemporary news articles and not disputed. None the less, for some reason you labeled the section with the heading "Antisemitism" [4] - because Chrupalla gave an interview to an antisemite? None of these new sources, as far as I can tell, mentions Chrupalla and "Antisemitism" in the same article. You fail to present a reasonable connection between him and "Antisemitism", let alone the AFD, with these sources - a violation of NPOV - WP:UNDUE. Either you return the article to it´s consensus or you deliver sources which support your statement. "Knows a bad dude" is not enough. Alexpl (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- You make a fair point regarding the direct connection between antisemitism and the AfD at hand in the passage. I'll move it to "relationship with rightwing groups" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Relationship_with_right-wing_groups) as that is the object of the immediate connection drawn by the Verfassungsschutz report. Carrot Powder (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No consensus. These new sources add nothing, just a repetition on the fact, that Chrupalla´s name is in the Verfassungsschutz-report, repeated by different contemporary news articles and not disputed. None the less, for some reason you labeled the section with the heading "Antisemitism" [4] - because Chrupalla gave an interview to an antisemite? None of these new sources, as far as I can tell, mentions Chrupalla and "Antisemitism" in the same article. You fail to present a reasonable connection between him and "Antisemitism", let alone the AFD, with these sources - a violation of NPOV - WP:UNDUE. Either you return the article to it´s consensus or you deliver sources which support your statement. "Knows a bad dude" is not enough. Alexpl (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The election poster is mis-translated. It doesn't say "German language without gender" it says "German language without gendering". Please change it to that. thanks 2600:8800:2C09:3200:A4F0:D8EE:A0DE:64C5 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done: According to other unobscured photos of this poster, it definitely says “Ohne Gendern”, which does not mean “without gender” and the previous wording was thus misleading. I’m not sure if gendering is also sufficiently unambiguous terminology, and have thus changed it to “without gender neutrality”, but I’m open to different wordings or removing the description for the caption if there’s not a consensus on its wording
- CloakedFerret (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the translation at least needs context. The paragraph on LGBTQ and feminism does not mention the gendering debate at all, so someone not familiar with the German language and the debate would not easily understand how the poster is even relevant to these issues. Maybe it would make sense to link to Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#Gender gap, gender star and gender colon to clarify the translation and its context. 2003:CD:EF01:8800:1879:CEF5:6CEE:ED82 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would help with the clarity, I've linked to the article. CloakedFerret (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the translation at least needs context. The paragraph on LGBTQ and feminism does not mention the gendering debate at all, so someone not familiar with the German language and the debate would not easily understand how the poster is even relevant to these issues. Maybe it would make sense to link to Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#Gender gap, gender star and gender colon to clarify the translation and its context. 2003:CD:EF01:8800:1879:CEF5:6CEE:ED82 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
Ideology
editConsidering statements by the prominent AfD politicians as well as their connections, I think we should for example: - remove the radical right foot note considering their extremist statements, - regarding statements made for example by Wiedel, in the ideology sections there should be added ideologies such as revisions, anti-Polish sentiment, russophilia and possibly neo-nazism Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)