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)
 * "pure Nazism" is a stretch, and the Verfassungschutz does not back up your claims to this degree. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 14:17, 8 July 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)
 * @Alexanderkowal Can you link me to the RFC where the decision was made to narrow down the ideologies to just right-wing populism? Can't seem to find it in the archives, thanks.
 * And are you interested in starting an RFD about this issue? I am of the opinion that the infobox should list more than just right-wing populism and would support starting one. Right-wing populism, National conservatism, and German nationalism would be my preference. Sisuvia (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was an RfC, I think it was just consensual decision. I do think it is worth talking about this more explicitly though, although I'm not familiar with these processes at all. Would you be okay starting an RFD highlighting this? I'm happy to provide input. The issue is generally that this new convention makes it harder for the reader to get an impression of political parties from the info box. I think a new parameter targeting key positions. If you're not familiar with this stuff either, I can give it a go Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the delayed reply. This supposed "new convention" doesn't seem to be applied across the board for all political parties, so I don't think there's a new for new parameters. I think we just need to come to an agreement, which hopefully shouldn't be that hard, on what to include as the party's ideologies in the infobox. I think most contributors would be amenable to listing Right-wing populism, national conservatism, and German nationalism, maybe Euroscepticism. Sisuvia (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, lots of editors are very adamant about only one entry for ideology. It does seem to be across the board, when I was looking for examples of the old convention I couldn't find many Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:59, 23 May 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)
 * I think I'd support to change the info box to include some variation of these four ideologies
 * German nationalism
 * National Conservatism
 * Right wing populism
 * Euroscepticism
 * I don't really see any real reason not to expand the ideology section. Many other Wikipedia articles on political parties have similar numbers of ideologies in their respective info-boxes.
 * we should at least update the info-box to include
 * German nationalism
 * National conservatism
 * Right-wing populism
 * . Zyxrq (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not even with these ideologies. It is with the intention of placing 'Anti-immigration' and 'Islamophobia' without recognizing what is happening to Germany since 2015: 2015 European migrant crisis. If we don't have the balanced input of german politics from actual germans, what will become of these articles anyway? 177.180.237.251 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's the case shouldn't we just take a look at the German translation of the article and build it off of that? Zyxrq (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably. The German article has more than double the number of references than the English article. 177.83.207.189 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose to add to the ideology, neofascism. It is not as radical and particular an ideology as neo-nazism, and it better summarizes what the party is. Besides, sources abound. Hidolo (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not even the German Wikipedia article or most sources calls the AfD neo-Fascist or a neo-Nazi party, so it would simply not reasonable to add those ideology's. but I do think it would be reasonable to add Völkisch nationalism as a faction of the party, alongside National conservatism as one of the main ideology's would be appropriate. This would fall in line with most of the other non English Wikipedia articles about the AfD. Zyxrq (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree to add Völkisch nationalism, but not in factions. Hidolo (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree to add Völkisch nationalism as one of the main's ideology's. Hidolo (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would agree as well. Aficionado538 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated the Info-box to include:
 * National conservatism
 * Right-wing populism
 * German nationalism and Völkisch nationalism as Natinalism (Völkisch)
 * Any other changes should be discussed first Zyxrq (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hidolo What do you think about separating German nationalism and Völkisch nationalism from "Natinalism (Völkisch)", and just add the two as separate ideologies. Zyxrq (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hidolo (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Again: "split from CDU" is absolutely and utterly wrong
Does anyone have a source for that claim? Ive mentioned it several times on here but it was never addressed. The AfD never had a formal split from the CDU. There were not a bunch of people inside the CDU deciding to split. Besides even if this was the case it would be more accurate to say that they split from the "UNION" party alliance between CDU/CSU.

But it isnt correct so thats not of interest. The AfD formed independently from various anti-euro people (https://www.bpb.de/themen/parteien/parteien-in-deutschland/afd/273130/etappen-der-parteigeschichte-der-afd/#node-content-title-0)

Only few of the founding members were part of the CDU. I dont know how such an obvious ahistorical nonsense could make its way on the Wikipedia article of the second most popular party and probably currently most important opposition party of Germany. However I advice whoever wrote that to double check. The link I provided is by the Federal Agency of Civic Education you can read about the party history there 2A01:599:B14:FF41:DA3F:F4C8:E8FF:82DF (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello there IP user. A quick ctrl+f shows no mention of the afd being a split off of the cdu anywhere in the article, and only ever that members of the cdu were part of it from the beginning. In fact the article states the exact opposite to what you're suggesting, reading: AfD did not regard itself as a splinter party from the CDU, as its early membership also contained a former state leader from the Free Democratic Party and members of the Federation of Independent Voters, a pressure group of independents and small business owners.
 * Also, there doesn't seem to be a record of you (as in your IP) asking this question previous. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Jack,
 * It is mentioned In the little box on the right page "Split from: CDU" the reason you dont see my IP is because I used mobile data and didnt want my real IP being in here. I was too lazy to log in Kogger120 (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, I am going to edit it out, as unsourced. For the future: anyone can edit Wikipedia, if something is wrong, misleading, or missing then you are encouraged to fix it. :) JackTheSecond (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. I would have edited it, but the page is protected Kogger120 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked around a bit and found a reputable source for the statement. JackTheSecond (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like it would depend on what constitutes a split. Both Gauland and Robanus did not hold any positions of power, and they did not bring a lot of other important people from the CDU into the AfD. For instance, the newly formed BSW would be a proper split. Various DIE LINKE MPs left the party and joined the BSW. Two CDU people with minor party positions leaving the party doesn't look like a split to me, especially since the source never mentions a party split.
 * From the German article on a party split:
 * "Als Parteispaltung oder Abspaltung wird ein Vorgang in einer politischen Partei bezeichnet, bei dem sich ein Parteiflügel oder eine Fraktion um einen bedeutenden Parteivertreter von der Mutterpartei lossagt und eine eigene Partei oder Wählervereinigung gründet."
 * Okay, party wing is obviously not the case in the AfD, and an important party representative neither, since both Robanus and Gauland were previously unknown. Kogger120 (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right about it being a matter of interpretation, but the source characterizes it that way. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how it does, to be honest. It says that some CDU politicians made a new party. A party split is not discussed. Furthermore, I believe that it takes more than a Welt article that more or less (more less than more) describes how the party split. The notion of a party split was in no way an object of discussion in the German media. It was not really mentioned at all. And again, I don't think this source is talking about a proper party split at all. Just look at how sources treat a proper party split seen in the newly formed BSW Kogger120 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You've moved the argument from 'split from' to 'party split' which is different enough in nuance to no longer be the same thing. The article says members of the CDU left the party to create their own one, and they were not only founding members of the new party but influential ones as well.
 * 'Split from' is the correct classification. Even if I understand that both parties rather would if it did not. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this a correct classification? 2804:14C:DA98:80DD:920:FF85:B64E:C9DA (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If we were to use this definition, "split from CDU" would be incomplete, since there were also a whole bunch of FDP politicians who founded the party, like Jobst Landgrebe and Axel Hahn. Furthermore, it is questionable if the wording "split from CDU" does not lead to confusion I do believe that such a phrase implies a party split. It would be more accurate to use a different wording to not confuse. "Founded by former CDU/FDP members" Kogger120 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it isn´t. Something like "Founded by" (...) "who were previously with" (CDU, FDP a.o.) seems much more reasonable. Alexpl (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Update
I currently do not have the permissions to edit this article. However, the statement that AfD is in ID is incorrect as of two weeks ago and should be changed, since this info is important now. Kryshot64 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

New section on electorate of the AfD
I plan to add a section on the electorate of the AfD in the federal elections 2013, 2017 and 2021. --Mangoleaves (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tricky. Stay away from partisan sources. Alexpl (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Weasel words
As per WP:WEASEL we reflect the sources, and the vast majority of sources describe the AfD as "far-right" in-fact, nearly all sources describe them as such, and thus we should - end of story. we are not here to advocate for or against the AfD, but to reflect what reliable third party sources say about the subject. Language like this "Described as a party of the far-right" is very weaselly (again, please see WP:WEASEL - do the sources describe the subject as something? Yes they do...then we reflect that, that is how we describe them, without qualifiers. Please read WP:WEASEL if you are an AfD supporter and you don't like how sources describe the party then you shouldn't be editing the article, leave it to unbiased editors who do the right thing and rely 100% on reliable third party sources. As it was that lede was a weaselly word salad. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ive changed it to still include the right-wing populist part -FMSky (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice one, the article appeared to contradict all reliable reporting on the subject, as it stood. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Völkisch nationalism
Aficionado 538, I create this discussion parameter to discuss more specifically whether to add Völkisch nationalism to mainstream ideologies. (he and I agree to add it). Hidolo (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, how about naming it to "German ultranationalism" with a link to the Völkisch nationalism Wikipedia page as many might not understand what the term means at first glance? Aficionado538 (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Völkisch nationalism can stay as it is in my opinion. Zyxrq (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok np. Aficionado538 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideology consensus
@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

German nationalism Völkisch nationalism Zyxrq (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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). Vacant 0  (talk &bull; 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)
 * 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? Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 08:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Section concerning Tino Chrupalla's interview with Nikolai Nerling on the AfD Wikipedia page
(from my talkpage ) 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.
 * 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 . 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" - 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)