Talk:Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht

Colors
There is no "customary" color. The party is not even really established. GDNGHT (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not even a political party. I fixed that. Willi P (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The INSA poll from the 23rd uses a shade of dark purple (#7A2350) in the visual representations I could find 1 2. When having to decide for a customary colour (as in infobox style) I believe that it should be used until a better/different alternative is brought up. JonahF (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Political positions
BSW political stand is not "Far-left". Most scientific fellows see Sahra Wagenknecht psoitions as Querfront - mixing far-right positons with left fragments and rhethoric. I am looking for sources. --TotalInformation (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * She (as in Wagenknecht personally, not BSW as a whole) has been described as Querfront and a National Bolshevik, yes, however only ever by the media, never by actual and serious political science. If you can find any sources that say the contrary, please do share. JonahF (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We need to talk about the ideology section
There is absolutely no evidence that the new party is even remotely socially conservative. While it‘s true that Wagenknecht has often argued against perceived „political correctness“ and "wokeism", at the same time she has in the past strongly supported liberal issues such as LGBTQ rights, euthanasia and cannabis legalization.

At the same time, there is no doubt at all that Wagenknecht and her colleagues are pro-Russian. Wagenknecht has distanced herself from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but at the same time she repeatedly uses Russian narratives in talk shows, such as that the expansion of NATO is the cause of the war of aggression. Their demands are also very much in Russia's favor: no more arms deliveries, no more sanctions, but Ukraine should cede large parts of its territory to Russia. To claim that there is no "proof" here is ridiculous. 2001:638:504:D818:0:0:0:3C (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No mention of social conservatism anymore so presumably that was earlier on. At the moment my issue is with "soft euroscepticism". I can find one Springer article from the summer describing Wagenknecht herself as a Eurosceptic but I can't find anything from the media describing her party as such. Citations should be added or it should be removed and the party simply described as "left-wing populist" in the meantime, but with some information about Wagenknecht's beliefs. Horarum (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Should ‘anti-immigration’ not be included in the ideology section? Since this position is the sole reason the party was created? To counter AfD?
 * https://www.ft.com/content/b18d8fee-b622-4e09-8865-4b200a62436c Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anti-immigration is a policy position, not an ideology. (The ideology section in the Infobox should just list “left wing populism” or just “populism”, really.)— Autospark (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it’s such a principal and definitive issue in European politics, I’d argue it should be included, although you make a good point. Here some other political pages that include it:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_People%27s_Party
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom
 * If you feel confident in your judgement that it’s a political position, maybe edit these, and add a talk topic, so there’s a consensus and so Wikipedia is consistent. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? There's already too many en.wiki articles about political parties which list half-dozen of more ideologies in the Infobox when one or two listed would suffice (and ideally two should be the mandated maximum limit, except in rare cases). Anti-immigration is a policy position that is an expression of an underlying ideology (populism in this case, or even left-wing ideologies – historically left-wing/socialist parties weren't exactly favourable to migration for protectionist reasons).-- Autospark (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By this logic, anti-NATO is a policy position, not an ideology, and shouldn’t be included under Ideology Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to have another section in the info box that has ‘key/defining positions’? As this would serve best for people who want a cursory understanding of a political party, the ideology section seems too broad. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this. JonahF (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case anti-nato is an ideology. it goes far byond just a positioning Norschweden (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Political position
this party is (I believe) far-left because the leader has had communist associations in the past. HoopaRoopa (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wagenknecht is clearly trying to cast a very broad net with this party, all statements in regards to its policy so far indicate a move to the right. I also did not simply replace "Far-left" with "Centre-left", I replaced it with "Centre-left to Far-left" because I think its fair to say that the association has so far positioned itself somewhere between the SPD and the Linke. Msrainynight (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i agree with msrainy given wagenknecht's press conference, & also want to point out that this justification is absurd. you might as well label the SPD as far-left because Scholz used to be a Marxist. SoylentRichard (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I propose using "Syncretic". Though the current arrangement of "Left-wing to Far-left" also works. Msrainynight (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, syncretic would be the most fitting word 84.255.35.135 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree because no sources say this HoopaRoopa (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. Sources so far are describing as "left-wing" or "far-left".
 * "Far-left" is testified to by Bloomberg, DW, the World Politics Review, while Yahoo and the New York Times describe as left-wing. I cannot find any sources describing her party as "syncretic". Horarum (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry I think what we need to add two sections, the ideology of the party socially is the the centre to centre right whilst economically it is on the left wing BoxVulture (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Syncretic" is an absolut good term for Wagenknecht. I gues, US media is impressed by Wagenknechts personal history as spokesperson of the "communist plattform". But that dates back years and has nothing to do with her recent positions. Wagenknecht is basicly syncretic populistic: "tax the rich" is working the same way like "stop uncontrolled immigration". So there is no clear political philosophy, more capture fearful social groups with catchphrases.

For the phanomen SW, there are some scientific sources in German, I will consultat. let´s do it here and not in the articel. --TotalInformation (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Syncretic could work as her fiscal policies lean left, while cultural are more right. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Until reputable sources describe the BSW as "syncretic", it should not be included. Horarum (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FellowMellow I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning you have for the political position. You cited Christian Union (Netherlands) as an example, but this is a centrist Christian party that is not similar to BSW at all. The
 * "You can only define it left-wing if all policies fit in." - I again feel like this does not work. What do they have to fit in? Why is the Communist Party of Greece listed as far-left and not "culturally conservative", given their positions of LGBT and drugs? Will you deny a party a left-wing label if they oppose abortion for example? Is leftism when abortion? Is leftism when pro-immigration?
 * I do have a source where a political scientist speaking for ZDF cautions against calling the party right-wing: "I would be a bit cautious about that, because it is of course a clearly left-wing project, Wagenknecht is politician with a left-wing profile, even within the Left Party. This is certainly not a politician who represents a right-wing position."
 * I strongly disagree with your reasoning and I would request either a vote on that or maybe even Arbitration Committee. You seem to be going down the route of making leftism very narrow and rightism very broad, and you argue that a party cannot be "fully left-wing" unless they have liberal social policies. Would you be arguing the same thing for the aforementioned Communist Party of Greece? Or Nasserism? Or Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland? BSW is left-wing because it is described as such by source such as Deutsche Welle. Brat Forelli (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I’m not comparing the political positions of CU and BSW. I think you got that confused. I was giving you an example of the same idea, meaning the format. You can go ahead and quote me because it really does as you say " cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning you have" (in my usage) understand how a fiscal left-wing party becomes a left-wing party in its entirety. Literally in the political position section in the article, it’s written there that it has right-wing positions, yet you don’t wanna really acknowledge that there. Also, we’re talking about a party’s platform, not a person in general. It’s really funny that you bring up, Deutsche Welle because they actually said that the party is left economically and right-wing culturally (immigration/gender identity, not a simple left-wing party. The Left is described as a left-wing party, but have described BSW completely differently. (take a look here.)
 * The KKE is far-left, as that is the position of communism. Sure they could add social conservatism, but they don’t, yet the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has that. There’s also nothing to do with denying a left-wing label. I strongly disagree with you there. It doesn’t make sense why you would believe a party would only be one position or the other. That it has to be strictly one or the other. Please show me a policy where that has to be the case.
 * Also you’re not really getting the right idea about the narrowing and broadening part. None of that is happening. To be more specific to what I meant is, I don’t really think it’s wise for you to suggest we completely ignore one part of the position of the party, and just focus about the other part. I don’t think it’s right to call the party “right wing” because it’s not, but you the positions it takes leans that way. BSW has also been described as far left. Why has that been omitted? Is that a rejection of the far-left label? Also take a look at the AfD, they are known for not taking left-wing positions because everything leans towards the right (socially/fiscally), so they have one position.
 * So I strongly disagree with your reasoning, but I do agree on one thing, that I would request either a vote on that or maybe even Arbitration Committee, if that’s how you want to it taken care of. - FellowMellow (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response!
 * I did see this other Deutsche Welle article - but the result is that both of our views are substantiated by something, and by the same publisher no less. Looking at the article you linked me, it does say: "Many analysts have speculated that Wagenknecht's unique political position — left-wing on economic issues, but closer to the far-right on issues like immigration and gender diversity — could pose a threat to the recently surging AfD."
 * What do I take from this? That the party is "closer to the far-right" on some issues, specifically immigration and gender. I do not see it explicitly called "culturally right-wing", merely "closer to the far-right", and this is something that the article you listed me solved by calling the party... left-conservative. The article you just listed me.
 * So yes, my argument is that conservative stances on two social issues do not make a party syncretic, or culturally right-wing. I do believe that a party could be hostile towards immigration and gender identity and still be a simple left-wing party, as you put it. That is the reality of most left-wing parties in post-Soviet countries too.
 * You pointed out that the party was also described as far-left, and it was omitted. If you think that the party should be described as "left-wing to far-left", or at least fiscally so as per your taste, I would support you in this change. Wikipedia does have a tendency to push parties' classifications in the centre. One of the worst offenders would be the article of the Polish Socialist Party. Still waiting for a source describing it as "centre-left".
 * You brought up AfD - here I would have to disagree. AfD does have an incoherent economic policy and it leaned into redistribution, pro-welfare and broadly left-wing economic policies at times. After all, AfD does not need to have a clearly cut economic policy, it would even harm them by limiting their appeal. That being said, this does not make the party any less right-wing. Just like I do not understand the idea of portraying a left-wing/far-left/left-conservative party as 'culturally right-wing' just because they are "closer to the far-right" on two issues.
 * That is my logic, hopefully I managed to explain it in a more clear and less hostile manner.
 * Yes, let's see if we can get a vote up or have an arbitration committee accepted. Should I submit one or would you prefer to do that yourself? Brat Forelli (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Traditional left-wing/socialist parties were often against immigration based on protectionist reasons, and would be considered cultural conservatives by modern standards. Being statist left-wing on economics and anti-immigration is not a contradiction as such. Nowadays we are more familiar with the post New Left influenced parties which have adopted elements of cultural liberalism and tolerance of multiculturalism, but socialist and social-democratic weren't like that historically speaking.-- Autospark (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, thank you so much! Brat Forelli (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely use Syncretic in the infobox, as has now been done. I would like to ask opinions on the stylistic display of the decision however. I have added it in the format as it used to be on the page of the NBP ( Syncretic Fiscal: [ideology & ref] Social:[ideology & ref] ). My edit has been changed now, to only display "Syncretic" in the infobox with a very vague note and references moved to the into the body. While I understand this, as it's the same that happened to the NBP article (by the same person oddly enough), I don't think this is the best solution. In my opinion, it would be best to give a good and easy overview of the political positions ascribed to the group as well as their citations without having to leave the infobox section. Just for simplicity's sake. Which way do you prefer? I'd like to hear some perspectives before reverting and/or being content. --JonahF (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No to syncretic. As I argued before, we have numerous testimonies to the party being "far-left" (Bloomberg, DW, World Politics Review) or "left-wing" (Yahoo, New York Times) but NONE for "syncretic". Keep in mind that the vast majority of articles just describe it as "left-wing" or "far-left" and only DW noted that "some analysts" described it as having "conservative social values", and even then they said they were analogous to the Dutch Socialist Party and the Greek Communist Party which are both listed as "left-wing" on here. There are no articles describing it as "syncretic" or "third position" or anything. Just left-wing, with one noting a degree of conservatism and even then, it could be argued that the "conservative" aspects of BSW (anti-immigration, climate scepticism) are not necessarily conservative positions but populist positions. Sorry, this talk of "syncretic" just seems unnecessary. Horarum (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The "conservative" description has been used more widely in other, primarily German, sources; though admittedly they aren't on the article yet as far as I saw. I understand where you've coming from, however I do think that it can be described as "syncretic" without having to have the exact word mentioned in a source as long as there are enough sources on the article claiming the (supposed) opposed positions. Though that is admittedly not the case yet so I agree to wait. Still, if that does become the case, I remain interested in how it should be showcased stylistically. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of citations from the infobox, which has now also been done in the "ideology" section, regardless for the aforementioned reasons. I think that the citation placement and general stylistic theme of the infobox definitely needs be discussed. JonahF (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't think to consult German sources. I have a cursory knowledge and Google translate would help well enough, so if you can share any reputable German sources describing them as conservative that would be great! Horarum (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The taz pretty explicitly mentions syncretism, if not by name: "Her/Their program is as to be expected: in questions of economy, foreign policy, and social issues social-democratic to left-wing; on issues of immigration, climate justice and cultural issues; conservative to right-wing." (analogous translation) . So does Deutschlandfunk: "[...] how much place there is for Wagenknecht's left-conservatism. [...] „economically left, culturally conservative“" The term "left-conservative" (Linkskonservativ) is used by many sources as it is a self-descriptor of Wagenknecht (see: Die Selbstgerechten). Also used as a descriptor of the party by Bernd Riexinger  and in several articles, example: "Wagenknecht wants to take over the political centre of society with a left-conservative party" . There were two specific articles I had in mind when I wrote that, but I can't seem to find them right now. But there are definitely more than enough examples to be found. JonahF (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Just for simplicity's sake" is exactly why I put that footnote. We also must not create parameters where none exists. If you want to add the fiscal and social views of a party to the infobox, which I tried to do in the past, then we must first set up an apposite parameter for it, rather than creating our own new parameters with Fiscal and Social. Besides, I agree with Horarum. Unless reliable sources explicitily describe the party as being syncretic, rather than left-wing or far-left, it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to do so, just as it is using sources that are describing Wagenknecht's views and positions rather than the BSW itself; for example, sources used to support "Democratic socialism" and "Anti-neoliberalism" did not support either and did not even include the words or something to the same effect. Personally, unless more sources come out, I would put "Left-wing" with the footnote, also noting that severals news outlets described it as far left. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for saying this, and I was quite bewildered when someone made the party "syncretic". No source ever used that wording, but what we do have is the party being called left-wing.
 * That being said, there are sources that call the party socialist, this is even mentioned in the "Political Positions" section. "Democratic socialism" definitely does not appear, but "socialism" does. So I think that could be included. Brat Forelli (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Davide King, do not use "syncretic" unless reliable sources explicitly use that term. I also strongly oppose splitting the "position" section into "Fiscal and Social" (almost always a case of WP:SYNTH the used by en.wiki editors.-- Autospark (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * - Wagenknecht's personal claim, that migration leads to loss of social security, if those people don't work like herself, is contrasted by her view, that she UPHOLDS believed claims that anybody should get the same by a Socialist/Egalitarian Welfare State. Not only are they for central restribution of production and goods, they want these goods for anyone, including those foreigners or refugees. So they are against any conservative social order.
 * - taz is only a political source for political controlled TV and for TV education (of a full spectrum). They are not a reputable source or had an importance anytime.
 * - The term conservative means only one thing at left-wing parties: They are "classical" or "Old" Socialists, and not Neo-Socialists and only "conservative" against Neo-Marxists. But the thing here is, that the party members are also Neo-Marxists, but the party goal is to get voters with "Old Marxism". Only at specific labour partys, who concentrate on labour and are often times Socialist on only that regard, conservative could mean "conservativism". In most parts, former parties of the centre-right like Christian parties moved to the left here and stay for the same, while some are also getting just more secular.--Hmmcevapi (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Brat Forelli, maybe we should list like Die Linke only "Democratic socialism" and "Left-wing populism", perhaps inverted as BSW seems to be more left-wing populist? I agree with @Autospark that we should list only main ideologies (no more than three), and cultural conservatism is more of a position or stance than proper ideology. Additionally, it could be argued that the party cannot be considered cultural conservative as a whole because, at least from the sources I read and in particular one that I remember, it is said the party is closer to the right and on two issues (immigration and gender diversity), so there may be some WP:OR/SYNTH issues going on, which must be avoided. Besides, we have already the note explaining this. I also dislike the "Left-wing to far-left" wording (this goes for other parties, I would rather have a clear position and a note explaining this; for example, I would put "Centre-right" to describe the British Conservative Party but have a note explaining that it also has right-wing or far-right factions rather than say "Centre-right to right-wing", which does not say anything or explain this) because that is not what sources say; they do not say the party is left-wing to far-left. Some label it "left-wing", others label it "far-left", and yet others label it "left-conservative" (which seems to be closer to the centre than the far-left), so we should have the only position that sources generally agree (e.g. "left-wing"), and have the various other labels in the note. Davide King (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello there, thank you for contacting me!
 * I do have sources that call the party socialist (Sozialismus)  and left-wing populist (Linkspopulismus),    and I do think these would be accurate terms for the party. If you want a broad but short list, then these two would be a way to go - I agree!
 * Regarding cultural conservatism, I did encounter this and I strongly disagree with this idea too - I had a discussion with a different user who insisted on classifying the party as "syncretic". His source was this,, which merely calls the party "closer to the far-right" on two social issues in total - I found this unsatisfying, not to mention that calling it syncretic would be original research at best given no source uses this term.
 * "Left-wing to far-left" is done to cast a broad net and accomodate both the sources that call it left-wing and that call it far-left, but I see what you mean. If you want to make it just "left-wing" then that would be fine, I am just against abominations such as "syncretic" or "fiscal: left-wing; social: right-wing". But I see that another approach to accomodating all sources would be just "left-wing" too (with a footnote).
 * All in all, I approve of your ideas! Thank you for sharing and I appreciate your help! Brat Forelli🦊  15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it! :-) Just a few notes about the refs though. The first and third refs for "socialism" are actually a quote from a CDU politician saying that "anti-Americanism, proximity to Putin and socialism are completely incompatible with our stance". So I would not use them in support of socialist description but could be useful to describe that Wagenknecht is willing to govern with the CDU and in fact the first ref says the party does not want to call itself "left". The second one supports more "socialism with a right-wing code" and "right-wing socialism" than "socialism" per se.
 * The first ref for "left-wing populism" actually says: "And on the other hand, Wagenknecht's socio-politically rather conservative left-wing populism, her rejection of everything that she perceives as an expression of woke big-city hipsterism." So this is better used to describe Wagenknecht's views, so as to avoid any WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. It also puts it in a conservative context. The second one is also referred to Wagenknecht. Okay, one may say: "But she is the leader! The party is even named after her!" True, but to avoid any OR/SYNTH issue it is better to use sources that explicitily refer to BSW's view as BSW's view, and make it clear when sources are referring to Wagenknecht's views. Said this, it is a useful source for a context within a comparison to the AfD. The source says: "If the party is founded, the new movement could lure away voters from the AfD. That wouldn't be a bad thing on the surface: left-wing populism à la Wagenknecht is still better than a party on the far right. That's why they're afraid of the new group there." The third ref for "left-wing populism", I cannot read it but it is labelled opinion and also seems to be more about Wagenknecht than BSW's views. The fourth ref is actually the same as the first. Davide King (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing the cutural conservative position from the infobox is missinformation, this now looks like a regular left wing party not like the left-conservative protoparty is actually is. even wagenknecht herself referst to it by that Norschweden (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * source? 2001:8003:33CE:8200:873A:4D16:AE36:178B (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * is already in the article Norschweden (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Populism vs Left-wing populism
I added "Left-wing populism" as a descriptor based off of two articles which describe it as a populist party. @Davide King removed this because it did not call it a "left-wing populist" party specifically, but just a populist party. I think this is unnecessary as it is widely agreed upon in the media (see past discussions) that it is a left-wing party and that it is a populist party, therefore a left-wing populist party. Horarum (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, it is not a big deal to me but it would be good to have reliable sources using "left-wing populist" to describe BSW and not Wagenknecht herself. Perhaps the reason they only used "populist" is because of what we are describing above, e.g. the party syncretism and the fact it is just being established and there is no clear platform yet. You are using the same argument Jonahf used to desecribe the party's political position as syncretic, e.g. sources saying it is economically socialist and culturally conservative, ergo we can use syncretic even though that is not what the source says. Your argument in support of "Left-wing populism" makes more sense than the argument for "Syncretic" because at least in this case they have described the party, not just Wagenknecht (though I will have to check again), as left-wing, so it is not an OR/SYNTH issue as it would be for "Syncretic". Again, it would be good to have sources using "left-wing populist" to describe BSW, as it would end this. Davide King (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I would have just "Left-wing populism" in the inofbox, as "Cultural conservative" and "Russophilia" are more of political stances than propoer ideologies like left-wing populism, just like "Democratic socialism", "Social democracy", "Christian democracy", and "Right-wing populism" are the main ideology of Die Linke, SPD, CDU, and AfD. Davide King (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this and I changed it to left-wing populism, and I also found two sources that use that exact term (or rather the German term "Linkspopulismus"). I added a new paragraph to "Political positions" with these sources. Brat Forelli (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There are too similar threads here! I take this one. I agree with most of what User:Autospark and User:Davide King had to say. I would have few ideologies, basically "left-wing populism" or "populism" (but I would leave the door open for "democratic socialism"), and "left-wing" as position. One more thing: I would move the article to an English name, like "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". --Checco (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would state a preference for "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" as the article title, given that is the party name already commonly used in English-language news sources (example 1, 2, 3, 4).-- Autospark (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right: "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" is indisputably the best name for this article.--Checco (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No it's not, Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht is correct. Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance woud mean Sahra Wagenknecht Büdnis in german, but that's not how it was named Norschweden (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance is more commonly used translation (at least so far), and it makes grammatical sense in English.--Autospark (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * sahra wagenknecht alliance would be wrong, its not the alliance of wagenknecht but the alliance named after her 2A02:8108:29C0:1B4:8C85:5F40:E74:FBFB (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated mentions of "Socialism" or "Democratic Socialism"
I understand the tendency to label Wagenknecht and her new association as "Socialist" considering both her past and the work so far done by English-language journalists, but nothing so far indicates that the BSW's economic platform will be a far-left one. Wagenknecht has not only stressed the need to strengthen the middle class as of late, but she has also repeatedly denied accusations by third parties that her aim would be to establish a planned economy. Her actual inspiration is apparently the Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato and her model of the "Entrepreneurial State", a term she coined to describe US funding policy. So unless you want to label the United States "Socialist", I don't see why you would label the BSW as such. Linke politician Gregor Gysi has even gone so far as to compare its economic policies to the Ordoliberalism of Ludwig Erhard. Source for the Mazzucato stuff is an online article by the Taggesschau, Germany's biggest public news broadcast, who I believe in turn got it from her books. Rough translation:

"The fact that Wagenknecht refers to the economist Mariana Mazzucato also seems less radical. Mazzucato draws the ideal picture of an “entrepreneurial state”, i.e. an active economic policy. She is also considered to be the source of ideas for Wagenknecht's quasi-adversary: ​​the Green Economics Minister Habeck." Msrainynight (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The reason why the party is described socialist is because that is how political commentators and the media describe her as such. This term was used by Müncher Merkur, by Die Tageszeitung, by OstBelgien Direkt, and lastly by Das Bild.
 * In contrast, USA is not described as socialist by the media. We are not supposed to do original research, so it is much more sensible to just rely on what labels were used for the party instead of delving into our views on what is socialism and what it is not. Brat Forelli (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Tagesschau is a better and less biased source than any of these, both the Müncher Merkur and Bild are infamously right-wing. Msrainynight (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I give it up with you people, there's no point trying to contribute anything constructive when the Bild is going to be used as an actual source. Idk why I even bother Msrainynight (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bild should absolutely not be used as a reliable source, and I'm actually shocked that it isn't already considered WP:DEPS.-- Autospark (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:BILD JonahF (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Things to add, and to look at sources:
 * - Main members are precisely neo-Marxist and not only far-left. They are "conservative" towards "classical Marxist-Leninism" and are against protection of marriages but in favor of prostitution and LGBT. That's why they are left of the party "The Left", which is already far-left. And that's what the term "conservative" means here. It's conservative in East Germany in regard of the GDR.
 * - They are nowhere socially conservative and absolutely nowhere nationalist. They are in favor of Socialist United Nations and forced rule/mandates of a mass opon individuals and citizens. So they are not against vacination mandates or putting handicapped towards non-handicapped in public schools.
 * - Wagenknecht's personal claim, that migration leads to loss of social security, if those people don't work like herself, is contrasted by her view, that she UPHOLDS believed claims that anybody should get the same by a Socialist/Egalitarian Welfare State. Not only are they for central restribution of production and goods, they want these goods for anyone equally, including those foreigners or refugees, so they are against any conservative social order. And for price inflation and wage depreciation.
 * - The party's members are known for being intrusive towards mostly socially conservative and anti-Socialist multiculturalism or foreigners. They are anti-refugees if they come from Afghanistan, from the Balkan wars, Syria or Ukraine. Always, when those are fleeing from Moscows wars, but never against the IS. So they work as a fifth colonne of Russia to influence those.
 * - The party organizes such demonstrations for non-Germans, what is against the constitution! Like the recent "Pro-Hamas" demonstrations, who had a direct Russian, IS and Socialist imprint.
 * - While the party is pro-Soviet Russia and more national, they remain "euro-communists" and try to include also the Persian area into this Union. So that's why they claim to support Palestine, Kurds, Iranians and Turks, while being part of a Moscow-Peking-Iran-Turkey axis and their organisation.
 * - Party members don't care about Holodomor (an event prior to WW2 with 8 million deaths), Great Leap Forward (in China with 55 million deaths) and are in favor of a glorification of violence as their definition of darwinism. So they reject a rule of law.--Hmmcevapi (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason you couldn't find any sources on that is that it's made up. Amira Mohamed Ali Has indeed (at least in the past) held opinions typical of The Left party (New Left), but projecting that on the whole party is wrong. Also wrong is to make up very obviously false and ridiculous things like you did for most of that comment. If you do end up finding proper reputable sources that say that, please share, but I would strongly doubt you could. JonahF (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Article's name
What about moving the article to Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance? There are plenty of sources (see Google hits). -- Checco (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is the English language wiki so we should use the English language name. Horarum (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Full agreement with both of the above.— Autospark (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there any indication the party is going to be called Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance in English. There are also thousands of results for Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht . If we knew which of the two will be used officially, I would support changing the name. Until then, Oppose. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" is clearly the most common name in English-language sources. As far as Google is concerned, there are many more hits for "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" than hits for "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". --Checco (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m not denying that Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance is more common but, with 9,930 hits against 5,800 for Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (as of the writing of this comment), both are widely used. The party isn’t going to choose the former as its English name just because it has 1.71 times more Google hits than the latter. I think we should wait until we know what name the party is going to use in English before moving the article.


 * There are, for example, 98,900 hits for Alliance 90/The Greens, compared with 155,000 for German Greens and 138,000 for German Green Party , but in Wikipedia the last two redirect to the first one. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That party, by the way, translates Bündnis 90 as Alliance 90, not 90 Alliance. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree, until there is a official translation this is a Oppose. JonahF (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose 'Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance' it's simply wrong translation Norschweden (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How can a literal translation be wrong? --Checco (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not really a literal translation though. It changes the word order.  And I would argue that there is in fact something of a difference in meaning, albeit perhaps a somewhat subtle one....IMO "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" emphasizes the "Sahra Wagenknecht" part more, whereas "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht" emphasizes the "Alliance" part more, which was clearly their intention - hence the word order in German.
 * From statements Sahra Wagenknecht has made, it's clear that the presence of her name in the party's name is only intended to be temporary - for a transition period until the new party becomes more well known - as she has long had widespread name recognition in Germany, so that's supposed to help give the new party momentum. -2003:CA:8717:D2F8:6E9D:ADFB:58D1:54F8 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a statement in which Wagenknecht says that the name is to be temporary? Brat Forelli🦊  17:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s pretty clearly stated in the FAQ of the party’s website: “However, the party does not consist only of Sahra and should be renamed as soon as it has established itself.” Brainiac242 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Brainiac, thank you so much for your response! This makes this matter clear and I would support renaming the article in this case. Brat Forelli🦊  19:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If the party is to be re-named soon, it is reasonable to keep the current article's name, otherwise I still think that it would be better to move it to "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" or, btw, "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". The is no reason to have a German name, especially when the translation is so simple. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Green politics and position
The lead says the party is "sceptical" of green politics, yet the "Political positions" says they oppose green politics; so, which is it? These are not the same thing; opposition is more extreme than scepticism. I can't find a source that explicitly says either one, so in your response please provide a reliable source we can use on the page. Also, is it really fair if the party opposes green politics to that the party is only socially on the political right? If the party claims to be on the left, then opposing green politics would not be consistent with that, and green politics is not a social issue. Therefore, does the party not divert from the left on more than simply social issues and should this not be more clearly highlighted? Helper201 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello there!
 * I am not sure if I understand your message here - you wrote "If the party claims to be on the left, then opposing green politics would not be consistent with that." While green politics is overwhelmingly on the left, it is a part of a greater left-wing spectrum and not the defining part of it. Not all leftists are green or really base their identity on that. Unfortunately many leftists also oppose some green policies such as restricting the usage of cars or veganism (well, sadly the majority of leftists are not even vegan as of now).
 * German journalist Ralph Ghadban for example wrote this:
 * "'There is no real left anymore. The New Left is all about gender and climate, which are issues that the working class doesn't care about,' says Ghadban. He himself is an 'old 68er', as he says. 'The left used to stand for social issues, for the redistribution of wealth.' Parties like the SPD and the Greens have completely lost sight of this, he says, and the major parties are basically a uniform mishmash."
 * As for BSW, it does appear that the party does not take a clear stance on green politics, and the best I could find is this, which is quite vague in itself:
 * "'Wagenknecht plans to 'defend individual freedom and reject this new left-green authoritarianism that wants to dictate to people how they should think, talk, heat their homes, which car they should drive or what they should eat'. Her 'analyses of woke identity politics' were also recently praised by former Green Boris Palmer.'" Brat Forelli🦊  10:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that green politics is not unique to the center-left to far-left spectrum, otherwise I think we'd have a major problem explaining the existance of green liberalism and green conservatism, who are generally to be found between the center and right, and let us not forget the rise of far-right ecofascist ideology. Simply put, green politics in the broad sense transcends the political spectrum, and can be equally present and absent from any particular part of the political spectrum. The fact that leftist parties are more likelly to adopt green politics in no way means that it is necessary to adopt green policies to be considered left-wing! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses and . I think there may have been a bit of confusion here. I'm not necessarily saying a party has to be politically green to be on the left or vice versa. What I'm saying is opposition to green politics is not something typically associated with the left. Its only usually those on the right who actively oppose green politics. You can be on the left and not follow green politics, but to actually oppose green politics is a different matter and something almost always associated with the right. To me the party seems pretty syncretic, though I can't find an English source saying this. Perhaps there is a German one? The only main area it seems to be on the left to me is on economics. I see a mention of it supporting social justice on this page, so that could possibly extend outside economics in terms of being on the left but there's really not much written in the article currently outside of economics that sets out in what other ways the party is on the left. The page should therefore in my view set out in what other ideological and policy related areas the party is on the left outside economics. This could, as just one example, be an expansion of how and in what way the party supports social justice (providing that isn't just in some economic way). Helper201 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing entirely contradictory about a more self-styled radical left party holding anti-green (and anti-migrant worker) positions, as those aren't actually inconsistent with the more traditional form of the socialist left. It's a borderline case of recentism that ecological and green politics have been accepted as part of the usual left-wing or mainstream centre-left platforms; I remember that certain sections of the Marxist-based radical left were at one point openly sceptical of climate science, while many mainstream social democrats have only really adopted "soft green" policies within the last two decades or so. It's possible BSW might be considered syncretic by modern standards, we should wait for clear third-party sources to emerge first.--Autospark (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with User:Autospark, I am against "green politics" for this party. In the infobox, I would describe it simply with "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism" as ideologies, and "left-wing" as position. I would also move it to an English name, noting that most English-language sources refer to it as "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance". --Checco (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are definitely anti green and meanwhile 95% right wing with some left reminiscenses. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Mission Impossible, or how to define BSW
@Checco@JonahF@Autospark Hello there!

I decided to create this thread and ping you here because I've attempted to provide a (hopefully) coherent definition of the party's positions in the infobox. Maybe I will get berated for this, maybe I will get praised, or perhaps I get some improvement suggestions. Given how you were the 3 most active people on this talk page, I suppose I can give it a try!

First important thing that I did is that I provided references for the infobox. An unholy amount of them. While this breaks with the "neatness" of having an infobox bereft of sources and references right there, in case of this party it will just result in the positions being constantly removed and changed all the time, and whatever I did wouldn't have lasted an hour and most likely succumb to such edits. If I'm honest, most people don't read the article proper at all, they just take a quick look at an infobox, and having no references right there will thus encourage people to rework it according to their own interpretation of the party.

I gave the party 3 political positions that I provided at least 5 sources for - "Socialism", "Left-wing populism", "Left-wing nationalism". And yes, sources explicitly call the party "left-populist"/"left-nationalist" or a variant thereof. This remains quite vague and we might still consider a ‘key/defining positions’ parameter (as proposed by someone else earlier), but this might be the best I can do. While I saw earlier suggestions that the party might be "ordoliberal", the sources that call the party such that I found are "Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung", "Jacobin", "New Left Review" and "World Socialist Web Site". I do not mind the Wikipedia article on BSW taking an explicity leftist analysis of the party, but I did not want to appear too partisan.

I lastly want to say that I am unhappy with labelling the party just "socialism". While it appears correct to me and I did source it, this might make the party look more radical than it really is. "Democratic socialism" appears more accurate to me, but the problem is that no sources that I found actually include the "democratic" part; it's just "socialism". Therefore I wanted to ask if it would be fine to make it "Democratic socialism" despite the sources only confirming the "socialist" part. There are also assessment of the party as "national and socialist" or "nationalist socialist", but that seems to be an attempt to equate the party to NSDAP, and is probably inappropiate for Wikipedia.

Last but not least, I considered adding "Social conservatism" as the 4th ideology of the party, but not only would 4 ideologies be probably too long for Autospark's liking, but the party's social positions aren't all that novel. Anti-immigration stance amongst left-wing parties is somewhat common in some countries, and parties such as the Dutch Socialist Party did run on an anti-immigration and anti-"identity politics" platform, something that Cas Mudde mentioned in his article for The Guardian -.

Thank you so much for reading this and I am looking forward to your responses, suggestions, praises. If you completely disagree with what I did, then I am of course sorry. It took me a lot of time to complement the sources and I wanted to be accurate.

Best regards! Brat Forelli🦊 12:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, decided to add "social conservatism" after all, there are enough sources who claim this and it is important to emphasize what the party differs in from Die Linke, namely nationalism and social issues. Brat Forelli🦊  03:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insights! There are too many ideologies now, in my view. I would have only "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism". I would remove "social conservatism" as the party might be somewhat opposed to immigration and other policies, but it surely not social-conservative in all respects. I also oppose "left-wing nationalism", as left-wing populism suits better the party—surely, I would not have both of them in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Checco, give or take, but would prefer left-wing populism to be listed first. As for the other ideologies, they should be described in the article body, notably the relative social conservatism and tilt towards nationalistic sentiments when compared to Die Linke.— Autospark (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your insight; I see your point and implemented the suggested changes! Brat Forelli🦊  11:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with what you just did. You had done a great job defining the party. You had provided 24 sources describing the party as socialist, socially conservative, left-wing populist, and/or left-wing nationalist. And now, because two editors disagreed with that description, you reverted everything you had done. I’m sorry, but Checco and Autospark aren’t reliable sources. If reliable sources describe the party as socially conservative, it doesn’t matter whether or not they agree with that description. It doesn’t matter whether or not you and I agree with it either. You even replaced “Socialism” with “Democratic socialism” after saying yourself that you couldn’t find a single reliable source describing the party that way. Again, I’m sorry, but I have to revert this. This is all original research.
 * As for the amount of ideologies, it’s not unusual for parties to have four or even more listed. The somewhat similar Smer has five; and the not similar at all, but also German, SSW has four. We could discuss the order these ideologies are listed, but your work defining the party is the best one so far, and I am bringing it back. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes should be short summaries. No information was removed from the article, simply not every single information and source should be included in the infobox, which would lose its scope. By the way, I argue that also references are better placed in the article's text than the infobox. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Infoboxes are summaries, not essays. They are to summarise the article, not replace it. I honestly don't care about any defence that there are other en.wiki articles which have 5 or 6 ideologies in their Infobox, that just shows that those examples are in need of some serious editing. And as per Checco, no one is arguing to eliminate certain descriptions of this (of any) party from the article, merely recognising that those descriptions belong (with reliable references) in the article body, and preferably in the Ideology section. (And yes, references if made in the article body don't need repeating in the Infobox.)-- Autospark (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Brainiac, thank you for your input!
 * I apologize for my decision, and I did not mean to ruin my work or cause a disagreement. I also appareciate your complement a lot, it means a lot to me - thank you so much! The main reason behind my rather amenable stance on this is because I already tried to define the party in late October, when the article was first created. Unfortunately most people did not bother discussing anything in the first place, and amongst those who did, no consensus was reached. As such, consistent overview of party's ideology in the infobox perished to edit wars, and even when it was stripped to nothing but "left-wing populism" in the end, this too disappeared to objections of the party being left-wing in the first place.
 * No such luck as on the party's article on Spanish wiki, it seems - they have 10 ideologies listed in the infobox with no sources next to them, with no controversy. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and happens on this Wiki as well - Alliance for the Union of Romanians has 15 ideologies in the infobox, all sourced though. I personally don't mind, and it's probably gonna stay that way - unless Autospark decides to do something about it, of course!
 * And well, I am a source junkie. I wrote the Ideology section for the Montoneros from scratch, and also rewrote the lede based on the Spanish article. And then something caught my eye - the talk page had a conversation from 2009 where three Argentinian Wikipedians claimed that "It is not accurate to say that Montoneros was a Catholic group." When I saw this, I decided to respond to this conversation - all three interlocutors are no longer active on Wikipedia, but I decided that it is important to explain to any future lurker seeing the Talk page why these gentlemen were wrong. I left citations from 6 sources that affirm the Catholic nature of the organization there. And I also found a book that explicitly calls the organization "Catholic" and used it a source for the first sentence of the main article.
 * And so I decided to do something about this party's article as well, and that's why I spent my time on gathering sources that I could then bundle together and use for the infobox. Want to delete "left-wing populism" again? Take a look at the 5 sources that explicitly call BSW "left-wing populist" or "left-populist". You know the drill!
 * This is also where I would have to disagree with the opinions expressed here that references shouldn't be included in the infobox. I can perfectly see why one might think that, but we need to be brutally honest with ourselves here - people don't read the body. They only look at the infobox. And if there's no reference provided, they jump to the conclusion that it's unsourced and edit it to match their opinionated interpretation of the party. And this is a controversial party, and this article has a history of edit wars and infobox purges. This is why I believe that referenes have to be included to prevent disruptive editing. It's hard to argue against a nice footnote next to the ideology listed that contains several sources confirming it.
 * This is especially so because this party introduces some novel ideas to European politics, namely combining left-wing (and in this case, socialist) economics with some social stances typically considered conservative. Now, while this is not really new and anti-immigration is a traditional left-wing stance (as a part of protectionism, another traditionally left-wing stance) and there already are other European parties with "left-conservative" stances such as the Dutch Socialist Party and the Danish Social Democrats, it remains unthinkable for some who considered "progressive", cosmopolitan and/or libertarian social stances the part and parcel of left-wing politics. Knowing this, I find it necessary to make the article be and look as well-researched as possible. Even if infobox full of references may look untidy to some.
 * That being said - I understand what you mean, Brainiac, and I am once again sorry for waddling into original research. I am of course happy with all 4 sources being there as well, and I am happy to know that my hard work has not been in vain! Brat Forelli🦊  19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works with both sources and consensus, thus we should seek consensus here. Surely, User:Brat Forelli did a good job, but not all sources are the same. Indeed, some ideologies are more authoritative than others. Cherrypicking ideologies and sources has a lot to do with "synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources", hence original research. Long lists of ideologies, only because each one has one source backing it up, are not a good idea in infoboxes. Of course, the article's body, specifically the ideology section (there should be one), should feature all the possible nuances. --Checco (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your praise as well, thank you! <3
 * Interesting discussion on cherrypicking - I agree with you. This is also why I seek to have several sources for each ideology; this obviously does not guarantee that there is no cherrypicking at play, but it does mean that it is not an isolated opinion, which is important in itself. As for long lists of ideologies, it would appear to me that more ideologies can limit cherrypicking rather than possibly worsen it. Of course, cherrypicking can be done with multiple sources - I referenced a person who argued that BSW is "ordoliberal" rather than socialist. Out of curiosity, I checked how prevalent this view is, and it does appear - as written on "Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung", "New Left Review" and "World Socialist Web Site". But if I did that, that could have been cherrypicking, especially since "Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung" is directly associated with Die Linke, so the party that Wagenknecht deserted in the first place. Meanwhile a plethora of sources across the journalist spectrum do call the party "socialist", which appeared way more logical to me.
 * Oh, excuse my constant digressions. Brat Forelli🦊  21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, take a look at this version of the article: I re-organised sections and sub-sections (some had names that were not encyclopedic and too much weight was given to reactions) and, more specifically, what the one I called "Ideology, position and policies" (logic is: first ideology, second position, third policies—more can be done, of course), while also moving references from the infobox to the article's body. --Checco (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that my edits, consistent with what we have been discussing, were completely rollbacked. Total rollbacks are not OK in Wikipedia, but more importantly it makes no sense to have ideologies in the infobox that are not even mentioned in the article's body: the infobox should be a summary of the article. In the rollbacked version, the article is very weak, not to mention the illogical names and organisation of sections and sub-sections. --Checco (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Choosing what ideologies should be mentioned in the infobox is important, but it is more urgent to have a proper "Ideology" section that is coherent and consistent, internally and externally. My good-faith attempt was unilaterally rollbacked, but I continue to think that it was good start and that contents would have been more rationally organised that way. As of now, the ideologies in the infobox are not even mentioned in the body (shouldn't the infobox be a summary?) and the current "Political positions" section is wrongly named, confusingly organised (there is a sub-section named "Descriptions by the media and political science", but contents are actually mixed in the two parts) and chaotic at best. I hope other users will reconsider what I tried to do and start from that (I also made sure that the ideologies in the infobox were properly mentioned in the section and moved references from the infobox to the body) in order to improve the article. --Checco (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried again and I do not think that I was particularly bold in just replicating what most articles about political parties have: a section on "ideology and platform". First the party's ideology is described, then its policies are enunciated. Of course, more consistency edits could be done and further infos could be found. And—I still hope we can find a consensus on which ideologies should be mentioned in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We should have a standard "Ideology and Platform" section, yes. And I agree with the consensus about what to actually list in the Infobox – left-wing populism and democratic socialism, and no other ideologies, with other ideological descriptions detailed and listed in the specific Ideology and Platform section.
 * (Aside, I question why we need a detailed section in the article listing all recent polling, given there's a separate article for German election polling, and the polling data itself isn't truly encyclopaedic information for a political party in a way that actual election results are.)-- Autospark (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree on both counts. I would also remove the sub-sections within the newly-named "Ideology and platform" section. --Checco (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Neo Strasserism ?
Does the party's ideology have any similarities with Strasserism? Cause outside of Germany the party looks like a left-wing AfD. 188.32.244.225 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That is a very specific ideology, and a variant of nazism. They do not espouse much if any similarities with this ideology! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes there might be associations with Strasser, Niekisch or Jünger. But I don't know any reliable source for that yet. Today Süddeutsche uses the characteristic "Links-autoritär" left authoritarian.Nillurcheier (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello!
 * As Nillurcheier has mentioned, the party is described as left-authoritarian - an example of this is a political science paper Bridging Left and Right? How Sahra Wagenknecht Could Change the German Party Landscape by Sarah Wagner. In this context, "left-authoritarian" does not imply antidemocratic leftism, but rather parties and people "with left-wing economic positions while being authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues".
 * In its (provisional) program for the 2024 EU election, the party demands a strict migration policy, abolishing CO2 certificates which the party considers unsuitable for climate policy, stopping arm exports to Ukraine and restarting oil and gas imports from Russia. The party also believes that the EU in current form is harmful and proposes a few reforms such as greatly decentralizing the EU and relaxing debt rules. Domestically, you have the party focusing on social inequality and accusing the governing coalition on cutting taxes for the rich and raising them on the poor.
 * Generally, none of this is Strasserist or really anti-leftist in itself. The left was traditionally anti-immigration and treated it as a part of protectionism, so shielding workers from foreign competition and exploitation. Left-wing parties that are anti-immigration do already exist in other countries - the Danish Social Democrats ran on anti-immigration platform, and the Dutch Socialist Party likewise ran on an "old left" platform that was critical of both immigration and 'identity politics'. "Class struggle instead of race struggle", they called it. Brat Forelli🦊  14:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should be pointed out that the actual differences between Strasserism and its Nazi origin is minimal at best, with the only major difference being that the Strasser-brothers took the early nazi anti-capitalist rhetoric seriously, though they also quite clearly blamed the Jews for all of the problems of capitalism. Unless BSW starts making openly anti-semitic statements, adopts a national corporatist economic outlook, politicized militarism and a totalitarian führer-complex, I'd say I would rather doubt them being anywhere on the fascist spectrum. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Color change
I suggest changing the current color to a new color  which is the center of the party gradient. I think this is appropriate because using the purple color creates confusion with Die Linke. I know that purple is used in polls, but those too can create confusion, which is only solved by captions with party names (like here). The new customary color will solve this confusion. PLATEL (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * i dont think Brown is the best color Braganza (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is just the color of the center of the gradient and has nothing to do with Nazism PLATEL (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * obviously Braganza (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we wish to talk about party colours creating confusion, then look no further to the AfD and CSU, whose colours are arguably far more similar and can hardly be distinguished next to each other, for example in parliamentary diagrams like this. The difference between the BSW's dark-purple and Die Linke's magenta is absolutely noticeable and creates no confusion. There is a reason the media and polling organisations chose that colour to depict them. In fact, the difference between the colour of Die Linke and this colour you have proposed (and added to BSW's official page at the time of writing) is hardly much different at all even. A calculation based on the three colours' RGB values came up with a margin of less than 5 (Linke magenta vs BSW Purple: 78.626, Linke magenta vs BSW Brown: 83.36). If you really wanted a different colour for them, you should've gone with their orange - of course, then you'd run the risk of confusion with the Free Voters who use orange as well.
 * As for what you said about captions in external polls, these already exist on all the opinion polling pages here on Wikipedia - for the federal and state elections - thus there can be no confusion on that front. I would argue you create further confusion by applying a historically controversial colour onto a party that has already had its ideology misunderstood multitudes of times as something similar to 'national socialism'. This can be seen on this very talk page several times, with some people confusing it to advocate for Strasserist policies even, which is an explicitly Nazism-derived ideology. Linttttt (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * FW, Pirates, ÖDP and Familie are all orange Braganza (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes, it is almost impossible to tell CSU and AfD apart in these diagrams; good catch.
 * Anyway, I do feel like we should just include the gradient and not cut it down to one color on the basis of perceived QoL. And as Braganza pointed out, orange is already overused amongst German parties. Brat Forelli🦊  09:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ordoliberalism
"Ordoliberalism" is the one label that Sahra Wagenknecht (the unquestioned leader, founder, and eponym of the party) explicitly identifies with herself, and she also names Ludwig Erhard as her role model. As an economist, she knows what "ordoliberalism" means (even if the press doesn't), and it is radically different from any kind of socialism: it's a quite typical capitalist market economy, just with a strong role of the government ("big government"), though not necessarily even a welfare state. This economic system (including a more or less expansive welfare state) is promoted by the centre-right (conservative-liberal) FDP (who, however, prefer a smaller role of the government) and the equally centre-right (conservative) Union, who have always been openly hostile to socialism. Wagenknecht hasn't been a communist or Marxist anymore since at least 2010, when she left the Communist Platform of the Left Party. Wagenknecht explicitly repudiates the GDR and its economic system now. The press not knowing or ignoring her change in ideology, her abandonment of Marxism and her self-identification with ordoliberalism (as well as its meaning) does not excuse Wikipedia misreporting facts.

Her sympathy for Putin, who is far from a socialist, but a notorious social conservative and nationalist who supports capitalism, also makes more sense in this light. The combination of ordoliberalism (economic policy), nationalism and social conservatism (social policy) makes her far closer to the Union (and arguably the AfD) than to the Left Party (or even the SPD). The seeming "left-wing conservative" paradox does not really exist: Even if Wagenknecht misleadingly calls herself linkskonservativ, there is not a trace of left-wing politics in her ideology. Ordoliberalism is closer to "small-government" neoliberalism, as in Reaganomics or Thatcherism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue is, if she markets herself as "left-wing", she is simply a liar – and the press needs to call that out (but probably doesn't because for liberal, conservative and centrist media, it's easier to pretend she's still a communist than to point out the similarity of her ideology to Christian democracy and "regular" conservatism in general). The combination of ordoliberalism (classical liberalism with a greater role of the government), nationalism and social conservatism is clearly not left-wing, and nobody calls the Union (or other Christian democrats) left-wing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue I see here is that you rely exclusively on what Wagenknecht says, or more clearly, that you pay attention to primary sources. We are not supposed to use primary sources, let alone interpret and draw conclusions from them, when there are secondary and tertiary sources available. Or in other words, instead of making independent and original analysis of the party, we rely on how the party is described in sources, be it political journals or the news. We certainly know that Wagenknecht is a liar, the idea goes that every politician is - which perfectly shows the point why the party is not supposed to be what Wagenknecht claims it is, but what it is described as.
 * What you wrote on Putin here is pretty huge WP:OR and your own analysis. Or namely, Wagenknecht cannot be socialist because she is sympathetic towards Putin, and because Putin is a conservative, then that supposedly makes Wagenknecht conservative too. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties took place in October 2022 in Havana. Signed by 39 communist parties and organization, this meeting produced a declaration in which these communist organizations clarified, in no unclear terms, their stance towards Russia and its actions:
 * "The Communist and Workers’ Parties support the just anti-Fascist struggle of the working people of Donbass backed by the Russian Armed Forces.We come out against the US imperialism which is using Fascist methods in its foreign policy and, with direct participation of NATO, is in fact waging a war aimed at defeating Russia with the hands of the puppet bourgeois-nationalist Ukrainian regime. We declare that we will do all we can to prevent Russia from repeating the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya, which is starkly at odds with the interests of the world workers’ movement. Reaction seeks to establish its new order firmly and for long. Russia cannot afford to lose the war against Nazism."
 * If that makes these parties conservative or at least non-communist parties in your eyes, that is fine. But that then becomes a personal opinion, and one that is not necessarily usable for Wikipedia. To really prove that, one would have to find sources that argue that this invalidates these parties as communist, and even then one would probably encounter problems with finding reliable and independent sources there.
 * We should not treat own opinions as facts, and the sources for the left-wing and/or socialist alignment of the party do not come from Wagenknecht herself but rather from the media descriptions of the party. Or in other words, secondary and tertiary. What so far you have presented here, given that I believe you are telling the truth, is that Wagenknecht is inconsistent and even dishonest in what she says. Wikipedia is aware of that tendency amongst politicians. Which is why it does rely on primary sources (or what the party/party members say about the party itself, in this context) when there are secondary and tertiary sources available instead.
 * Brat Forelli🦊 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Brat Forelli🦊 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)