Talk:Alternative for Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Campaign poster

Someone claimed this is intentionally evocative of you-know-who. It does remind me of propaganda from that era. I haven't looked for secondary sources commenting on it. If there are some, it might be worth using in the article, whose current illustrations are less interesting. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not Nazi propaganda. Zyxrq (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. And that is how it is received by anyone who doesn't live in Saxony or Thuringia lol... 2605:B100:1140:4321:E1CA:EF40:3510:B1CC (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest party

The AfD is not the second largest party in Germany, as that is currently the CDU with 364.200 party members (source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitgliederentwicklung_der_deutschen_Parteien). In fact, it's only the 7th largest party. I think you're referring to the vote count, where the AfD is currently sitting at 20% in polls. Which for me isn't even enough to call her "second-most voted" as by now, as this result would have to be confirmed in the general election first. You could call it "Second largest power in the Bundestag" if their strong showing in the polls is confirmed in the election 153.96.175.41 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2017 election, the AfD came 3rd, and in 2024 European Parliament election in Germany the AfD already was in 2nd place, at 15.89%, clearly ahead of SPD and Greens, a fact apparently already forgotten within taxpayer-funded Fraunhofer Society network. Less than a week after this aging-like-milk comment, in the actual election, the AfD had 10.328.780 voters and 20.8%, as polls had predicted. 2003:C6:370D:F125:29EE:F267:774F:C4B5 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to your contribution, the text has been updated with the referred source accordingly in the article. Have a great day. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split from CDU in infobox

This information is not supported by the cited source [1]. In my opinion it is not correct that AFD found as a split from cdu. The pre-founding history is long and diverse, party independent and only 10% of founding members defected from cdu. Source: https://www.bpb.de/themen/parteien/parteien-in-deutschland/afd/273130/etappen-der-parteigeschichte-der-afd/ 84.136.91.39 (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other IP is correct. "Split from CDU" is nonsense. 195.52.190.117 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal etymology from the lead

Should we remove the sentence The name of the party reflects its resistance to (uncontested by mainstream parties) policies of Angela Merkel with her insistence on Alternativlosigkeit (lit. 'alternative-less-ness', a German version of "there is no alternative"). from the lead and move it down to the history section in the body? This detail is interesting, but doesn't seem important enough to be in the first paragraph of the article. Badbluebus (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Members massively outdated

Current count: 51.000 and growing. Considering the 50% growth since 2023, you should really update your numbers. (I refuse read socialist propaganda, and thus cannot offer what you people call a "reliable source" for this fact about the German libertarian movement.) 195.52.190.117 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not up for promoting alternative facts. If you admit upfront that you cannot provide any reliable sources, then your claims should be ignored outright. Guycn2 (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is using a confrontational tone and is not being helpful by not offering a source, but their suggestion is broadly true. Reuters [1] "AfD membership had grown by 60% to 46,881 members since January 2023, co-chief Tino Chrupalla told nearly 600 delegates at a party convention in the western city of Essen. Some 22,000 people had joined while 4,000 had left". As it says on List of largest political parties, self-declared figures are about as good as we can get in most countries, where party membership is a decision to subscribe financially to and possibly run for office for a party (unlike most US states where this is an option on voter registration, and there is the culture of primary elections). Despite being a self-declared number, this is hardly an outlandish claim, as it is roughly 1 of every 2000 Germans, and "a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of members boasted by the "big tent" parties in Germany, Scholz’s Social Democrats and the opposition conservatives." Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current polling data shows that the AFD are already neck on neck with the CDU/CSU due to the recent coalition of Merz with the Social Democrats (SPD). And the "government" has barely started. So yes, it is outdated as hell Atlanticseaa (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far right

DISCUSSION HAS RUN ITS COURSE AND IS DEVOLVING INTO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS.
It appears that no consensus regarding a proposed change has been reached, nor has a specific improvement to the article been un­ambiguously proposed. 1101 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aren't we all getting a bit tired of the "far right" stink labels. Write an op-ed and get it published in "Commie-Nazi Today". These (stupid) extremists who want to destroy all competing ideas (without any objective analysis I should add) are just wasting our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.35.71.128 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes to the bottom.
Alice Weidel recently said herself that she is even more right-wing than Hitler (she said "Hitler was left-wing", look it up). If that is not right-wing enough for you, you only betray your own position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Way to blindingly miss the point. Not all "right" is "far right" - by definition alone.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:40D8:4E58:AB2C:41C9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the sources. If you look at the citation at the top of the article, next to the far-right label, there are fourteen sources. You are free to find independent, reliable sources saying they are not far-right, but forgive me if I don't think you'll get very far in your search. TheSavageNorwegian 01:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering most media today is left-wing, of course you're not going to find a source from media that says it's not far-right. Looking at their own policies, Afd is not far-right at all, even compared to wikipedias definition of far-right, and is moderate right at best. Mario. M. (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow your own link to
far-right, you'll find AfD characterized as far-right. Same at Far-right politics in Germany (1945–present). Same all over this page, not just the first words of the lead you struck. TheSavageNorwegian 17:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
You will neither convince anybody to ignore the rules of Wikipedia nor change the rules of Wikipedia by complaining that this article does not align with your opinion and must therefore be based on your opinion instead of on reliable sources. See
WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
His opinion is common sense, they are not far-right in any discernible way. Wikipedia's very own article on the term explaining what constitutes "far-right" bears no resemblance to the AFD's actual conservative ideological positions. Using a few leftist opinion-based sources doesn't make something true. 2A00:23C6:95E3:A900:F487:F8CD:FEC6:C0C2 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your gaslighting will not work here. Wikipedia will continue to be based on what reliable sources say and not about what you say. Regarding "leftist": again, if you are far enough to the right, everybody is "leftist". --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and understand the point of using reliable media sources, but it isn't gaslighting to point out that the Far-Right article on Wikipedia itself does not describe parties like AfD, but rather NPD/Heimat, as far as German politics goes. There are contradictions, it doesn't make one biased to point out the labeling system we have here isn't perfect.
That said, under the current system of sourcing, which is the most applicable way to do it to stay neutral in an official sense, it makes sense to keep AfD listed as Far-Right, even if I disagree with that assessment.
If anything, the Far-Right Wikipedia page should be edited to be consistent with what a Far-Right party is (AfD rather than only describe things Die Heimat matches) if we wish to keep thr current way of doing things. 2601:584:300:3080:4946:BBA5:8068:903D (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazis were far right [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], so a party blindly in support of them is too. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 23:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source on AfD being blindly in support of the Nazis? 2601:584:300:3080:4946:BBA5:8068:903D (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1101 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one of that sources is backing up such an outlandish claim. 2003:DA:C74E:2400:2CC3:6B53:2AAB:BD8E (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Far right stink label?
Well if the cap fits Jaybainshetland (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a stink label to refer to a far-right neo-Nazi party as such. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 16:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm sure. You do know that "Nazism" is basically a socialist ideology? Big government, socialist on economic matters, anti-capitalist. 2003:DA:C74E:2400:2CC3:6B53:2AAB:BD8E (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, this again. The Nazis were far right. See the Nazism FAQ on Wikipedia for more information. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 03:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is a lot of arguing of whether or not it is far-right not only here but elsewhere. My intuition is for us to reach a consensus to instead go the direction of how it is often been considered far-right and their controversy instead of plainly calling them far-right. Possibly also we could add a bit of who does in-addition the wider conversation around it. This will lead to a more neutral and educational Wikipedia page where users will be more educated on the matter instead of using a commonly thrown around phrases that they don't self identify as. The matter of the fact is that this is a decently sized party that has importance of the German political sphere, it is not Wikipedia job to determine what is true but to educate our users on it in a constructive manner.
in Wikipedia's guide, they say this which I think is important here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (please read all of its points)
  • "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
As you can see even if is a sub majority belief of something, it is still important of Wikipedia to inform user of it and make them aware. Far-right is a very loaded term that can throw off and ruin the non judgmental tone of what Wikipedia articles should be.
Instead we can show that it has been considered, or how popular that belief here, in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view They have a really good related idea to fix this:
" these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be
attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide
is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
So there are other solutions then just outright saying are are/is far-right, and I hope we can agree to an alternative.
Important links: (1) Wikipedia:Good articles, (2)Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Please let me know your thoughts on this and if we are going to implement it or parts of it. I really think its in the best interest of everyone to give clear information on what happening with the party. Thank you. JamesEMonroe (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea and adheres to WP:NPOV, I also just want this argument to end already, it's been spammed in my notifications for too long lol Mario. M. (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a problem that needs a solution. There's just all the reliable mainstream sources correctly characterising the article subject as far-right and the article reflecting those sources. No problem to address. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't be more adequate to use more neutral language/neutral points of view? It does make sense considering how Wikipedia works. Gabriel Gomes Almeida (Talk) (Contributions 19:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. We do not seek on Wikipedia to use inherently “neutral language”, whatever that means. We give a neutral representation of the reliable secondary sources on the topic. So if the preponderance of sources – or, as in this case, a massive, overwhelming majority of sources – commonly and factually characterise a topic as something, the encyclopaedia reflects that. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very difficult distinction to make at first glance, but is certainly there. @
WP:NPOV page. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 20:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
No far right is correct and I tell you why. Firstly AFD primary voter base is in East Germany. Why? Because there is clear nostalgia for authoritarianism and totalitarianism called Ostalgie since East Germany experienced forced and wild neoliberal policies after Fall of Soviet Socialism which didn't benefit this region. Mass emigration to west Germany, clear divide between west and east and so on. So the people in this region want to eliminate neoliberalism and free market economic and return to autarky and in their minds maybe catch up to West Germany. Anything that is pro free trade/neoliberalism is on the center of political spectrum everything against it is not center anymore. That is about it. JBlade73 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. Also, AfD's economic stance is actually extremely neoliberal, as you can easily see from their climate change denial (a pseudoscience motivated by free-market ideology). --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Who are you talking to? Are you serious when you said that? Did you read what you wrote? Macron, Merkel, Bill Clinton, Obama, Toni Blair and so on are and were neoliberals and they never denied climate change. You are tripping. JBlade73 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid "you are" statements with reference to other users. If they perceive it as an accusation, they may respond in kind. This discussion should probably be closed soon. 1101 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right is a descriptive label, not a stink label. Perhaps someone should consider closing this discussion. 1101 (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD election percentage 2025 is wrong

AfD did not achieve 19,5% (stated in the article), but 20,8% of votes in the national election of 2025

Source: https://bundeswahlleiterin.de/bundestagswahlen/2025/ergebnisse/bund-99.html

Percentage in Parliament under "Zweitstimmen" 131.220.35.155 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New stance in Germany

AfD is hard Eurosceptic and Russophilic. 2001:1C01:4009:D00:D40B:A8A4:4E3D:3405 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not new. They were Eurosceptics when they were founded, and they have glorified Putin for quite a while. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
straw man argument. Who is "glorifying Putin"? Be specific. 2003:DA:C74E:2400:2CC3:6B53:2AAB:BD8E (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Weidel. Look it up. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 15:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wrong. Why should I look up your unproven claims? You have to make the case. 2003:DA:C74E:2400:8CF9:F575:B0C5:DA8F (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You want to add a "new stance" (assuming you are the same person with a different IP). You need sources saying those stances are new. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Antisemitism in Germany" is a strawman

The party supports Israel and has a jewish member interest group within its party structure. 2003:DA:C74E:2400:8CF9:F575:B0C5:DA8F (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with this, I will remove the category and take a look at adding any appropriate categories. Zyxrq (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting intention survey data

The dissatisfaction of Merz's financial plan of debt and the new coalition plan with the SDP is driving the voters away. Sources: https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/04/09/germanys-new-centrist-government-is-reassuring-but-bland https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-germany-christian-democratic-union-social-democratic-party-coalition-talks/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germanys-far-right-afd-tops-poll-first-time-blow-chancellor-in-waiting-merz-2025-04-09/ https://www.ft.com/content/58c2819f-74a8-44f9-ad08-fb654c93d4ee https://www.ft.com/content/13104190-f2d8-4296-8584-05574e5706f2

To add context, here is also the data from the recent survey for the bundestag election: https://politpro.eu/en/germany/institute/ipsos

By the way, it makes no difference to separate polling, election results and membership data on the article. They are all entangled and extremely related. If anything, they should be closer to each other. As to the removal attempts for this being "right-wing propaganda" - this place is pure sophistry. Atlanticseaa (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dissatisfaction of Merz's financial plan of debt and the new coalition plan with the SDP is driving the voters away. That causal relation is somebody's opinion, not a fact. If we use it, we have to attribute it.
it makes no difference To AfD fans, Republicans and other bullshitters, true or false makes no difference. To normal people, it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End of the firewall "German parties’ boycott of far right looks to be over — with AfD on course for key jobs"

According to politico[[13]] "Lawmakers from the incoming chancellor’s CDU party signal an end to the “firewall” that saw mainstream politicians refuse to work with extreme groups for decades." It's to note this is something we should keep a eye on and add into the Wikipedia article if or when needed. Zyxrq (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_for_Germany&oldid=1286046142"