Talk:Alice Weidel

Far-right politician

 * We have a reference saying that Weidel belongs to a far-right party. I do not see any reason to require a reference that she is a far-right politician. If there are some doubts she is a politician, may be that should be removed as unsourced, but this woyuld be really silly.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would leave out mention of her political position as it is controversial and unnecessary here. In reference to my controversial claim, please see the source below.


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/german-anti-immigrant-afd-party-picks-leaders-election-drive/


 * 'The less well known Ms Weidel is seen as a relative moderate within the AfD, and appears to have been nominated to placate party members alarmed by the choice of Mr Gauland'. The Telegraph. Published 23 April 2017. Retrieved 18 May 2017.


 * We should always be careful when placing controversial labels, especially on individuals, which may be seen as defamatory. I would like to see much more of a sourced, unanimous consciousness of her being far-right before we use this to describe her, especially in the opening paragraph. Also whether AfD is right-wing or far-right is controversial in of itself. Some sources claim it is a right-wing party, others far-right. Even if there was consensus for the party's political position (which as noted, there isn't) to then claim to know an individuals political position from within the party via this information is a WP:SYNTHESIS argument, and therefore should not stand. Helper201 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * However, like it is now, saying just "politician" is also not really good. I would possibly agree with right-wing, though Merkel is right-wing as well, and there is, well, some difference between them.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Many politicians on Wikipedia do not have a labelled position on their page, which is good as placing a political position accurately on an individual isn't usually an easy or non-controversial task. If you want to be more specific, a better way would be to outline her political views on different topics. Please also make sure to place the relevant citation at the end of the sentence for each claim (not refer to somewhere else in the article). Helper201 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I may do this at some point, but it will take a lot of time. A short-term solution would be just to collect sources which call her far-right and right-wing and cite all of them. Thank you also for teaching me how to edit Wikipedia. This is particularly useful to hear from a user with 3K edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say she is a right wing politician, and Merkel is a centre-right or centrist politician. The CDU campaign under the slogan 'die mitte' which means 'The Middle' PompeyTheGreat (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Section name: "Nazi slut" incident vs "Political correctness" incident
I recently changed the name of section "Nazi slut" incident to "Political correctness" incident. My edit was reverted with the explanation "But WP not censored. Need an argument to change this". My argument is that the purpose of the TV satire show host's comments were to show how extreme public discourse would be if "political correctness" were "put an end to", and that his actual comment is not relevant and also defamatory. Regardless of Weidel's political positions, giving undue weight to an offhand disparaging comment in this case I think violates WP:UNDUE, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:LIBEL. If we only consider WP:NOTCENSORED, a TV presenter could say for example, "Merkel is a Stalinist whore" and we would have to have that as a section name. Haben Sie einen guten Tag, Facts707 (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not censored, but we have to be a bit sensitive, this is a WP:BLP. "Political correctness" incident is a preferable section heading. Or extra 3 incident or something that points to who she brought the suit against. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would call it "abuse controversy" or something like that. Political correctness is a bit tangential.Gaditano23 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the comments. I changed it to . I think the presenter from "extra 3" made his point, but I think anyone could have made the point and so it's not necessary to give "extra 3" more visibility from it by having the show name in the section title. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The English-language Reuters article cited has the title "AfD leader loses case versus German TV show that calls her 'Nazi bitch'". Someone had made this say "Nazi slut" instead of "Nazi bitch", which is incorrect. Sources have the titles they have, not the titles that Wikipedia editors think they ought to have.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring
A brand new account, User:Newuser867 is edit-warring at the talk page removing information supported by reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

joined the party in 2012?
the AfD was founded in 2013! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Children
The article claims that "They have two children". The wording seems unnecessarily confusing/ambiguous. As far as I understand, it isn't possible in Switzerland where those children live (and not in Germany either for that sake) for two women who live together to be legally recognised as parents for a child. So those children clearly have a father somewhere. Weidel has explicitly confirmed in an interview that Bossard is the mother of the children, and that the children live with their mother in Switzerland, so the situation is clearly that she has a girlfriend who has two children, and that both the girlfriend and the girlfriend's children live in Switzerland, while Weidel herself primarily lives in Germany. It's fine to mention that, but it should be mentioned in a non-confusing way. --Jenimineto (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruckus at de-wiki
Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Right-wing AfD"
AfD, which is stated as far-right in its own article, is stated as right-wing here. I have done an edit to change that, but its reverted because the page is about Alice Weidel and not AfD, while the AfD is stated as right-wing in this very article. Because the original article refers to party as far-right, I redo my edit with the same references being given in the original article. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not particularly care whether AfD is described in this article as righ-wing or far-right, but so many references to the same point (and the references, as far as I see, do not even mention Weidel), are clearly inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter the aforementioned part of the article doesn't do any claims regarding Weidel but regarding AfD, which is originally stated as far-right in its own article. The line currently goes on like this:


 * " Alice Elisabeth Weidel (born 6 February 1979) is a German politician and has been the Leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) "


 * As you can see, it specifically says "right-wing" to AfD (which is, again, stated as far-right in its original page), not to Weidel. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that in the lede one has preferably zero links to this point, possibly one or two links if this is the point of contention (which so far does not seem to be the case). Not five and not ten.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Donation Scandal
Hey there is missing the lin to the donation scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany_donation_scandal Regards! --Fan-von-mir (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Covid
Weidel contracts Covid: https://www.dw.com/en/german-far-right-afd-co-leader-alice-weidel-contracts-covid/a-59795883 --Fan-vom-Wiki (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)