Talk:Pro Germany Citizens' Movement

Partei
Alexander Häusler as an author is too partisan, he definitely doesn't merit a whole section for his supposed criticism. Due to (what they perceive as) politically motivated fabrications and ill-founded criticism, the political movement Bürger in Wut has had the publishing house that published Häusler's book „Rechtspopulismus als „’Bürgerbewegung’“ sign a declaration to cease and desist and has additionally sued this Häusler himself (see ). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How is BIW related with pro Germany? And why is the link to Häusler's pamphlet still working then? --87.156.204.42 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The case illustrates why Häusler is not a neutral source for describing rightist movements in Germany, besides that many web pages describe him as a political motivated activist, , . That's why his opinions deserve no more than a couple of sentences. Should he lose the litigation, we should remove this altogether. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources you provided are all from extreme anti-establishment, right-wing or christian-fundamentalist milieus. They are absolutely not reliable, not even notable. Remember: anyone can publish anything on websites or blogs! Obviously those authors just do not like the findings of Mr. Häusler's research and therefore try to discredit them as politically motivated. Their assertions are completely unfounded and even rude ("Linke SOCKE"). Häusler on the other side is an established scholar lecturing at a major state university, which lends him - in my opinion - quite an amount of credibility. -- RJFF (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the websites were partisan, but so is Häusler. I don't intend to push those websites into our articles. Btw - mit Verlaub - as to the guilt by association logic often used on wiki (and very often in German wiki), I just cannot but laugh at the assertion of Häusler being a politically neutral observer vis-a-vis right-wing parties after having considered his coöperation with the communist Christoph Butterwegge. - “Themen der Rechten? Themen der Mitte”. Must've been fruitful coöperation in dissecting the 'right-wing threat'! Have a nice day. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 17:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, more seriously: as you're a German speaker, you might want to take a look at the conclusion that the German authorities have reached. Someone claimed on German wiki that they reject the 'far-right' characterization (which would indeed undermine the current characterization that is only sourced by Häusler). Die Bezeichnung als „rechtsextremistisch“ enthält ein staatliches Unwerturteil, das – durchaus beabsichtigt – die Außendarstellung die Partei beeinträchtigt, die Bürger abschreckt und die Betätigungschance im Wettbewerb mit anderen politischen Parteien verringert. [...] Die Beklagte wird verurteilt, in ihrem nächsten Verfassungsschutzbericht richtig zu stellen, dass die Einstufung der Bürgerbewegung pro Deutschland im Verfassungsschutzbericht 2005 als „rechtsextremistisch“ rechtswidrig war


 * Looky here . I simply have no time to dig into it right now, so I'll leave it to the next weekend.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Miacek, you may laugh as often and as hard as you want. Laughing is very healthy! The political beliefs of Christoph Butterwegge - who is according to my informations a left-wing social-democrat - is utterly irrelevant for assessing Alexander Häusler's credibility and neutrality. Anyone could publish a book with anyone.
 * As to the court decision (I happen to be a jurist): The Hamburg administrative court ruled that the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence) must not label a citizen's movement as right-wing extremist in its annual extremism reports, merely based on conjections and observed links to other extremist organisations. The court has not and cannot decide whether the right-wing extremism label is actually right or wrong. Their argumentation is strictly legal. It applies to the Verfassungsschutz which is a government agency designated to defend the liberal democracy and the constitutional order. Mention in the constitutional protection report is the ultima ratio the government has against a political party that has not been outlawed by the Constitutional Court. It must not be misused to weaken political opponents of the government. This does not apply to independent scholars, or the wikipedia. Alexander Häusler, unlike the Verfassungsschutz, has based his findings on thorough research, and could verify his theses.
 * Moreover - unless the opposite is proven - we have to assume that an established scholar can distinguish between his individual political opinions and his research. Just compare Eckehart Jesse who is an outspoken conservative and sympathizer (or member?) of the CDU. Still, he is a 100 % quotable extremism expert. So - unless the oppposite is proven - we have to assume that an established sociologist or political scientist, lecturing at a German state university, is a neutral scholar and a reliable source. Kind regards -- RJFF (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, neutral sources are to be preferred over partisan ones - and Friedrich Ebert Foundation can be seen as one - though I'd personally say having something published by that organization is rather raising the dubious reliablity of Häusler.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand your concerns regarding this source. The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is close to the Social Democrats. Although the majority of its publications can be considered neutral, there is always the possible suspicion of partisanship. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any better, following your request. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Position of the party? (done)
What are "reliable" sources for deciding over the party position? Why don't you trust the most important source, the program of the Movement? According to that, the party is rather moderate right-wing. But if you wanna, we can change it to "right-wing to far-right", but the party to be only "far-right" is unsourced and propaply wrong. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are already sources cited (references 4,5,6). We could add the references from the German-language Wikipedia: Rechtspopulismus in Gestalt einer "Bürgerbewegung" (2010); Die „PRO-Bewegung“ und der antimuslimische Kulturrassismus von Rechtsaußen (2011) and also the information sheet by the Federal Agency for Civic Education (2013). The programme of the party is not a reliable source at all, it is a first-party primary source whose interpretation is not accepted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. --RJFF (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And why are party sources not reliable resp. not also counting? --80.108.153.176 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the Wikipedia community has decided to adopt neutrality and the exclusion of original research (which includes the interpretation of primary sources) as two of its core content policies. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful manner, please make yourself familiar with these policies. --RJFF (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)