Open main menu

Leftist biasedEdit

on the opening section is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:DDDC:5C9:5BBB:9E08 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not written from a neutral perspective and rather from someone who prefers to hurt this party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Colbert). Should you have something more concrete to criticise, feel free to provide some reliable sources in support of your claim. Cheers  hugarheimur 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  Resolved:  hugarheimur 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I raise in support of this issue. Left-wind liberals are all over AfD across multiple-language versions of party's articles. The Russian version just resolved an issue with a "Racist" tag and there are still talks of putting more stress on xenophobia and anti-Islam movement. I urge support of Wiki administration for the neutrality. Wikipedia is not a field of political battle and not the left-wing administred resource. By writing and editing biased posts on German politics authors are doing one thing and one thing only - mocking Germany in the face of the world community! (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Wolf3319

“Ultranationalism” in ideology sectionEdit

I dispute calling the AfD “ultranationalist” in the ideology section of the article. There are two reasons to this. Firstly, the source provided consists of one sentence of a Washington post article that happens to refer to the AfD as “ultranationalist”. Secondly, the source itself may not in this scenario be trustworthy, the Washington post is known to typically hold a bias that favors the left in their reporting, and since this is the only known instance of the AfD being called ultranationalist, this could be just another product of that. While I can admit that the AfD May nave ultranationalist factions that could be discussed elsewhere in the article, the ideology section is not the place to do it. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want to whitewash that description, or at the least move that ideology out of the ideology section... because a source that describes them as such, a top of the line source i might add, is biased in your view? This is a far-right extremist party with strong ultranationalist overtones and dogwhistles. Are there any proper sources that actually dispute the description of ultranationalism? 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Here would be another source calling them ultranationalist. This time in The Sunday Times, hardly a liberal paper. And i have seen more as well, but this at least fits your criteria, ie a reliable source that is not leaning to the left but right. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Your first message is an extremely loaded statement I will not be bothering to reply to.

Your second message I will reply to. I’m not subscribed to the Sunday times, so I can’t read the entire article. Am I correct in assuming that later in the article they describe the AfD as “ultranationalist”? (I personally don’t think sources that require subscriptions should be used ok wiki but that’s irrelevant).

And again, I’m not saying that there are ultranationalist factions in the AfD that deserve mention in the article, I’m saying I don’t think they constitute enough of the AfD for it to be mentioned in the ideology section. Victor Salvini (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Times article actually calls them ultranationalist in the very first paragraph, still in the free bit. And again, this is reliably sourced content, now to two different high quality outlets with differing political views. Yet still you want to exclude it or move it to a less prominent position. How do you justify that policy wise? 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to quote the passage "A married couple have run into trouble for forging the first local pact between Angela Merkel’s party and the ultranationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) in defiance of the chancellor." Very first sentence of the article as well. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Look, is there any actual consensus anywhere on Wikipedia that something like WaPo cannot be used for sourcing of far right parties, figures and so on? That is your rationale for removing the label on this article and on an article about a greek party, sourced through the Guardian, given your edit summaries for the two edits. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess i was sloppy by not actually looking at the article itself more and just concentrating on the talk page. The label was also sourced to the Times article the whole time anyway. So you removed the label by saying "Washington post, in areas such as this, is not reliable" while completely ignorring that it also was sourced to the Times the whole time. So, can you please explain what is bad about the Times source together with the WaPo source? Also you "...don’t think they constitute enough of the AfD for it to be mentioned in the ideology section." which seems very much like original research when two high quality sources make the statement without any caveat. They call them just ultranationalist. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Salvini:
Firstly thank for your input.
Parts of the afd has racist, anti-semitic, islamphobic tendencies which linked to far-right movements such as neo nazism or identitarianism. I think those two movements are based on ultra-nationalism. It is not inadequate to see the party has ultra-nationalism as ideology. Also the times and Washington post are considered as reliable sources in WP. Jeff6045 22:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say the movements are based on supposed Ultranationalism, I would say they’re in the AfD because the AfD is the most electable party closest to what those people believe. Unless it can be convincingly argued to me that the AfD has Ultranationalism as part of their core ideology, I remain unconvinced it should appear as so on the article and instead be merely deemed a faction. Victor Salvini (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, then present some sources that say that. Right now you are arguing against top of the line print sources only with your opinion.2003:D6:2729:FF5A:381F:DA85:BB95:46D1 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You know what, i changed my mind after some input. Take it out with the current sourcing,i will look for more than a passing mention in two news articles, although i am not sure if it is worth the effort. And the german nationalism label is more fitting anyway, given the specific history of Germany. Sort of redundant, when sourcing could be stronger to also have a non-specific version of the same thing basically. Of course there are differences but that does not matter in this discussion. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:381F:DA85:BB95:46D1 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this change of heart. Unless Jeff or someone else has an opposing statement to make by tomorrow I intend to remove the edit. Victor Salvini (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Salvini:
Can you wait until Saturday? I want to make some research about it. Also I want to invite some users in this discussion. Jeff6045 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I just want to make clear that i did not change my mind because of any of your non policy based arguments Victor. Just that to source something like that, more in depth coverage would be needed than a passing mention in a story about something else. If that were in the WaPo or the Guardian, it would be perfectly fine. Same as if it were an offline source or behind a paywall. And as i said, it is sort of redundant. But anyway, there certainly is a strong ultranationalist, also described as far-right extremist, wing in the party and they are having a continued... battle almost, over the future of the party in recent times. That may actually deserve a small section in the 'history' part of the article. The german Wiki actually made it an article of itself here. Obviously in german language but it could be something to start with source wise. Now, i don't believe the english Wiki needs an entire article on that, but a section in this article summing up the other article, more or less anyway, would be very much due. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:1063:1A9D:4789:171C (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Alternative for Germany" page.