Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 2

Merkel's silence
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has maintained a particular silence on the party"
 * At least the present perfect tense of this statement needs changing.
 * Perhaps mention should be made of Merkel's statements shortly before the election, for instance that the CDU would "definitely" not enter into a coalition with the AfD (source e.g. http://www.n24.de/n24/Nachrichten/Politik/d/3513562/euro-kritikern--sind-fuer-angela-merkel-kein-thema.html http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/cdu-wahlkampf-merkel-distanziert-sich-von-afd-a-923656.html).

--Boson (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Euroskeptic vs eurosceptic
This appears to be an American vs British English thing with the German form more closely resembling the American spelling. I propose the article should follow the British English spelling "sceptic" for the following reasons: The Euroscepticism article uses this spelling, European English tends to follow the British spelling, and it would be more consistent with the dmy date scheme already used in the article.Lacunae (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article already seems to use the spelling "sceptic" throughout, except for a single very recent change, which I have now reverted for consistency. --Boson (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the introduction
As well as a definition, the lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It should also mention the party's "claim to fame", i.e. why the party is notable (which is different from that fact that the party is notable, as established by the huge number of available sources). This might include, as mentioned by sources, the uniquely rapid success of the party and the establishment of the first party in Germany that is defined by euro-scepticism. I think, the lead needs expanding to summarize more of the main points of the other sections: --Boson (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy: Brief mention of non-euro elements, e.g. transfer of sovereignty to be subject to referendum; policy on migrants;
 * Election: Polls, failure to win seats in 2013 elections;
 * History: Mention of brief representation in Hesse state parliament;
 * Reception: Mention of polls; criticism by other parties; allegations of courting support from right-wing extremists and rebuttal.

Left-wing extremists
For neutrality, it should be added that AfD events are often disturbed by left-wing extremists, who are trying to denunciate the party and preventing a functional campaign. Even other parties are depreciating the AfD, e. g. the Green Party, who's devaluing them as right-wing populists or even extremists, let alone the Left Party.

By the way, I've heard about an incident where the AfD wanted to campaign in a leased premise and already got the owner's permission, but eventually got shut out with the explanation of the owner that he doesn't want a "right-wing party with such beliefs" in his house—after he was threatened by Antifas and Green Party members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.153.69 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These points of view are already noted in the article (for now under Reception). If you have source material which might add further clarification, it'd be great if you could put a link to it here, if you don't want to add it yourself. Areas I'm interested in adding information about are party funding and the formation of their youth organisation.Lacunae (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a point of view. :) This attacks from leftwings exist, are reported by the media and should be a own paragraph in the article. It is not common in any way in germany, that families with children are physically attacked with knifes and pepper spray only because they are listening to a politically speach., ,   --85.181.192.223 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please add the relevant information to the article. The far-left terror against AfD has been discussed in numerous media outlets.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These issues/events are in the article, see the second paragraph at Alternative for Germany, and the article is I believe open for anyone to make edits as they see fit.Lacunae (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI The reports of this attack has proved to be very exaggerated. . Several people disturbed a meeting, two went on stage, one used pepper spray. No knives involved. The speaker was not seriously injured and finished his speech after a fiteen minutes break. See what happend here: . Make your own opinion if this can be called an attempt of an assasination.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference 25
What needs to be clarified?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who has estimated this figure? over what period is it to be paid? is it a lump sum after election? I assume it is paid for the 2013 federal elections.Lacunae (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The estimation is by Bernd Lucke as stated in the sorce. The amount is payed per vote and is determined by the number of the votes and also connected to the amount of money a party can raise by it´s own effort and is therefore not easy to be calculated, because the amount of donations and membership subscriptions will change till end of the year. The exact figures must be published at the end of the year. The whole amount is divided through the voting period and paid out in part every year.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Party funding
No party gets subsidies by the state in the runup of an election. Thats the bitter truth. So all parties are treated the same. Every party gets subsidies after the election, as long as it gets the minimum of votes necessary. So if a party does not take part in an election it can not get subsidies. This applies to all parties. The party did not take part in the Landtagswahl in Bayern a week before, so it will not get subsidies for this election. It is the choice of a party to take part in an election or not, so it is it´s own responsibility. I just wonder why this must be part of this article. btw Most voters in Germany will find this laws usefull to pay after the election and not before.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your issue, to me it seemed clear that a party needed to achieve a certain level of support in an election to get state subsidy, and that the incumbent parties, unlike the AfD recieved this. Of course the Afd now get this money too, but I think it is something worth noting that for their first election they did not get subsidy, that the citations stated form a large part of party funds for elections. So please explain how and why you think this violates POV, as I think it is a fact of how Germany funds its political parties, which for an international audience is worth noting.Lacunae (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is just a lie that the party gets no subsidies, as it was written in the text. The other parties get subsidies for the vote of 2009. Afd did not take part in this election so it had no expenses for the vote of 2009 and therefore no subisdies for the vote of 2009 in 2013. This lament is just ridiculous and was used as propaganda to raise the donations. Placing laments is always POV so Wikipedia should treat every party the same way and not sing the same sad songs. We dont get free hugs, they hate us, we are not treated the same way, uuuuuh how bad!--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lacunae. Giftzwerg should explain his deletions first. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The matter was raised by Bernd Lucke in the interview he had on the BBC with Andrew Neil see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22889071 (at the end of the interview) and I think is worth mentioning in the article as non-german readers are not so likely to be aware of the party funding in Germany. I think the interview might have been live, but the BBC have been able to edit the clip online, which they haven't, and I defer to their impartiality rules. I am more than prepared to modify the wording into a more neutral tone, as I think I agree with you, it was initially perhaps too generous. If you have any usable sources who claim this was used as a way to increase donations, I think this could also be added. I disagree that AfD not getting party funding before the election is a lie, or propaganda, as it would be true of any party -hence the link to German party funding in the section.Lacunae (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Read this section carefully how it was before I altered it:

"Under the German electoral system the party was ineligible for state subsidies in the run-up to the 2013 German Federal election, which were available to parties who received one percent of the vote in a state election or 0.5 percent of the vote in a parliamentary or European election. Eligible parties can typically cover a quarter to a third of their spending from state resources, which left the AfD at a considerable financial disadvantage in its first election campaign." (refs removed)


 * no donations mentioned
 * no subsidies mentioned
 * the party gets disadvantages
 * the party is ineligible for state subsidies, which are available to other parties.

The truth is: It is just the oposite of what was writen before.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The party gets donations
 * The party gets subsidies
 * the party is treated like any other party
 * the party is eligible for state subsidies and gets it like any other party, even 2013
 * the party can not get subsidies for a vote of 2009 because they did not take part in this vote.

Party name
I've had the following on my sandbox for some time and I think I've reached a block with making it ready to add to the article, any feedback appreciated.


 * Since the Eurozone crisis emerged in 2009 Angela Merkel has pushed through her euro crisis strategy against domestic resistance and legal challenges as being "Alternativlos" (without alternative), to the extent that it was proclaimed as the German Un-word of the year in 2010, a choice which drew attention to the terms' subversion of democratic principles in deeming further discussion as unnecessary or undesirable. The Alternative for Germany party aims to break the pro-Euro political consensus among the parties of Germany, and challenge the idea that the Euro-rescue measures being implemented to halt the Eurozone crisis are "Alternativlos" as described by Angela Merkel and the federal government to justify their political solutions.-http://www.businessinsider.com/alternative-fur-deutschland-polls-at-5-percent-2013-4 The AfD's manifesto stating “We present an alternative to the so-called ‘no-alternative’ politics”.

and somehow this might be worth noting with the above, or not


 * "Rettungsroutine" lit. rescue routine, as coined by Wolfgang Bosbach of the CDU to criticise the series of measures undertaken to address the European sovereign-debt crisis by the Bundestag in a rushed manner, possibly without sufficient debate and consideration of alternatives.

Lacunae (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this till now.
 * This seems to use Wikipedia's voice to some statements that should be put in quotes (with attribution in the body). I'm not sure who or what exactly is being quoted, but I think some things needs changing.
 * I don't think we should state in Wikipedia's voice that Merkel "pushed [something] through. The tone is not quite neutral enough. I think it would be better to say that she "defended" her position as being without [a viable] alternative.
 * I also think "to the extent that" tends to attribute blame inappropriately. It is up to the reader to decide whether the choice was due to (excessive) "pushing" by Merkel or the political leanings of the jury (for instance).
 * Writing "drawing attention to" implies that the following is true. Wikipedia has no business deciding this. If it is a verbatim quote it should be in quotation marks and attributed in the body of the text.
 * Similarly "The Alternative for Germany party aims to . . ." should be presented as a professed or stated aim, not as a fact. We cannot know the real aims of the party, since politicians have (very occasionally) been known not to tell the truth.
 * The statement that was added with a citation-needed tag should be removed if it cannot be backed up by a reliable source.
 * Capitalization could also do with looking at.
 * __Boson (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: There is a very British focu...
141.244.90.129 posted this comment on 30 May 2013 (view all feedback).

"There is a very British focus in the article, what do other EU populist parties such a the Finns think of them?"

I haven't found any English/German language sources for the relationship True Finns-AfD. However, I consider further coöperation between the two as rather unlikely. True Finns are much, much more radical in their anti-Euro establishment critique and are also opposed to immigration. Some of their candidates have voiced strongly anti-Islam views, too - AfD officially opposes such things. The True Finns are much closer to the German Freedom Party, which has pledged support for the AfD but got rejected by Lucke. And even here, True Finns are more radical in their anti-immigration policies than the German Freedom Party ever were, due to certain sensitivities in Germany and differences in the general political spectrum of the respective countries.

Any other thoughts?

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you have to ask True Finns. In Germany nobody knows about this party. For now AfD has not gained any seats, so there is no need to cooperate or relate to other european parties. We will know the truth after the election.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-structuring of article
I think the article should be slightly re-structured. The section "Academic opinion on AfD party policy" is currently unbalanced because critical statements are in a different section. I would suggest making the following sections sub-sections of "Reception": The "Reception" section should also give more details of the commentary on the significance of the Afd and its future (source e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10329530/Germany-is-haunted-by-Eurosceptic-spectre-after-Alternative-fur-Deutschland-wins-support.htm and http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/afd-alternative-dank-merkel-1.1778969 ) (key to eliminating FDP; upcoming European elections (lower threshold and more relevance); Merkel's "There is no alternative" (i.e. euro/euroscepticism = taboo topics in German politics) partly responsible for relative success of AfD).
 * "Academic opinion on AfD party policy"
 * "Political reactions to the AfD"
 * "Public image" (including the sub-section "AfD and political extremes").

Perhaps the information on the polls could be given a separate (sub-)section, possibly even in tabular form. That might make it easier to see if important polls are missing. The polls immediately before the election don't seem to be mentioned. The section on policy should perhaps be renamed to something like "official policy" to reflect that commentary on whether they really have a different agenda (anti-EU, anti-migrant, right-wing extremism, etc. is discussed elsewhere - to avoid confusing professed policy with speculation on alleged actual policy; such commentary should perhaps be given its own sub-section under "Reception"). --Boson (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggestions, I did feel as though the organisation section cut the academic opinions from the political opinions, when I added it. I think I'd sooner re-name the current Reception section to Polling, in that case, and maintain a separation between opinions and polls.Lacunae (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this section is necessary at all. The party did put a very strong emphasis on the result of polls and spreaded the results of non representative online voting platforms which can easily be manipulated that showed up to 15% to prove it´s success. Lucke accused even the polling institute Forsa to forge their results (4%) to scare off voters in order to damage the party. After the election the result of Forsas poll proved to be the one which was closest to the result of the election. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see now, that the poll of Forsa isn´t even mentioned. You can see how the article is kept free of valuable information, instead flooded with details and desinformation that supports the POV of AfD. Forsa is a higly respected institute which uses interviews on a representative choice of voters to calculate their figures. So whenever it comes to polls in Germany Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach, Forsa, Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, Infratest dimap and TNS-Emnid may be good sources for representative polls. You can see none of them in the article or just with polls about unspecific questions. Instead there are lots of non representative or unspecific polls mentioned. You also see the interpretation of the polls biased. The question "can you imagine to vote xx in half a year" or "do you vote xx next sunday" are something different and can not be compared. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is OK to include early polls (before the AfD became fully established) that ask general questions about voting for a "euro-sceptic" party – if they are cited in later commentary that discusses the AfD. Obviously it should be made clear where that is the case, and such polls should perhaps be more clearly separated from other polls to avoid any impression that the results form one series.
 * I agree that the Forsa polls – and other major polls – should be given more prominence. Perhaps someone could even make some graphs based on
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/allensbach.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/dimap.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/emnid.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/forsa.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/gms.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/insa.htm
 * http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/politbarometer.htm
 * It might be best to give the results separately for before the federal election and after the federal election (until the European Parliament election, 2014, in May). Given the party's policies, how the party fares in the run-up to the European Parliament elections will probably be even more noteworthy than the results of the older polls.


 * The dispute between Forsa and the AfD is also probably noteworthy, though care should be taken to distinguish between Forsa and Güllner.
 * We should avoid any speculation as to motives, of course.
 * These sources might be useful:
 * http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/eurokrise/interview-mit-meinungsforscher-guellner-vom-thema-griechenland-profitieren-regierung-und-afd-12540878.htmlhttp://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-09/afd-lucke-forsa-landgericht-koeln
 * http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-kassiert-schlappe-im-rechtsstreit-mit-forsa-a-922554.html
 * http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article120751085/Neue-Umfrage-sieht-AfD-bei-sechs-Prozent.html
 * --Boson (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I´m just wondering why this article needs to discuss fifty sources about polls. I´m wondering if an article about a political party needs a major section about polls at all. Nothing is more in vain than the polls after the election. Graphics about voting results are ok but graphics about polls you hardly can compare? Look at the articles of any other parties you choose in any other country and you won´t have that large section about polls. We shoud discuss about removing the whole section, because it is pointless. The votes decide, not the polls. And by the way who tells the party is "fully established" at all or will be ever established? A party that has won zero seats in two elections after half a year existence with a programm of three and a half pages is fully established? I think we live on different planets.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to err on the side of information over politics for this page. I think the polling results are important and would benefit from being more fully realised. There was clearly a distinct difference between traditional pollsters and other polls, and the results the party itself claimed they might achieve. Also the disagreement between the party and polling groups and actual or not reluctance of voters to admit their AfD voting intention to pollsters. If the party disappeared tomorrow, any serious appraisal would include this information.Lacunae (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to discuss "fifty" sources. As far as I'm concerned, it would be sufficient to summarize by giving, for instance, an average of the top three, having checked the others to see that they are not markedly different. I think that would still be basic arithmetic and avoid original research. It could even be limited to one polling organization, if the results look representative, but if we only choose one institute - in the interests of being seen to use unbiased sources - one criterion might be whether the organization or its leaders have been associated with a particular political party. It might not be a bad idea to present similar data for other parties, but with a new party that has grown at such a rate in a few months, and where parliamentary representation hangs in the balance, it seems to be the polls that are found noteworthy by commentators. With larger parties that have been around for decades, the trends in the polls are perhaps less important or are less followed by the media. Especially in the run-up to the European Parliament elections, the AfD's chances  are bound to get a lot of attention, especially as it gets nearer the date. If the party does gain seats in a major election, it may be that poll results become less important in comparison.--Boson (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The section now includes 19 references + 13 mentioned here = 32 references. Its not hard do expand it to fifty, you can find new polls weekly. The pollsters are polling round the year, most of them (the notable) in a monthly cycle, so you can get figures like the priceindexes of stock markets. Every bigger newspaper makes non representative polls. The German article has removed polls completely after the elections and guess what? Nobody is asking for polls and nobody misses it, just some complained about the missing Forsa and Lucke episode. Lots of figures makes the article not better in sense of better information, just more information for the reader who can not know about their significance. This applies especialy to readers who are not familiar with the Situation in Germany e.g. there have been voters who are in favour of Merkel who voted the Linke to secure Merkel and to prevent a red-green coalition. Things you can not understand without background and which are part of the figures (Leihstimmen). Voters can vote for the candidate of one party and vote for an opposed Party in the same electiom so things can get complex. Let there be a link to a page that lists the latest polls so the reader may find what he needs and leave the polls to tv and newpapers to discuss it.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Doubtless, it would be possible to increase the number of references from 32 to 50, if anyone wanted to. It would be much easier to reduce the number of references to less than 30 – for a start by not having 3 or 4 references for one statement. There may be a tendency to have more references in the English article, not just because German Wikipedia has traditionally been much laxer about providing references in article space but also because of the desire, sometimes, to give an English reference as well as a better German-language reference. It also often happens when the article is pruned and nobody likes to remove valid references.  I would be quite happy if we summarized the early results (with 2 or 3 references). I would also be happy with one chart (with one reference) which provides more information than all the figures (a picture is worth a thousand words).What the reader is probably interested in is being able to easily recognize any  trends.  It is still useful to provide more references here on the talk page so that editors (as opposed to readers) can check to see if using one particular reference would be biased. I agree that we should not confuse the reader with interpretations of what the voter really (might have) meant. I would suggest one simple graph with one reference for all comparable polls. At the moment, the article is a bit low on images, even for a class-B article. --Boson (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really do graphics, but I was thinking that something like this conveys quite a lot of information simply:


 * --Boson (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * oh, I was very confused by the discussion (see below). If polling as a distinct list or graphic periodically updated is what you mean then I oppose that, as I did in the summer when mentioned, as the correct place for it (to me) would be at something like Opinion Polling for the European Parliament election, 2014 (Germany) where poll results can be seen in context of other parties. I'm still unsure about the problem with the number of references if you could explain again perhaps. Otherwise in regards to overall structure, I think the article resembles German wikipedia, it would mostly be a matter of doing the already suggested improvements and continue with updates. Some pruning of reactions could be done and policy coverage increasedLacunae (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the number of references. --Boson (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused by what giftzwerg proposes after reading this discussion. Do you propose deleting the first 4 paragraphs in the Polling in the run up... section? If so I would agree to that. As we now have polling on the party directly, and election results. These questions, some of which do not ask about the party by name were only a stop-gap before better information was available.Lacunae (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it is a good idea to at least seriously condense the stuff that is not directly about the party, but I don't think it would do any harm to have a couple of lines of context about the euro-sceptic potential in Germany that the party is tapping into. --Boson (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I´d be even more radical and remove the whole section of the polling. If we delete the first four paragraphs an then keep section "Party spokesman Bernd Lucke" this is not a poll, its just an advertising of his dream. Why keep small, think big, so why not even a three digit result next time? ;-) Then POV of Bosbach (CDU), declared political enemy, then next great plan with blue collar workers ... all this is just outdated expectations. We don´t really need this blabla. Only the last section tells us something about polls of the Party. So I´d agree (a bit hesitating) in keeping this last pragraph "The AfD saw their polls remaining" if yo feel the strong need of this section. Also the section "A May 2013 opinion poll" contains some information but the referenced link points to a site, that changes its content frequently and is updated to recent results. In polling the "Sonntagsfrage" is the only one that realy counts for something, if it counts at all. And remember this section is missing in other articles and it will need constant maintaining to keep it up to date. Newsticker. The header also is doubtfull then. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * About the euro-sceptic potential polls is to say, that there have been and still are several parties who are euro-sceptical. However none of these has a pollicy with emphasis on euro-sceptical attitudes, it just was a part in a bundle of other more important topics. The only other party with a distinct anti-Euro policy was the Pro-DM-Party, which was more or less dominated by the attitudes of it´s founder and never gained much support. The party died in 2007 with its founder befor the financial turmoils. So a poll showing a certain level of euroscepticism is not directly connected with AfD. It is the same with a certain level of conservatism does not mean that all of them vote for CDU or CSU.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think what I had in mind with the polling, was to touch on how the party remained around 3% for most of the summer, and struggled to get media attention after the initial media hype around their formation, (attention on NSA scandal) here I'd bring in the criticised magazine spread with the the left politician, and the much less covered launch of their manifesto. Then possibly on to the party receiving media attention again following the -left wing attacks- and Schauble's slip about a 3rd Greek bailout in August, along with the widely reported 4% poll results (briefly). Here I'd probably have a sub-section covering the feud with the pollsters, and the differing levels of support shown by pollsters and the much wider off the mark meta analyses and online polls. Then perhaps finish with the traditional pollsters upswing in support near the election. But this might be more appropriate for the history section, perhaps? As for Lucke's claim for a double digit result, I think it probably shows as much hubris, as support or puffery for the party. Feel free to have a browse around my sandbox at User:Lacunae/17, it's messy and some is copy-paste with some bits probably not suitable for addition. But perhaps some sort of potted history would be preferable to the polling section?Lacunae (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) then probably group history with the election result at the end, similar to the German article.Lacunae (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to remove the unneccesary sections but was reverted immediately with a rather unfriendly comment by a user which did not take part in the discussion. I´d support a "potted history" instead of this polling section.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zero seats
The massive propaganda campaign here did not help. Let the crumbling of this non-notable political-wannabee begin. The Banner talk 10:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that it are sour grapes, but the question about the lack of notability is now far more prominent then before the election. I wait till the dust is settled before deciding about a possible AfD für die AfD. The Banner talk 11:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to make yourself ridiculous, please do go ahead and start an AfD. Don't forget to AfD Free Democrats, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At least the FDP had seats in parliament in recent history. And my critic that this article is election propaganda is also not new. The Banner talk 16:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The German Communist Party never won more than 0.3% on parliamentary election and of course has an article. So what?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And? Every article is judged on its own merits. When you don't like the article about the GCP, you are free to nominate it. But that article is not an excuse to keep this one. The Banner talk 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you understood I want to keep both as I seek a knowledge-driven, not politically motivated encyclopedia.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how serious the discussion above is, but it's plainly obvious from the amount of sources in the article that, regardless of the election outcome, the AfD is notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AfD had one seat in Hessen Landtag, because an elected Member of FDP changed his party to AfD. He lost this seat in the last election, so there are no seats left.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah but this does not render the party non-notable per our guidelines anyway. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this requires 3 changes to the article. Jochen Paulus seems to be still listed as a member of the Landtag. Have they not got round to altering the Web site or has the 19th Landtag not yet convened? Does anyone know what the Hesse constitution say about the dissolution of the old Landtag? --Boson (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Die laufende Wahlperiode des im Januar 2009 gewählten 18. Hessischen Landtags endet erst am 17. Januar 2014." http://www.wahlrecht.de/termine.htm#termine-2013-03-05. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added update-after templates for this date as a reminder to change the number of seats from 1 to 0. --Boson (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Boson, I looked around but couldn't find any info on term dates, so I assumed the info box change reflected the current situation.Lacunae (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Party dissolving?
Article of the FAZ about the latest developments (German). --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation of slogans
Can we come up with a better translation of the slogans? The problem is that "Courage to Germany" would normally be understood to mean something like "Give the Germans courage", and "Courage to truth" is meaningless; so the "literal" translations are not faithful translations. "Mut zu . . ." usually means "have the courage to be or do something", but I don't think "courage" can be used without a verb like this in English. Perhaps something like "[Have the] courage to [vote for] Germany" and "[Have the] courage to [vote for] the truth" would at least make the slogans understandable. --Boson (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Slogans are meant to be understood in several ways. The slogan does not resemble a correct sentence in German either. I don´think any translation will truely satisfy.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the context of the former tagline and placard, and also the AfD's rhetoric about using strong language and wishing to "break political consensus" and "that political correctness undermines free speech" a rendering something along the lines of "Courage to speak the truth: the Euro is dividing Europe", "Courage to speak the truth: The Greeks suffer, the Germans pay, the banks cash-in" and their new found more 'nationalist message in speaking out against a European superstate' "Courage to speak for Germany"? Thanks for your edits to the second part of the section Giftzwerg, but would you please be kind and reason why you removed the initial section of sourced material, perhaps you find it irrelevant, but in order to keep a respectful editing environment I would appreciate if you at least left a minor note here as to your rationale.Lacunae (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * About the removal: There were several sources with comments in the days after the 2013 Bundestagswahl, also marginal statements for intentions of AfD to take part in the 2014 European Parliament Election. This intention is now much stronger supported by the election of candidates. We also don´t need sources for 3% challenged in court, it has nothing to do with AfD and it is not necessary to understand the topic. Furthermore this existing barriers 5% and 3% have been unsuccessfully challengend in court several times before, but they are unlikely to fall and for sure (100%) there is no change of the barrier for the 2014 elections because in this case new laws must pass legislation. So I removed the whole section just mentioning the 3% barrier. There is no important information removed.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/germany-top-court-rule-eu-electi-news-533332 suggests to me that it could well be relevant.Lacunae (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the result may be, it is too close to the election in May 2014 to take effect. The ruling parties will find ways to delay any new law concerning the barriers so it would not take effekt on this election. If a gouvernment is forced to pass a law it does not want to take effects, there are several means to delay it for years.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Federal Constitutional Court will hand down its decision on 2/26/2014. If it strikes down the 3% threshold as unconstitutional - quite likely given the critical questions of the court during oral argument - then the threshold is gone and the elections will simply go ahead without it. --Lukati (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I realize that it is not a complete sentence in German and no translation will be ideal, but any German native speaker will understand that "Mut zu x! ("mehr Europa" or whatever)" and similar slogans probably mean something like "Have the boldness to implement x", whereas the English is complete gibberish or - if it means anything at all - has a completely different meaning. What would a German Wikimedia reader make of a slogan like Tapferkeit bis Wahrheit or Tapferkeit den Deutschen (which is how an English reader might well understand the slogans - if understand is the right word)? --Boson (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mut" means "Boldness" as far as I understand it in this context. Boldness is needed to tell the truth or to stand for Germany within Europe. You can understand it also like this: AfD is bold to tell the truth, AfD is bold to support Germany in Europe. Boldness to challenge the policy of Merkel and the gouvernment with credits for Greece etc. There are many reasons not to use "Tapferkeit" in this context.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize what the German can mean. I believe that, being a slogan, it would normally be understood as an exhortation rather than a statement, but that does not significantly change the meaning, and that meaning has no similarity with the English that is presented as a translation. I also realize why "Tapferkeit" (courage) is inappropriate. I am back-translating to show you what nonsense the English is. If you don't like "Tapferkeit bis Wahrheit" as a slogan, you should agree that the English translation is nonsense! Do you now see why we need to do something about the English so-called translation.? --Boson (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias page WP:Be bold is translated to German de:WP:Sei mutig. The slogan Courage to Germany is not my translation, I´d prefer something that has the word bold in it. If you have a better translation, you can replace it. It´s a Wiki!--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The translation is difficult. I agree with "bold" but was having problems getting it in as an adjective. I think the solution is to use the adverb "boldly" (as in Star Trek: "to boldly go . . ."), and to use the preposition "for" (as in "stand up for" or "represent"). I think "Boldly for . . ." means we can also avoid using a verb, thus avoiding the choice between an imperative ("you should be for . . .") and a statement ("we are for . . ."). It is also still very close to the original.
 * I am also not sure everybody would have understood the bit about the stars round "EU" (especially with "Deutschland" otherwise written in lowercase letters), so I have expanded that a bit. I think we also need an image. The one on their Web site would probably be best. I think it would be covered by fair use in this article, and I can't see them objecting.--Boson (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have in Germany the rule "Panoramafreiheit" which means you can take pictures of any object that can be seen from public streets and publish them under your own copyright. So you can take a picture that contains a poster with the slogan as a part of the street view, you can also publish any texts on imformation tables outside a house. However if loaded to commomons this pictures will be deleted according to the american laws. "Mut" is a noun in this context, not adjective (mutig), so "boldness" might also be a solution. However the translation with "courage" is not wrong. Every dictionary gives courage as a translation of Mut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a suitable poster in my neck of the woods. Perhaps someone could upload one. The problem with a noun is that an English slogan of the form "NP1 for/to NP2" would normally be interpreted differently from the German, e.g. as meaning that NP1 should be given to NP2, as in "Power to the people!" or "Freedom for Joe Bloggs!" or in exchange for NP2, as in "Peace for land!") -- Which is where we started, i.e the problem is that word-for-word translation using a dictionary does not work. I think this form only works with an adverb.  --Boson (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Translating slogans is always tricky. It is not just a matter of words, but also of context. The current translations using "boldly" do not accurately reflect the intended context. I agree with an earlier suggestion that "Courage to speak (the) truth" and "Courage to speak for/support Germany", although less literal, are in fact much closer in intended meaning and context. --Lukati (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I could accept that, though I believe those translations are overly interpretative and not sufficiently ambiguous. Another possibility would be to use the negative "not afraid" (not afraid [of the truth/to tell the truth], etc.). The new slogan is particularly difficult because adding a verb means even more interpretation: "speak for" and "support" might seem overly "whingeing", suggesting that Germany is an underdog, which might not go down well with the right-wing protest vote that the AfD needs to court. Without a verb, the slogan is more able to appeal to the right wing without seeming too overtly nationalistic for the moderates. It can be read as "put Germany first" without stating it explicitly. Victoria Nuland would probably have had a clearer message. As regards context, I think it also needs to be seen in the context of "Mut zu mehr Europa".--Boson (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The party manifesto went with "Courage to stand up for Germany".hereLacunae (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC) There is also the cover of the manifesto Here from this page which I think you could claim under fair use. Though right now, I'm not sure if adding it would just clutter the section or lead to accusations of promotion.Lacunae (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD anti-immigration
Where I live in southern Germany, the AfD has put up posters for the Euro elections 2014 which say 'Einwanderung braucht klare Regeln' ('Immigration needs clear rules'). I surely do not need to point out that the implication is that there have so far not been sufficiently clear rules, and so all kinds of undesirable foreigners are swamping the country. I therefore think the comment about the AfD not being anti-immigrant needs to be taken out of the article. There is a clear attempt to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment, even if this doesn't appear in the official programme. I will go out tomorrow and take a photo of a poster to demonstrate this.

OK, I have had a look at their policy website (https://www.alternativefuer.de/programm-hintergrund/programmatik/) and here are their three points on the subject 'Integrationspolitik' (integration [of immigrants] policy).

* Wir fordern eine Neuordnung des Einwanderungsrechts. Deutschland braucht qualifizierte und integrationswillige Zuwanderung. 'We call for a reworking of immigration law. Germany needs immigration which is qualified and willing to integrate.'

* Wir fordern ein Einwanderungsgesetz nach kanadischem Vorbild. Eine ungeordnete Zuwanderung in unsere Sozialsysteme muss unbedingt unterbunden werden. 'We call for an immigration law corresponding to the Canadian model. Unregulated immigration into our social [security] systems must be absolutely prevented.

* Ernsthaft politisch Verfolgte müssen in Deutschland Asyl finden können. Zu einer menschenwürdigen Behandlung gehört auch, dass Asylbewerber hier arbeiten können. 'Real political fugitives must be able to gain asylum in Germany. Human dignity requires that asylum seekers can work here.

This all sounds very worthy and harmless but the undertone is clear: if you think there is too much immigration into Germany and if you believe that foreigners come to Germany to live off social security without working, then vote for us.

I therefore suggest that the article be revised to reflect these facts. Comments? 93.194.237.78 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article currently states:

"In contrast with other anti-euro movements in Europe, the AfD claims that it is neither nationalist nor anti-immigration. Its program calls for Canadian-style policies to entice more skilled foreign workers to Germany."


 * I think the the Green youth have accused AfD of being nationalist, also some members who have left the party have blamed the more nationalistic tone of the party for their departure. Regarding immigration, Bernd Lucke and Hans-Olaf Henkel have rejected UKIP style immigration policies, and their manifesto supports a Canadian style immigration policy. I've not come across a useable source who have said the AfD are anti-immigrant. I understand that as a British person my sensitivity might well be less for the policies the party advocate. But also I think Chancellor Merkel herself has stated that multiculturalism in Germany has failed, which may also be construed as having anti-immigrant undertones. The problem is that undertones are very much subjective, and they'd need to have a citable source "so and so described the party/policies of the party/election material as anti-immigrant" to be included.Lacunae (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The AfD has flirted with anti-immigration rhetoric, warning against the danger of foreigners exploiting Germany's generous welfare system, but the party also calls for a more concerted drive to bring qualified immigrants to Germany".http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/uk-germany-britain-eu-elections-idUKBREA0U1QC20140131 which doesn't quite accuse the party of being directly anti-immigrant.Lacunae (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ideology
I disagree that patriotism is really a suitable ideology to attribute to the party. The following Open Europe blog entry raises some good points about the competeing ideologies behind the party, I think. [http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-does-alternative-fur-deutschland.html What does Alternative für Deutschland really stand for? Its getting hard to tell].Lacunae (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No doubt, all parties would claim to be patriotic, so I don't think it is a distinguishing ideology. We would need to attribute the classification to a reliable independent source. The term should be removed.--Boson (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to remove "Patriotism"? --Boson (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: The cited source did not seem to confirm the claim, so I flagged it for "failed verification". When the flag was removed, I asked for a quote to verify. None was forthcoming. Can someone else check whether I missed something.--Boson (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The only oblique reference I saw in there to patriotism was the old "Mut zu Deutschland". I'm somewhat wary of the term "patriotic", because it can sometimes be taken as a nicer version of "nationalistic", which has been a criticism levelled at the party. I have also been considering whether to change economic liberalism to Ordoliberalism.Lacunae (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted changes 23/08/14
"first euro-sceptic party in Germany in decades" removed because the description of the AfD as Eurosceptic is not strictly accurate, and the whole decades thing is wobbly, and doesn't really tell us much in this context, somewhere a mention possibly of the pro-DM party efforts could be made, but not in the lede. naming the Danes and conservatives as ECR partners doesn't belong in the article lede, and I don't think it clarifies that the party is national, rather than provincial(?). Ordoliberalism, because it has been described as such (refs on request) and looking at the party through this lens explains much about the uneasy alliance the party is of liberals and conservatives.Lacunae (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And Pro-Europeanism is way off the mark.Lacunae (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

erased "first euro-sceptic party in Germany in decades" as not strictly accurate. Ragdy11:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The information you keep on reverting does not belong in the lede. This article is about the AfD, not the members of the ECR. Pro-Europeanism is seriously NOT a guiding ideology to this party. As for the BBC's description that it's the first eurosceptic party in decades, put it somewhere else in the article, not in the lede.Lacunae (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Continous trolls who delete right-wing connection
This party is known to be right-wing populist. But anytime someone's mention that on the box (political align, ideology), it get's deleted by AfD trolls. -- 178.190.110.14 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps the infobox is the wrong place to make such an addition. Many media sources have applied the terminology of right-wing populism to the party, however it is generally used in a critical context -"Critics claim that underneath the polite exterior lurk elements of rightwing populism"-http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5ca0247c-f244-11e3-9e59-00144feabdc0.html and so I disagree that the party as a whole can be characterised as having right-wing populism as a core ideology. Perhaps this is something we can work into a section about party factions in the future.Lacunae (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes as I've mentioned it: Trolls like you guys continuously delete their rightist connection. -- 91.114.250.238 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True, Anon IP, and the article currently reads like a partisan blog/amateur journalism rather than an encyclopaedia article, and needs a thorough edit.--Autospark (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)--Autospark (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kai Arzheimer (an academic in political science Mainz uni) in press for peer-reviewed journal West European Politics on the AfD manifesto "Judging by its manifesto, the AfD is therefore not a Radical Right, let alone an Extreme Right party. Is the AfD populist? If one defines populism as a “thin ideology”, then there is very little in the manifesto that would support such a claim... But even if one opts for a broader, softer definition that primarily treats populism as a style of political communication “that refers to the people” there is nothing in the manifesto that would appear as particularly populist in that sense... The AfD’s manifesto does not even conform with every day notions of populism that imply [sic] appeal to emotions, oversimplification, and a degree of opportunism . On the contrary..." he then goes on to look at the AfD's internet presence "the website leaves no doubt that the AfD is a right-wing party...but all in all, there is still little evidence of populism or right-wing radicalism."-http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/afd-right-wing-populist-eurosceptic-germanyLacunae (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

58K delete by Autospark
My point was that this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at present, with lots of irrelevant content.--Autospark (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To some extent I understand your rather radical editing of the article, as I agree it was out of date, but I do somewhat think you have taken out any analysis and left just a surface view.Lacunae (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lacunae. When I saw your "thorough edit" yesterday Autospark, I was too busy - I should have reverted you right away. there's better ways to improve and shorten the article. you took an awful lot of sourced stuff out, which I think is not very smart, to put it mildly. of the little "editing" you've done here, you even edited in a mistake.-do you speak/read/ understand German? --Wuerzele (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be insulting. I will re-add sections as I go, the article read like a political gossip blog written from a pro-AfD perspective, which isn't ideal of course (do we really need a huge section about opinion polling before the 2013 federal election, for example? No other articles about mainstream German political parties, much older parties I may add, have such convoluted redundant sections).--Autospark (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm tempted to revert the article back at the weekend, while I admit it wasn't perfect I'm finding some of the new article garbled, mangled and (for someone who is acting as an arbiter of what is encyclopaedic) not very encyclopedic. For instance, why is wikipedia using the word "assertions" to describe the policy documents? why has the portrayal of the AfD among other parties in Germany been put in the Cooperation with the European Conservatives and Reformists section? why has the edit I made removing names of German academic supporters been undone? Who is to be an objective source on the relationship between UKIP/Nigel Farage and the AfD? I think at this point it would be helpful for User:Autospark to outline in more detail what their plans for the article will involve here on the talk page before acting further.Lacunae (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't be held accountable for Wuerzele's recent incoherent edits. As for removing the quotes from Farage (and quotes from ConservativeHome bloggers), this is an encyclopaedia article about a political party, not a blog article about what British right-wing politicians and bloggers think about AfD. As it happens, AfD has allied with the ECR rather than Farage/UKIP/EFD, so speculation about AfD's European affiliation from early last year isn't very relevant to the article in any great detail. (Besides it isn't very good practice to wiki article to copy and paste lots of quotes from news websites.)--Autospark (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AutosparkPlease point out the blog you are concerned about. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Party ideology
Party Ideology should include the guiding ideologies which are behind the party. To me I think these include Euroscepticism, Conservatism and Liberalism in the broadest forms, and I think we are pretty safe in allocating these labels given the sources available already. I'd also like to remind users that discussion and consensus among authors of the German wikipedia AfD page does not extend to this page.Lacunae (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Lacunae: the party is better described as Eurosceptic, conservative and liberal. --Checco (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a German-language source here which lists the party has having a national-conservative Patriotic Platform (Patriotischen Plattform) and a conservative and liberal faction named Kolibri. I'll see what other sources are available at this time of writing.--Autospark (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kolibri as you say is more of a party faction than an ideology from what I've read. The national-conservative appellation is something I've seen several times, but I think for now, given the diverse groups which are being housed in this party a broad-brush approach may be the best to take.Lacunae (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support 's proposal. The body of the text should report on any right-wing populist movements within the party (with a neutral point of view and due weight), but the infobox is not the place for Wikipedia to draw contentious conclusions about the overall ideology of the party where this is not clearly stated by the party leadership as a whole and is unclear or disputed. --Boson (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section
We've had discussion before about whether to include a criticism section, the consensus then was not to have one. Some editors say such sections go against wiki policies, all I know is the previous criticism section acted as a lightning rod for edit warring.Lacunae (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * THanks for letting me know.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should remove the section. It is likely to become a coat rack for biased views. We should not have one section with only negative points of view. We already have a section on "reception", which could be used for positive and negative points of view. It would probably be better to include any criticism (with due weight given to positive and negatiive opinions) in the relevant sections. --Boson (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lacunae and Boston. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

lede and format edit warring
keeps reintroducing references in the lede that are unneeded per WP. They ARE needed however in the body and do belong there.

Likewise, he is WP:editwarring on a particular format for the history section without giving any reasons or discussing teh issue. Clinging to multiple sections per year is not smart, as sections will accumulate quickly. It looks less clear in the contents. I suggest one section per year.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "edit warring", I am removing non-encyclopaedic content. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. You obviously do not understand the difference, and have poor comprehension and command of written English. If you want to write a pro-AfD (or anti-AfD) piece of writing, create your own personal blog instead. An online encyclopaedia like this has to be NPOV, not a promotional piece full of out-of-context quotes and links to blogs in a way that presents opinion as fact.--Autospark (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Autospark. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)