Talk:German Freedom Party

liberal?

The party is not really liberal, I'd suggest.--93.104.51.72 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/OR

• I fixed the refs, but I'm a bit concerned about them. These are cites to Indymedia, that then say "the extreme left" regards the party as extreme right. From this context alone (I can't read German so can't verify), these references on this statement sound to me like (a) POV (Indymedia is "extreme" left; (b) and OR (by characterizing Indymedia, by using it as an exemplar of the "extreme left"). We really need a source in a newspaper or magazine or some such that says something to this effect: "The left regards the party as rightist" (with whatever uses of "extreme" / "radical" / etc. are appropriate) -- in other words, actually characterizing "the left" and its views towards this party. Otherwise, the statement should be revised to say something more like, "Self-identified radical leftist organization IMC has characterized this party as "extreme right", based on its critique of Islamic practices" -- a more accurate characterization of what we actually have going on here. ... I am not doing this, because I don't read German and can't verify - conceivably, the IMC article is a survey of leftist views; but I doubt it. --Lquilter (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This article definitely needs references from mainstream sources. How do they regard the party? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, this article needs a POV-check, it appears to be written by supporters of/apologists for the party, certainly when compared to the German language version of the article.--Autospark (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The media are divided. The larger ones seem to be in favor and label them almost exclusively as islam critic or populist. Critical magazines avoid to directly label them as right wing populists but indirectly associate them with such parties. For example the 'Berliner Morgenpost' (http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article1533206/Die-Freiheit-beschliesst-Antritt-bei-Wahl-2011.html) writes that "Die islamkritische Partei "Die Freiheit" hat am Donnerstagabend in Berlin ihren ersten Landesparteitag nachgeholt." - "The islam-critical party 'The Freedom' has on Thursday repeated her first party conference'. The 'Süddeutsche' (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/anti-islam-partei-die-freiheit-geert-wilders-light-1.1053605) writes "Anti Islam Partei die Freiheit" - "Anti islam party the freedom'. And that "Auch andere Abgeordnete grüßen ihn. Als extremistischer Hitzkopf, der zu meiden wäre, gilt er den Parlamentskollegen nicht." - "Also other members of the parliament greeted him. As extremist hotshot who should be avoided he [Stadtkewitz] is not viewed."; The national (http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/europe/new-german-anti-muslim-party-calls-islam-totalitarian) writes that "Germany has had no populist, anti-Islamic party until now.", "he does not at first sight fit the description of a radical firebrand." The 'Tagesspiegel' (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/landespolitik/fdp-bezirksverordneter-wechselt-zur-freiheit/4059034.html) writes "Der ... FDP-Bezirksverordnete Edgar Glatzel hat sich ... der islamkritischen Partei "Die Freiheit" angeschlossen." - "The FDP delegate Edgar Glatzel has switched to the islam critical party 'The Freedom'". A good example for critical avoidance to call them 'right wing populists' is 'Die Zeit' (http://www.zeit.de/2011/03/Parteitag-Die-Freiheit). They write "Gründers der islamkritischen Partei Die Freiheit" - "Founder of the islam critical Party 'The Freedom' - however the article runs under the label 'right wing populism' without explicitely referring to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arent11 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This Party is the only Political Party in Germany that don´t give a membership to ex members of racist/radical partys like NPD,DVU etc. There are a Russians,Indians,Italians,Jews,Gays in this party.Is this right wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.237.58 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The same is true of UKIP in the United Kingdom (whose constitution ban former BNP members). But the reason they do it isn't because they *aren't* right-wing. It's because they *are* right-wing but in a rather different way - and desperately need people to realise that they are different. So I'd agree that they're not 'far-right' [sic.] by any stretch of the imagination. But they are certainly right-wing. Bastin 23:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

Is it really appropriate to use this long version of the party's name in the title? Seems better to use a shorter version; a quick Google-search found the form "Freedom Party" used by Der Spiegel [1]. I don't think the party has received very much attention in English-speaking media (yet at least), so a generally accepted translation might not "exist" yet. I'd consider renaming to "Freedom Party (Germany)" though. – Bellatores (t.) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's one name that's been used. But the Economist and Radio Netherlands Worldwide use just 'Freedom'. But I do agree that it should be renamed to 'Freedom (German political party)' of 'Freedom Party (Germany)'. Bastin 08:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Freedom Party isnt a rightwing-populist-party

Only left-wing media and green and leftwing politicians said that, im german and in the german site of the Freedom Party the users say there is no a scientist who find out that this party is populist --77.2.27.237 (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but unfortunately, the media is the source of the article, and as soon as a party is critical of immigration and such, it is called "populist" by the mostly left-wing media. Wait a little and the party will be called "far-right pretending not to be" if that's not already the case.Munin75 (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're both right ;-). Nevertheless, there are scores of quite unbiased media sources out there in German, too, e.g. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung would do.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Junge Freiheit

For your information: In Germany, the "Junge Freiheit" is considered a right-wing or far-right newspaper. It has been labelled extreme right-wing and anti-constitutional by the Verfassungsschutz (German domestic intelligence service). It is everything but a reliable source! -- RJFF (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

“considered [...] far-right newspaper” No! Read the respective article, it's no longer monitored by the Verfassungsschutz (ergo not extremist) - a result of the law suit the JF launched against the VS branches concerned. The JF is definitely a political source, but it fits for sourcing a right-wing party's self-identification. Regards, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are not aware already, the user RJFF has a pretty consistent history of edits with a rather clear anti-rightist POV agenda. Instead of attempting to explore the various parties with scholarly sources, RJFF's main mission seems to be to just label every right-wing party with epithets such as "right-wing populism". While I agree that right-wing populism is a useful tool for roughly categorising parties in certain contexts, some people misunderstand when they think this is a replacement for a party's ideology, self-identifying or not. Regarding this particular issue, I was not aware of what Junge Freiheit was (it was I who added the ref after a Google-search), but Miacek explains well why it nevertheless is appropriate in this context. – Bellatores (t.) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection. For a self-identification it is all right. I just heard the warning bells ringing in my head, when I read "Junge Freiheit"! -- RJFF (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Party isnt rightwing populist

The Party isnt Rightwing populist that is the meianing of the Leftwing Populist party Die Linke. Please ignor the german media, in germany most of the news paper and all the whole media is under controll of leftwing Lobbists. Im german I can translated for you their programm Stadtkewitz is a conservative, the most members are ex-Pirate Party members and conservatives from CDU, the Party of Angela Merkel. The party is a Middle Party.--95.114.88.127 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: ideology field

The ideology field of the infobox should only contain identifications from neutral sources, not the (possibly) differing self-identification of the party. The latter can be extracted from the main text. A different approach could be confusing for superficial readers. Regards --RJFF (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

One can't just use what the media regards the party to be, and simply dismiss the party's self-identification. I am sure some would argue that the media's perspective should be dismissed too, just like you want to dismiss the party's self-identification. The best compromise is to include both views, and let the reader make up their own opinion. It would be POV to just include one view. – Bellatores (t.) 17:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative compromise: As the party is relatively new, and there is only the description by the media, and the self-identification, but no scholarly categorization, we let the field empty. Agreed? Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam is undisputed, isn't it? So we can keep this, right? --RJFF (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to just use that one for now. With the other two, I think it is only acceptable to either include both, or to remove both. I am not too concerned with exactly which of these options we choose, as long as the two views are included/discussed in the article prose. – Bellatores (t.) 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As you can see above, Bellatores and I agreed on the following compromise: as long as there is no scholarly examination and categorization of the party's ideology, we think it is reasonable to leave the ideology field of the infobox empty (except "criticism of Islam" which is uncontested). Neither the self-assertion nor the labelling by different German press outlets is neutral and reliable enough to qualify for the infobox. They should be presented in the main text instead. --RJFF (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop making your own rules! The self-identification is absolutely relevant, and as you can see, this label is used in newspapers too. Their general ideology - liberalism/conservatism - is no less important than the particular item (criticism of islam). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. RE: “"criticism of Islam" which is uncontested” where is their conservative/liberal ideology more contested than "criticism of Islam"? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not make up rules. I assume you have heard of WP:NPOV. The self-identification of a political party can never be neutral. It is the absolute opposite of neutral. The newspapers which you you quote, only display that the party itself identifies as liberal. Whereas they would write "the liberal FDP" and not "the FDP which identifies itself as 'liberal'". Can you see the difference? They disassociate themselves from the statement. They do not confirm this viewpoint, because it is not neutral and not mainstream. On the other hand, ZEIT and SPIEGEL explicitly label the party as right-wing populist. And they do not write "the party which has been identified as 'right-wing populist'", but "the right-wing populist party". Still, I would like to hold onto the compromise between Bellatores and myself. Journalists are no political scientists, and they can write a lot, and one author usually copies from another. So, please, could you warm towards this agreement, too? --RJFF (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as no source explicitly disputes their conservative-liberal alignment, I see no reason why this shouldn't be included. And I don't really see an agreement, you seem to have extorted this supposed 'agreement' from Bellatores by basically editwarring until he gave up. Also, first deleting the sources provided only to proceed to claim a few minutes later that the [are statements are dubious is simply dishonest! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not deleted any sources. I have just moved them to the main text. Please don't make false accusations. Die ZEIT explicitly disputes the conservative-liberal alignment if they label the party as right-wing populist and anti-Islamic, and NOT as conservative-liberal. How much more explicit can explicit be? And please don't say Die ZEIT is biased. And all the other sources dissociate from the claim of liberalism by putting it in quotes, and marking it as the POV of the party's executives, instead of just stating it. This is commonly perceived as a means of disassociation. And finally, there is a difference between reverting a certain edit ONCE, and giving a detailed rationale for it, and edit war. You might want to distinguish between the one and the other. I do not see the situation for such accusations here. Best regards --RJFF (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, just a few weeks ago a party's self-identification was enough for you to revert my changes and re-add the self-identification - not supported by any third party sources any more - into the infobox. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got me. I have been inconsequent. Back to this article, please.

The ideology field of the infobox implies factuality. It is not possible to depict different opinions or POVs here. "Ideology: classical liberalism" can be read as "The ideology is classical liberalism." Not as: "According to one opinion/According to the party's self-portrayal, the ideology is..." Therefore it has to be neutral. Do you agree with me until here? At present, we have:

1. the self-identification of the party: classical liberal
2. a Tagesspiegel article (September 2010) quoting the self-identification, tagging the party as critical of the Islam, and dissociating from the liberalism claim by choosing the heading "soll ... liberal sein" (shall be/is supposed to be liberal), NOT: "is liberal"
3. a Focus article (September 2010) tagging the party as conservative
4. a ZEIT article (January 2011) quoting the self-identification, and tagging the party as right-wing populist, critical of the Islam, and as an anti-Islam-party
5. an English-language SP.ON article (June 2011) tagging the party as islamophobic, and stating that Berlin newspapers had generally described Stadtkewitz as right-wing populist
6. no scholarly studies about the ideology of the party.

I think it is inacceptable to let only the self-identification of the party, and one, or two cherry-picked newspaper articles speak for the ideology. Bellatores has written "One can't just use what the media regards the party to be." Therefore, I see three possiblities of compromise:

1. we leave the field totally empty
2. we include only "criticism of Islam" which is (as far as I can see) neutral and uncontested
3. we make the ideology field an eclectic collection of all ideology tags that have ever been attached to the party by mainstream media, e.g.

• Classical liberalism (self-identification)
• Criticism of Islam (Tagesspiegel, ZEIT, SPIEGEL)
• Conservatism (Focus)
• Right-wing populism (ZEIT)
• Islamophobia (SPIEGEL)

I would be glad if you could objectively comment on my position and my proposals. Warm regards --RJFF (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition: to avoid the assumption of any bias: the conservative Berlin Morgenpost supports "right-wing populism": [2] --RJFF (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The above proposal is very important to me. I would prefer the second solution. "Critical of the Islam" is most often used by the media, but it also seems to reflect the party's own position. Therefore I have the impression, that it is neutral and uncontested. If anyone has objections or concerns against this solution, I would like to discuss them here. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German Freedom Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927154543/http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M54ee6b8f997.0.html to http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M54ee6b8f997.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)