Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 1

March - early April 2013 discussion
Propose to remove the wiki-links of the prominent supporters as none of the entries appear to exist. Lukati (talk)

Let's try to keep this page informative and non-ideological. I am reversing the latest update that changed "prominent German economist" to "less prominent German economists". Many of the initial supporters of this new party are established economists holding prestigious positions at leading Universities. That makes them clearly "prominent" by the standard meaning of the word. I am afraid we can look forward to a lot of politically motivated editing of this article in the coming months. Lukati (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, this whole article is political propaganda. The want in parliament and Wikipedia is used for that. But they must prove themselves on election day and the results then can differ quite significantly from the present polls. The Banner talk 21:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * omg, a party that wants to get into parliament77.20.227.178 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Added a description of the movement's main argument why the Euro is a failed currency that threatens European integration. The source is a set of statements made by the movement's main advocate and founder, Bernd Lucke. Unfortunately, the source is in German. Will link to an English primary source as soon as one becomes available.Lukati (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC) --> Done --Lukati (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article just looks like propaganda. For example, the sentence This is no doubt "soft", yet what is clear is that the all-party consensus on the Euro gives voters nowhere to turn is presented as a solid, incontroverted fact, whereas the reference is merely an opinion piece that only reflects the point of view of its author. A far more reliable reference would be needed to back this claim.Leptictidium (mt) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. I removed the opinion piece, added a history section, and made a few minor additional edits. --Lukati (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like good work to me. I'm going to remove the POV tag. It can obviously be put back, if specific issues are identified on this talk page. William Avery (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The tag right-wing populism was added in the ideology section by User:Autospark. This is a hotly debated topic (see wiki.de). Some German commentators have labeled some party supporters as right-wing populists (and worse), but there is little if any evidence that the party itself can be labeled as such. I suggest we leave the tag for the time being and discuss here whether it should remain. There is substantial support for the euro-criticism, liberalism, and conservatism labels in the party's preliminary platform. I added the direct democracy label as per the third goal (referendum for sovereignty transfers). I would like proponents of the right-wing populism label to provide evidence for their claim (beyond just hearsay or some commentator's personal opinion). --Lukati (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with you. There's no hard evidence for this, yet, so it's best to leave it out right now.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope, the English version of this article remains objectiv and keeps its neutral language. Unfortunatelly, the German wikipedia has developed a serious left twist, which is nowadays present in most political delicate articles. Let's keep this article clean of political hysteria.84.135.78.18 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with you. The German language Wikipedia is extremely biased when it comes to political topics due to the far-left activists' dominance. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

pro-EU?
I think it is misleading to call the party "pro-EU" if you look at the party's manifesto. They want to return most powers from Brussels to the national parliaments and to reduce the EU to the common market. --TillF (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues
This not a neutral article. Looking at the way people are editing, there are at least a few editor heavily involved with this party. Repeated attempts to remove criticism, selective use of WP:RECENT (membership numbers are allowed, non-positive opinion polls are removed) are only proof of that. The Banner talk 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Hallo Banner, I thank you for improving his article by restoring the chapter "criticism".--Stonepillar (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Party logo
So, I've been thinking the party logo reminds me of something, and it turns out to be British organ donation cards, see http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50621000/jpg/_50621777_donor003.jpg.Lacunae (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Public image
I must say I'm intrigued by the public image this party is trying to convey, as being an academic party, the "professor's party", trying to appeal to the "middle class" and actively screening out membership from the far-right. It seems like quite a unique proposal for a "eurosceptic" party, and not one I've noticed before in Europe. I wonder if it would make a worthy section of its own?Lacunae (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC) In some ways, the party could align to parties such as the Green Party of England and Wales who also oppose the euro, wish for reform of the EU, and who largely appeal to a middle class, sort of academic vote.


 * proposed Public Image section.Lacunae (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Party tries to convey itself as moderate, academic and middle class. More than two-thirds of its initial supporters hold doctorates, giving it the nickname the "Professors' Party". 86% of the party membership is male as of May 2013.

Germany's traditional political parties have labelled AfD's platform as populist and nationalist. Other commentators have rejected such terms, but do concede that the party is a protest party. The Party leader, Bernd Lucke rejects the populist label, describing accusations that he is playing a “populist” card as a smear dreamt up by Left-wing academics.

All applications to the party are reportedly screened to exclude far-right elements and former NDP members who support the anti-Euro policy.

Adding the opinion of critics
Hi Lukati, thank you for deleting my chapter "Critics". Now the whole article is really onesided! Your step hurts common Wikipedia-principles. The purpose was to encourage other users to add more critical statements. You can do it as well, look German Wiki!--Stonepillar (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by Stonepillar who added the following under a new header termed "Critics": ''Against the key demand of the AfD to leave the Eurozone meanwhile arose sharp critics from the camp of economists. If the Eurozone will disrupt then will grow the centrifugal powers in Europe, said Thomas Straubhaar, director of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI). A renationalisation would throw back Europe for years. Economically seen the Euro is of great significance for the German foreign trade.'' I reverted because policy criticism is not present in any other article covering German political parties (CDU, CSU, SPD, FDP, Greens, Left, Pirates). And why would it? Policy disagreement is what democracy is about. I would think that changing this pattern would at least require some discussion here. But I am not going to engage in edit-war now that The Banner has reverted again. In any case, the edit is worded so poorly that everyone will recognize it as German criticism on a German party. The German version of this article by the way is a POV war zone. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Lukati (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article should be neutral, not an advertisement. Removing criticism would make this article a onesided POV and an advertisement. The Banner talk 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the article should be neutral and should not advertise. That is why I think it important to treat it exactly like any other article on German political parties. And the fact remains that the opinion of people who disagree are not included in any other party article that I have looked at, including the ones I linked to in my previous contribution. Instead of providing neutrality, adding critic's voices generates unwarranted policy debate. The German version is a vivid example of where this can lead to and illustrates beautifully how not to write a WP article. --Lukati (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When you look at those articles, you can also see that they all took part in elections, something Alternative for Germany did not. But every article is judged on its own merits. In this case, the criticism section is needed to counterbalance the (in my opinion) election-propaganda in the rest of the article. I am still not convinced that this party is truly notable. I have seen more important political parties crumble when they did not got seats in parliament! The Banner talk 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand what you say but I don't see why elections should matter here or why describing a party without giving voice to its critics results in more propaganda here than elsewhere. A reader will want to know what the party is and stands for and not what others think about it. Whether or not the party will win seats in September is of no importance here. Let's hope others will chime in. We can always ask for a third opinion. --Lukati (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And the reader also has the right to know that there is criticism on their ideas. The Banner talk 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable reader will always assume that a political party has critics who disagree. With the possible exception of Kim Jong-un's party ;-) --Lukati (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think with the edits of Tdl1060 and‎ Stonepillar it is definitely time for a third opinion. --Lukati (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism section, in its current form, should be deleted, since it only contains other parties views on AfD (violation of WP:NPOV) and one economist's views on the euro (see WP:STRUCTURE, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:WHIM, WP:UNDUE, and which again violates WP:NPOV actually, by referring to this economist as "renowned" [not reflected by sources.])


 * This article is not about the euro.


 * It is about AfD and should be contained to information directly relating to the party (electoral results, the party's history, an ideological summary from third party sources. See WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:WHIM, and WP:V.) This is not an article for opinions on the euro, or opinions on the party for that matter (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:WHIM.) Criticism sections are reserved for significant disagreement among third party sources regarding the party, or party's ideology (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE.) We have no conflicting information about the party, or about the party's ideology or proposed policies, only text on the possible effects of implementing those policies, which is not encyclopedic, and violates multiple wikipedia policies (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:WHIM, WP:V.) I strongly suggest User:Stonepillar review wikipedia's core content policies before continuing with the edit war they are currently involved in. --4idaho (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read them? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the criticism section is in clear violation of WP:COAT and WP:CHERRY, as it is not content related to the nominal subject - AfD - but rather is one economist's belief that leaving the euro would be harmful to Germany's economy. This is not an article about the euro or euroscepticism, and it is inappropriate to have debates about the merits of a party's stances on a party's article. (WP:COAT)  The second paragraph is essentially copy and pasted sentences from the article that it is referenced to, which in and of itself is problematic. As for the first sentence of the second paragraph, a party's opponents are by no means a source to rely on for an objective analysis of that party's platform.  As for the rest of the paragraph, it merely states that other parties find AfD to be a threat to their power.  I don't see how that deserves inclusion in the article, but I'll leave that to other editors to decide.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the main argument for keeping policy criticism in the article is to maintain a balance of opinion within the article. On the other hand, the main argument for keeping the criticism out is that its inclusion violates a number of basic WP principles. --Lukati (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This problem has come up again. Sorry, Lacunae, for removing one of your edits. We need to agree on what to include in this article. I suggest we look at other articles on German political parties for guidance for what to include here. The more we deal with this party as just another German party, the more balanced the article will be. Just my $0.02. --Lukati (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bild/Telegraph a suitable source
I believe that The Telegraph is a suitable source, and I specifically mentioned that Bild is a tabloid (this adds a certain connotation in english to the validity). The main point was to contrast the party's public persona as being academic, and how this may not be strictly true. Also would people kindly STOP UNILATERALLY DELETING MATERIAL and try and form a consensus on the talk page.Lacunae (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * to this end, I have added a tag to the sentence, although I think it is an acceptable source, hopefully it will encourage discussion, rather than deletion.Lacunae (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that the Bild quote (via the Telegraph) reinforces the idea that the party is not appealing to the sectors of society that are normally associated with such parties across Europe, and so does add value.Lacunae (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the Telegraph used to be a reliable source, at least. In this case, however, I think the word "editorial" is misleading, since this is usually understood to mean an opinion piece by senior editorial staff, whereas it was actually a signed opinion piece (a Kolumne by, I believe, a regular freelance contributor) meaning that it cannot automatically be taken as the opinion of the newspaper. Since "political amateurs" is the equivalent of a verbatim quote of this opinion (as opposed to fact), the original is the better source. --Boson (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Though likely, I would take "whose readership represent a demographic other eurosceptic parties in Europe have been keen to court" to be original research. I would prefer something like "high-circulation", which I think can be treated as uncontested - and more objectively verifiable.--Boson (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Joke?
I hope you guys call this propaganda piece a joke. This is not the place for electioneering! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain a little more about why you believe this to be so, if you don't articulate what you feel is wrong, further than slapping page tags on the article, it makes it really hard to take on board your criticism. Clearly this subject raises strong passions on both sides, and I have done my best to include both points of view in as neutral way as possible. But in a situation where people are unilaterally deleting virtually anything that is put on the page, because they feel it is biased, progression to have a more complete and rounded view on the matter is almost impossible.Lacunae (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When you really don't know what I mean, you have followed the discussion. I have now asked extra people to take a look at this article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

New Directions
I saw something today which described a leaked email regarding the free voters unwillingness to join the AfD. is there any relevant material about this which would be useful to the article?Lacunae (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Political reactions to AfD's proposed policies

 * Mainstream politicians in the CDU/CSU and FDP have been largely silent on the AfD, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel maintaining a particular silence on the party, though some in her party are beginning to feel stifled by this approach. Wolfgang Bosbach the CDU chair of the Internal Affairs Committee in the German parliament, called on the government to confront critics of the Euro "with well founded arguments." This followed an article in Der Spiegel which included details from a paper written by CDU leaders from three German states protesting against the party's strategy in dealing with the AfD. The authors of the paper urged the CDU to "take the new party seriously" and to engage it in a debate on the issues. Before this the AfD's policy of leaving the Eurozone had been criticised by a Deputy Finance Minister in the Christian Democrats who claimed "The new party is deluding voters that it’s possible to renationalise the common currency without drawbacks".

Is what I'd like to not be deleted from the article.Lacunae (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lacunae, did you read what was said previously about the addition of critics (section entitled "Adding the opinion of critics")? Do you disagree with those statements? It would be really helpful if you could explain why you think this section should be included. --Lukati (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Electoral potential
We have been reasonably successful here at avoiding the nasty edit-warring that occurs on the wiki.de site. So please, Kingjeff, make your case here and do not resort to unilateral deletion of whole sections that have been here for weeks. The section needs work; but just deleting it is not the answer. And if you actually look at the German election article you propose for its new home, you will notice that this section doesn't fit there at all. --Lukati (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's in the wrong article. Should be in the German federal election, 2013 article. Kingjeff (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the commentary section. I never thought it had any merit. ;-) I disagree about the electoral potential section. As I stated above, this section does not fit at all into the German election article. In the absence of actual election results (which are typically listed in party articles), some information about the potential appeal of the party is warranted. What I don't like in that section is the part about the Pirate party. I think, as stated further up the page, that it would be better to just mention that the party has been polling 2-5%. Both types of information, potential appeal and actual polling results, are present in wiki.de. Not that we should take that article too seriously. It is a mess. --Lukati (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * some things which could be added?Lacunae (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Membership in early May, just a few weeks after the party's founding stood at 10,476. Roughly one fifth of whom had defected from an established political party. Just over 1000 members of AfD were formerly with the CDU, 558 from the Social Democrats, 587 joined from the FDP, CSU 220, Green Party 106, Pirate Party 142. 86% of the party membership is male. There is also a strong geographical bias in AfD membership with North Rhine Westphalia and the wealthy states of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria high, while membership in the former East German states is lower. AfD slogan of "Straight talk instead of S€datives". The article also states "Jochen Paulus switched parties from the FDP to Alternative for Germany, thereby becoming its first representative."
 * see review for further discussion.Lacunae (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Remaining issues
What specific issues still need to be resolved before removing the cleanup tags? --Boson (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be reworked and reworded in such a way that it becomes a balanced and neutral article instead of a propaganda weapon for the coming elections. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why this article appears to be written as an advertisement? Or perhaps explain your point of view on the article a little more fully. Personally I'm using English sources and would welcome any aspects related to the article that perhaps are not being covered in the anglophone media. Personally, I think perhaps the article should deviate from the wikipedia norms for German political parties and have a criticism section until they are tested at the polls.Lacunae (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to pinpoint, but it is the overall tone, censorship and attitude of editors. And I am a Dutchman, living in Ireland. I have no involvement in German politics and look at the article as a neutral visitor. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you, or someone else, suggest, for instance:
 * What statements appear to be incorrect?
 * What statements appear to be promotional?
 * What statements are inadequately sourced?
 * What opinions are missing?
 * What aspects are given undue weight?
 * What aspects are not given due weight?
 * Can the structure be improved?
 * I am willing to look for sources, translate German sources, and otherwise help improve the article but I need something to go on. I don't really see anything specific that I would call propaganda, but I am open to arguments.
 * At least specify which section you regard as problematic. The Policy section seems to come mainly from Deutsche Bank, and I doubt that they are peddling propaganda for a fringe party. Perhaps some editors' understanding of the text is coloured by their knowledge of previous versions of the article.
 * As regards the tags, I have deliberately not looked at what the article looked like before I got here, but I think
 * Whoever actually created the article originally, I don't think there are sufficient problems with the article's neutrality to justify use of the COI tag. "This tag is not meant to be a badge of shame."
 * The "advertisement" tag is now inappropriate. Any lack of balance there may be is covered by the undue-weight flag.
 * The "too few opinions" tag has not (yet) been justified. This tag should be used only if the talk page is used to indicate what opinions are missing (I would, personally, prefer to stick to facts and have as few opinions as possible).
 * Multiple issue tags should not be used to flag what is basically one issue, or very similar issues. I propose that, for the time being, we remove all the issue tags except "undue weight" and discuss that issue further. Less is more.
 * --Boson (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I can't offer much help. I never saw any justification in those tags. To me they signaled a general sense of displeasure and not specific critisism. --Lukati (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That was to be expected from you, Lukati. You are one of the editors that looks to have a close relationship or even being involved in the party/the marketing department of the party. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that since the advert tag was added, we've managed to add what other politicians have said about the party (there is another statement from earlier by Wolfgang Bosbach which might be applicable at http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/24/world/rise-of-euro-opponents-alarms-merkel-coalition/ ) and also included the Spiegel's accusation that the party Facebook page was regarded as having language of the far-right, and the party reaction to this. Otherwise we're looking at sources such as http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/19/euro-a19.html, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/22/alternative-fur-deutschland-germany-anti-euro-party/ and http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/05/09/alternative-for-deutschland-germany-kai-arzheimer-september-elections-bundestag/ which may vary in their appropriateness for inclusion.Lacunae (talk)

I think the LSE blog articles are reliable sources because they are hosted by the LSE and written by professors in relevant disciplines I don't think the opinion of the World Socialists is particularly relevant, and I wouldn't regard that website as reliable for anything else. I think the Japan Times source and the LSE blog would be useful sources to indicate In view of the controversy surrounding the party (in Germany and abroad), I think it is appropriate to go into more detail about its reception than would be normal for an established party; if that means including criticism of the party, that may mean allowing more leeway in describing the party's platform in order to retain balance.--Boson (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * the significance and notability of the party (the CDU says the party is "a challenge"), especially in the light of the international attention
 * assessments of the party and its chances by independent academics
 * the significance of the poll results, in particular because one source makes it clearer what question was asked (see my comments elsewhere)
 * I think the main problem with the independent academic criticism the article had before was WP:SPECULATION, even though it was academic. My thoughts are that we should add criticism where relevant, but be very vigilant to not allow speculation on future events and hypothetical scenarios.Lacunae (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My own understanding of the relevant policy (What Wikipedia is not) is that Wikipedia and its editors do not speculate but we do report factually on assessments or speculation by others, being careful to attribute such opinions and to avoid bias. This policy says, specifically: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
 * As a matter of editorial judgement, I would say we need to carefully distinguish between assessments made by independent commentators (such as political scientists, sociologists, etc.), in that role, and assessments by involved parties; I think both are permissible, but in the latter case we need to be especially careful to present the assessment itself as noteworthy and avoid any appearance of endorsement.--Boson (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed the article-issue tags, all of which I consider to be redundant or resolved. Since the tags were already removed once by others and the issues have been addressed, any new addition of tags should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page of why they are appropriate.--Boson (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2013/4019fake_anti_euro.html which I think may contain some valid information, especially some of the aspects on the historical developments which led to the party formation if they can be found from a better source.

Review
In view of the above discussion, especially the comment by The Banner "It is difficult to pinpoint, but it is the overall tone . . .", I have reviewed the article, with particular attention to such matters. We somehow need to get from the general criticism to specific things to improve, so perhaps we can look at the individual sections:
 * Lede: The lede is meant to introduce and summarize the article, so we should perhaps leave that till we have dealt with the other sections.
 * History: The group criticized the eurozone as an unsuitable area for a currency union. The group further argued that the crisis management of the Eurogroup was impoverishing ordinary people in southern eurozone countries and was eroding basic democratic principles of governance. This statement uses subjective, even polemical language, so it needs to be modified, preferably by using the actual words of the party and clearly putting them very clearly in quotation marks. Otherwise the views need to be summarized in a more objective fashion; this also applies to the equivalent summary of policy in the lede. I would suggest direct quotation with clear quotaion marks in the body and neutral-language summary in the lede.
 * Supporters: In May 2013 86% of the party membership was male. Selecting one demographic criterion for note does not appear neutral. Since this section actually deals with "supporters" in a different sense, this sentence should be moved to the section "Electoral potential" (which should possibly be renamed).
 * Policy: Apart from a copy-edit, this (main) section looks OK.
 * Political reactions to AfD's proposed policies: The expression are beginning to feel stifled is speculating about politicians' emotions and should be changed (it might be OK for Der Spiegel, but not for an encyclopedia). Otherwise, this section looks OK to me. It wouldn't hurt to include reactions from other partiess, but I don't see that a a serious problem, since the dispute within the CDU about how to deal with the new party is particularly noteworthy.
 * Public image: This section needs copy-editing. The word party should not be capitalized. Expressions like "making it clear" and "concede" should be changed, since they may appear to endorse an opinion.
 * Electoral potential: The wording "might potentially vote for the Alternative for Germany in the upcoming general election" is misleading. We should quote the actual question ("a . . . such as the Alternative for Germany"?). A table might be clearer than prose for the results of the poll.
 * Foreign commentary: Looks OK, but other countries could be added. --Boson (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Del'd action taken. Also, currently we have a section about a reported slogan, which is not a party slogan, but something else, and some other slogans in the notes section. Do you think this should be re-integrated into the article, and if so, where? We have so far been unable to agree whether it should be in the article. My opinion is that if it has been reported as the slogan, but isn't, it adds value to the article, and prevents the "slogan" being reported as such.Lacunae (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the text, I would tend to avoid campaign slogans except for a single party slogan (like a motto). This is partly because they are intended to put a message across in an effective but subjective way, so they could affect neutrality. I'm not sure what you meant about the section with a slogan (perhaps that's because I'm a bit tired). Since there doesn't seem to be a single party slogan, I would suggest (as a compromise) using the "Slogan" parameter of the Infobox with a text like "No single, established party slogan" and a reference to a footnote including text similar to that currenly under "Notes". --Boson (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC).

More review (PS)
--Boson (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Public image:I am not too happy with the sentence Although this is something all mainstream German political parties do. It probably needs copy-editing anyway, since it appears to be a sentence fragment, but the way it is worded give the impression that Wikipedia is weighing the evidence in an essay-like manner.
 * Electoral potential: The statement In representative opinion polls for the German federal election the party reaches a vote percentage between 2 and 3% since April 2013. needs clarifying. Apart from the "German" grammar, the meaning is unclear. It should be stated explicitly (if my understanding is correct) that the question asked was "If the federal elections were next Sunday, how would you vote?"
 * Notes: This appears to consist mainly of "general references", so I would change the name of the section.
 * References: I would consider changing the name to something like "Footnotes" or "Notes and references".

Automatic archiving
I intend to install automatic archiving (60 days after last edit to a thread). Any objections? --Boson (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC) none from me.Lacunae (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion poll statistic dubious?
The statement "The party is particularly successful in Eastern Germany (27%), with women (27%), the less educated (33%), and the young (36%)." has been tagged as dubious but without a link to a talk page section (see template documentation). I have removed the tag since the statement is sourced and no reason for believing it to be dubious is provided. Anyone replacing the tag is requested to link to this section (or another approprtiate section devoted to a dicussion of this statement) and to provide a justification for the tag. --Boson (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things I keep meaning to get to, but I'm quite sure I've seen info that categorically stated this party is strong in NRW and Bavaria, but poorly received in East Germany, and by women (hence the 86% male ref), and that this statement somewhat contradicts the party line of being academic, and not catering to the less educated and youth.Lacunae (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have had another look at the source. As I read it, it in fact says nothing about the success of the party; so "The party is particularly successful in Eastern Germany (27%), with women (27%), the less educated (33%), and the young (36%)" is not supported. The percentages are a demographic breakdown of responses to the question "Can you imagine voting for a euro-critical party like [my emphasis] the Alternative for Germany in the national elections?"; so it merely describes the potential for a euro-critical party (such as the AfD). I would suggest that this sentence be reworded to reflect that and joined to the previous paragraph, which mentions the question asked. It might also be appropriate to change the heading or restructure, because - even if reworded - statements in this section might be perceived as related to the party directly. If more demographics about actual party support can be found, they can be added later. --Boson (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Conservatism
I think this is a valid description of the party, discuss.Lacunae (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader comments
Is now working...

141.244.90.129
1. Yes, there is a British focus, which was deliberate in some ways, to try and prevent the article being a side-show to the edit wars of the German article. The page now seems to have settled down, so we should be able to take a broader outlook on the subject. 2. Editing wikipedia requires referencing to suitable and citable sources, which have for the most part been used up at present (for english language sources, most sources have been quiet since the party convention) I've had a brief look through French and Swedish and some Danish media for anything relevant, but not found anything so far. There was something indirect about a Portuguese economist's book and talk of exiting the euro, but it mentioned the article subject in passing only. I'm sure there will be some Greek reaction, Finnish too. Boson raised the same issue before, and I agree.Lacunae (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Jochen Paulus
Jochen Paulus is a member of the Hessian parliament who left the FDP and joined the AfD. With this change, the AfD has acquired a seat in a state parliament without having participated in an election. The fact that he was elected as a member of the FDP is irrelevant; the AfD now has the seat. The German media are entirely clear about this. Der Spiegel writes: Sie mussten sich noch keiner Wahl stellen, und doch hat die Partei Alternative für Deutschland ihren ersten Abgeordneten. Banner, this is not propaganda or promotion as you seem to be insinuating. These are just the facts. I will be reverting your edit again and hopefully it will stay that way. --Lukati (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He is not chosen as representative of AfD, sorry. And in the context of this ongoing election campaign, this is propaganda and promotion, mr. Lucke Lukati. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF. And your rationale doesn't make sense! --Rvd4life (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally as a newly formed political party (it's been less than a month since it was inaugurated), I think it is quite natural that the principle sources of information on the party are going to come from the party. I don't think this represents propaganda or promotion per-se, but it does mean we should remain vigilant for undue weight, for or against this party, forming the core of the article. I would ask for all contributors to keep this in mind, and to discuss their reasoning on the talk page, rather than enter into edit warring. I'm pleased we managed to agree to remove some of the future speculation and I hope that we can continue to work in cooperation to make the article stronger, as neutral as possible, yet still informative. From a UK perspective, various members of our EU parliament representation have switched parties, and this has been reflected on the wikipedia pages. It is possible that the German landtag system is different, and does not count members who have defected as having done so? Although Der Spiegel clearly state in English "Jochen Paulus switched parties from the FDP to Alternative for Germany, thereby becoming its first representative" I think this is clearly enough stated, and a reputable enough source, to amend the number. I don't really think German voters are going to come specifically to the English wikipedia to form their opinion on the upcoming election, so I have reservations that the article is being deliberately made into a promotional tool. I would still prefer to see inline citations, or more discussion on specific areas why users think this article should have the page tags it does, as I'd like to help get to a situation where they can be removed.Lacunae (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * His status is something equivalent to being a Non-Inscrit in the EU parliament, in that he has defected to AfD, but does not sit among any party grouping in the parliament?––Lacunae (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove banner, discuss!
its a valued party in the upcoming election--Quandapanda (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC) http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm

its now even higher than the pirate party, its a neutral article.
 * No, it is not a neutral article. It is in fact political propaganda of a few people closely related or maybe even involved in the subject. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And as far as I know, there is a 5% threshold to reach to Bundestag. The most recent polls seem not too positive for AfD, FDP and the Pirate Party, because less than 5% of the vote just means zero (0) seats. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am giving fair warning that I will be deleting the chapter "reactions". As it stands, this chapter violates a number of WP rules (see 4idaho's list further up). I am still hoping we will be able to obtain some third opinions. If not, we may be able to use other dispute resolution strategies. In any case, it is preferable to work on this here and not in the published article. --Lukati (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Lukati, who are you? As I read you do not exist! Do what you like! I shall retreat from further participation in this article and delete all what I have written. Everything what is important about our new party is written in the German wiki. Bye bye--Stonepillar (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the removed section: AfD's key demand to leave the Eurozone meanwhile elicited sharp criticism from some economists. Professor Thomas Straubhaar director of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI) claimed that if the Eurozone is broken then centrifugal forces would be greater in Europe, warning that a currency renationalisation would throw back Europe for years. Professor Straubhaar also made the point that economically the Euro is of great significance to German foreign trade.

Germany’s traditional political parties have criticized AfD’s platform as populist and nationalist. Other commentators have rejected such terms, but do concede that the party is a protest party. The traditional parties have also expressed concern that the AfD could attract conservative and independent voters frustrated by Berlin's support for the growing number of bailouts for debt-ridden eurozone members. Some members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right coalition are concerned that the party could get just enough conservative and liberal votes to force Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) into a grand coalition with the center-left Social Democrats (SPD).

The U.S. Think tank Stratfor sees growing public support for the AfD that "reveals a developing awareness among German voters of economic risks related to the eurozone. Although it is unlikely to challenge mainstream parties in September elections, support for this new group could prompt those parties to adopt a Euroskeptical stance, a phenomenon that is already occurring in other European countries." .--Lukati (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I see a few editors who are far to deep involved in AfD to create a neutral and balanced article but instead want to create a propaganda pamphlet! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This situation is ridiculous now. I suggest a more constructive way forward might be to agree a deadline, say a week or so to see if the offending section can be wrangled into something encyclopaedic (on the talk or on the page). The first section of the now removed section didn't even parse in English until I tried to make it so yesterday, so I found it's relevance rather moot until then. For now it's just some Professor's take on the AfD's policies, respectable academic speculation. The second section I think is relevant to the article, as from what I've read the party is being dismissed as right-wing and populist, and this has been argued as being untrue by more than one commentator. Again it's followed by some political speculation. The third paragraph is also a bit speculative for me, but does try and broaden the formation of this party with the wider european situation. Personally I came to the page hoping to find more about the likely wider european affiliations of this party (if known), I've seen hints at secret meetings with the European conservatives and reformists, I wondered if any of this information has been put to the party representatives and what they said? Also, I think the history section could be improved, briefly looking through the news on the party, I think the page could fill in more about the legal challenges that led up to the formation of this party, possibly as a more constructive area to focus on. I've del'd the areas I think could be left out, and I think I'd advise about putting the remaining pieces into the article separately, not under a criticism or reactions section.Lacunae (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem, as I see it, is that a few editors seem to think that this party is somehow different and WP rules for political parties should not apply here and then accuse anyone who disagrees to be a party supporter and POV warrior. Another area we could approve on would be to include a graphic with polling results from now until election day. The party is currently at 2-5% of actual support. An edit to include the current poll numbers only was recently rejected, but I think a graphic with all historical polls might be agreeable. --Lukati (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the polling information at Opinion polling for the German federal election, 2013 shows the information in the correct context at present.Lacunae (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it just the one section that is causing a problem? the rest of the article doesn't read as POV to me, if so could we maybe agree to just have a banner on the the one section to highlight issues there, rather than the whole article?Lacunae (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am removing the most offending parts of the commentary section per Lacunae's suggestion. I still believe the whole section has no merit, but that way we might be able to avoid edit warring. I also don't see the Pirate party analogy as being appropriate; referring to other parties is problematic. Having just the electoral potential in there is grossly misleading of course, but I think it would be better to just state that the party has been polling between 2-5% recently and somehow link to the Opinion polling for the German federal election, 2013 article. --Lukati (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the banner tag which seems there as a badge of shame, rather than as an accurate or constructive list of issues. We have plenty of discussion here on the talk page and tags should not be used to privilege hostile POVs. Warden (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * could we perhaps combine (too few opinions|date=April 2013) and (advert|date=May 2013) into (unbalanced|date=May2013)?, I suggest this after we have included article feedback to encourage more viewpoints and edited the page to attempt to make it more neutral. Lacunae (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." i really do resent the implication made by this tag.Lacunae (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC) -removed, as I feel this tag is appropriate for the page as it maybe existed 2 weeks ago. I assure you, I am not closely connected to the party. As for the other tags, where does the article place undue weight, to what sections is this applicable? and to which viewpoints is the article unbalanced? After looking through the English Language media regarding this party, I think the article represents most of the views expressed in English about the party which constitute an acceptable source, otherwise we perhaps enter the realms of Anglosphere/phone/-saxon bias.Lacunae (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the article is unbalanced: the section "Political reactions to the AfD" contains plenty of critical views. In my view the banner should be removed. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Justification for multiple issue tags
Some of the cleanup tags at the top of the article (undue and unbalanced) have been reinstated but no reasoning has been provided. Since the article has recently been considerably improved, it is not clear what justification is now being adduced for these tags. The purpose of such tags is to encourage cleanup, and they should be actionable. Please provide the justification here. --Boson (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Party slogan/Has AfD a slogan?
There are multiple sources who say that is the party slogan. Is it not an official party slogan? can you explain more why it should not be on the page?Lacunae (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) If not official then does it perhaps need mentioning somewhere else?
 * I think it may still find a place on the page "Some publications have stated the party slogan is "Straight talk instead of S€datives", although some claim this is not the case, or that it may be unofficial..

I really don't know why the FDP figure in this, but I'd welcome an explanation.Lacunae (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I shall not remove this, as requested. please find a sourced citation to rebut this sentence. I believe I have clearly made the point that it may not be official or might be misattributed.

'''Hi Lacunae, the chapter about slogan, your wrote, is a total misunderstanding, you should remove it! The question if AfD has a slogan or not is not a philosophical also not a matter you can decide by agreement! If you want to assure the facts then ask the AfD team directly if they have a slogan, send them an e-mail, they will happy to answer you!''' Good luck --Stonepillar (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lacunae has cited at the beginning ofthis article a purpotedl party slogan as follows "Straight talk instead of S€datives" found in three internet reports which are identic. I told hat these words are related to people which changed sides from Liberals to AfD. The cited sentence means only "Talk directly instead of defecting" and is of course not suitable for a programmatic party slogan. Neither in the German wiki where members and followers of the party write is cited such a slogan and also in the homepage of AfD you do not find any "party slogan". If you want to know if the party has any main slogan turn to them directly and write a request.--Stonepillar (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can request to the party all I like, but it would not provide a cite-able source, so I believe.Lacunae (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

YOUR STYLE OF ANSWER IS NOT HURTING WIKI RULES OF POLITENESS BUT SHOWS THE TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER!--Stonepillar (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you think I misunderstand, but it is quite clearly stated that these publications consider this to be the slogan. I understand that you believe that this is not so, which is why I placed it in the body of the article, rather than the info box, and added the disclaimer that it may be misattributed. Can you explain please a little more of what this slogan is/was and why it is inappropriate for the article. I apologise if you think I have been impolite, but I am trying to expand this article under very trying circumstances from those both pro- and anti- this articles' subject matter.Lacunae (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we can make a passage like so..."it has been claimed in some publications that "so and so" is the party's slogan, however this was only a suggested slogan formulated during the genesis of the party and has not been used as an official party slogan?
 * I have amended the section, in the hopes that stonepillar will find this acceptable.Lacunae (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC) I believe that merely deleting this, rather than refuting it will allow the idea that this is a slogan to proliferate, if we try and refute it here, then hopefully we can prevent this misattributed slogan from continually rearing up as people add it into the article in the belief it is actually the party slogan.Lacunae (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Amended again, will need cleanup, is this closer to what you were saying stonepillar?Lacunae (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We now have the following erroneous statement in the introduction: Some publications have stated the party slogan is "Straight talk instead of S€datives",[3][14][15] in German this has the meaning of "Talk directly instead of defecting" and was used among members of the FDP during a period when members were considering defecting to the AfD, and has never been the official party slogan.[16], Virtually nothing here is true. I believe this slogan was used for one day on the AfD's Facebook page during the countdown to the Berlin meeting. It was never intended as a party slogan, but rather it was one of maybe ten daily catch phrases. It clearly had nothing to do with attracting or repelling FDP members. Also, it's implied meaning in German is incorrect. The only true piece is that the slogan was never an official party slogan. It think we should just delete it. --Lukati (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, how can we make it more accurate? without deleting the sourced component, which will inevitably reoccur. should we say "Some publications have stated the party slogan is "Straight talk instead of S€datives", which was used as a slogan used for one day on the Afd's Facebook page during the countdown to the party inauguration, it was never intended as a party catchphrase, merely as one of ten daily catchphrases during the inaugural countdown."?
 * amended as per Lukati. Discuss and reach consensus amongst yourselves. Though I stress that the sourced component should not be removed out of sheer convenience.Lacunae (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree to put the slogans under a chapter "notes". But have asked a colleague of the German wikipedia for help and he pointed to the slogans on the start page of the AfG as following: ''' "Wählen Sie die Alternative!" (Choose the Alternative!), "Wir brauchen Sie!" (We need you!) and "Schluss mit diesem Euro!" (Finish to this Euro!)'''. Perhaps our big problem has now been solved or do you doubt what he party states?--Stonepillar (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a little help translating the slogans. That would be "Vote the Alternative" and "An end to this Euro". I have also frequently seen "Damit Europa nicht am Euro scheitert", or "So Europe does not fail (or fall or break down) because of the Euro" or, less literally, "So the Euro doesn't destroy Europe" --Lukati (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC).
 * The point about the slogan, was that I felt it should be noted, that even if not the slogan, it still has informative value. rather having it completely deleted from the page. Those articles still exist in the anglosphere, and if they say X is the party slogan, and we find they are incorrect, we should note that.Lacunae (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Schluss mit diesem Euro!" could that also be rendered as "Finish with this Euro"?Lacunae (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The unusual use of the word "diesem" here suggests to me that this is an adaptation of (and probably a deliberate allusion to) the expression "Schluss mit diesem Unsinn!" (Put a stop to this nonsense), so I would suggest "Put a stop/an end to this euro!".--Boson (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear @Boson, "Schluß mit diesem Unsinn" is by no means a typical idiomatic expression that would be alluded to. It is the sentence used because the words convey the intended meaning, but it is not an idiomatic expression in its own right. Nor is the use of the word "diesem" unusual. It is simply the demonstrative pronoun, translated into English as "this" ("dem" would be "the"). The effect may in this case (in diesem Fall) be slightly derogatory, as we also learned in Latin course for the meaning of "iste". Nevertheless your translation is fine.--93.134.220.171 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Damit Europa nicht am Euro scheitert" - So that Europe is not shattered by the Euro?Lacunae (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Literally translated: "In order that Europe does not founder on the Euro."--31.17.153.69 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To my opinion...
... is this article still promo and election propaganda. We will see how quickly the party crumbles after failing to win seats or succumbs to political infighting and fraction fight (when they surprisingly win seats). <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC) And no, I don't make any changes to the article. Useless with the whole PR department here.

AFD and the extremes / Junge Freiheit
In the paragraph "AFD and the extremes" the magazin Junge Freiheit is mentioned several times. My big question here is, why? The Junge Freiheit is not extreme right. Its liberal conservative in a way like for example an american republican newspaper is. The JF is one of the biggest FanZines :) of the AFD in Germany. That is right and it may should be mentioned in the article of the AFD if that is relevant. But putting it in the paragraph about extremisn and the AFD is just wrong. --92.227.206.179 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ". . . like an american republican newspaper . . ." might be going a bit far, given that the Junge Freiheit and people involved with it have apparently been under surveillance by various German intelligence sevices on the grounds of connections with right-wing extremism". --Boson (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is common trick in argumentation. You will find in any left-wing newspaper a few journalists or other employees which where involved in left wing extremisn in some parts of their life. But no one questions that. The only way to judge a newspaper is based on their articles and nothing else. It does not matter if any employee of that newspaper was once a left or a right wing extremist or a member of the first church of satan. If the newspaper does not publish extremist content, then they are not an extremist newspaper. --85.183.147.233 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to claim that a newspaper is not extreme right-wing (for instance because it does not identify with the content of some of the articles or interviews it has published). It is quite another to compare it to American Republicans.--Boson (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you could suggest an alternative way of referring to the further-right media with which the AfD does not want to be associated. --Boson (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

92.227.206.179 edit 27 August 2013
removed section: One supporter of AfD was reported by the media as saying that unemployed people should sell their organs, while another said people from the "very lowest class" should not be allowed to vote. These views are reported to have alienated some voters according to pollsters, in light of the German electorate's historically motivated aversion to engage with extreme political views.
 * 92.227.206.179: "Supporters outside a building where the AFD meet said this? So they where not even members. Thats not really relevant."

''...board member Konrad Adam thinks it's a good idea to withdraw the right to vote from the unemployed. And Prof. Roland Vaubel, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board, who is closely associated with the American Cato Institute, even had the nerve to cite the constitution of Solon of Athens as evidence that members of "the lowest class" should not be allowed "to campaign for political office." Health economist Prof. Peter O. Oberender supports the commercial trade in human organs, saying that welfare [Hartz IV] recipients could solve their problems by selling their organs to rich people who can afford them: "If someone is facing an existential threat, he should be able to finance himself and his family by the sale of organs."'' This piece from the Executive Intelligence review puts names to some of these comments, which would point to these comments as possibly coming from quite senior members of the party. Any suitable sources relating to this would be welcome.Lacunae (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oberender is a supporter yes. No reason to mention him in the article of the AFD. If a board member sayed something during a speach for the party and what he sayed is really relevant for the understanding of the party itself, it may be mentioned in the article. What he sayed years ago when he was not a member and the party did not even exist, in privat or in complete other context may be part of his own wikipedia article, but surly not part of the article of the political party he is a member of. --92.227.203.146 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)