Talk:Alternative for Germany

"Far-right"

I'm not certain that two opinion pieces and a Politico article provides enough support for this designation; has this been discussed before? Hayek79 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: You are invited to respond here. Hayek79 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a disputed label, unlike the below. Mélencron (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: Those are probably better references than the three up there at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox

This list is far too long. I would suggest that we remove "antifeminism" at the very least, since this is probably unnecessary and needs to be properly sourced. Hayek79 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: You are invited to respond here. An opinion piece isn't enough I'm afraid, the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview, it's not meant to be an exhaustive list. Hayek79 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Referencing a 400 word opinion article about the AfD youth organisation in support of designating the AfD ideologically "antifeminist" is obviously not going to pass. I can't be expected to take this seriously. Hayek79 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: @Beyond My Ken: This is ridiculous. Can you all please address my concerns here, rather than revert one another's edits and pile up references in the infobox. @Jytdog: Simply declaring that something is "well referenced" without responding to the objections on the talk page about its inclusion:

i. Does not mean that it is well referenced - as I've noted elsewhere, two of the articles only concern a Facebook campaign organised by the youth wing, another is about the views of a member of a state parliament. This isn't enough to justify describing the party as anti-feminist.

ii. Does not mean that this is something that should necessarily feature in the infox box.

Regarding the new references added, one is the same 400 word article about the youth wing, the The Local article is also about the youth wing, another is specifically about the views of a member of the Baden-Württemberg parliament. This is still not enough to designate the party program as "anti-femininist". I don't have time to go through the final article, but so far none of you have addressed my main concern, which is that the list is far too long, and that inclusions such as "anti-feminist" are probably inaccurate, and either way unnecessary. If you desperately want to include this, mention it in the main body of the article or in the article on the youth wing. If you keep reverting changes without attempting to get a consensus here I'll have to contact an administrator. Hayek79 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This claim is also not mentioned at all in the rest of the article, a further reason for its removal. If you want to claim that the AfD is an anti-feminist party, you'll have to provide a lot more support than what you already have. Hayek79 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is "too long" discussed in any guideline or policy about infobox fields? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is not supposed to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. As I have said, the sources provided are inadequate, and the issue referenced is not discussed in the main body of the article. As for guidelines, there is the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox

I am inviting you to be reasonable here. Hayek79 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Acather96: Invitation to comment. Hayek79 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. If you are going to invite one editor to the discussion, you must invite all editors who have previously taken part in previous discussions, regardless of the position they took. To invite only one editor who you think will take your side is a blatant violation of canvassing. Please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This individual has not edited this page previously; they are an editor, and I invited them to comment because I'm concerned that you're not taking my comments seriously, and that you have no intention of doing so. Hayek79 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually read WP:CANVASS. If you want to bring in an admin, go to their talk page and say something neutral such as "Could you please take a look at X?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And BTW, you wrote "invitation to comment" - that's canvassing, not bringing in an admin, whose opinions about content count no more or no less than any other editor's. If you're bringing in an admin, it's for some kind of behavioral problem, such as, in this case, you WP:I don't like it behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And also BTW, you've had nothing new to say for about a dozen comments now, so I will not be responding again until you've got some kind of policy to cite to support your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And how does "Could you please take a look at X?" differ from "invitation to comment"? This is a behavioural problem, that's why I've brought in an admin, and I'm afraid at the moment you're really not helping your case. Hayek79 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's the difference between asking an administrator to come and look to see if there is any administrative function to be performed, and asking an editor (all admins are also editors) to comment ("invitation to comment", you wrote) on the subject under discussion. The first is legitimate, the second is canvassing, and the difference is how the request is worded. But it seems that you really don't care much about violating WP:CANVASS, since you canvassed another editor in the section below. Have you actually read the policy yet, or are you willfully ignoring it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's absurd. Firstly, even if I had invited them to comment, and not purely for administrative purposes, it wouldn't necessarily be canvassing. Secondly, the second individual I pinged has already commented here, hasn't expressed a view on this issue, and I have had no interaction with them outside of this talk page, which means it couldn't possibly meet any definition of canvassing. I therefore suggest that you're making accusations of policy violations for entirely vexatious reasons. This is also a more comical example of wikilawyering. Hayek79 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You'd be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've demonstrated that your accusations are groundless, so either you were mistaken, or these are vexatious complaints. Hayek79 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As I know Hayek79 offline it would seem inappropriate for me to voice my opinion on what seems to be a content dispute. Unless there are edit wars/policy violations/gross incivility, admin 'intervention' isn't necessary. I'd just suggest that those adding/removing material about AfD's antifeminism are prepared to discuss it on the talkpage. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of anti-feminism in the infobox

User:Mélencron where is your discussion on talk that you mentioned here with respect to your removing sourced content from this article? Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The thread right above yours? Mélencron (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

you need to justify your complete removal of that sourced content. What is your justification? Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. Mélencron (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

for pete's sake. restoring with a small pile of sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I just added one source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @Jytdog: That you can find a few (mostly opinion) articles which describe organisations or people associated with the party as anti-feminist is:

i. Not a reason for its inclusion necessarily (please read my other comments),

ii. And does not mean that designating AfD an "anti-feminist" party is necessarily accurate

I don't believe you're being constructive at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The material is sourced. That you don't like it is immaterial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The material needs to be accurate. Does any article you have provided so far demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party? Hayek79 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Why are you not running to an admin as you promised you would do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just did, and was accused of canvassing. For the reasons I have supplied, I maintain that the sources you have provided do not prove that the AfD is an "anti-feminist" party, or anything of the sort. It should be clear to anyone reading this page that you're being rude and unconstructive, and I will therefore wait until I have comment from elsewhere. Hayek79 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And it should be clear that you want it removed because you just don't like it, despite the fact that it is more than adequately sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And why should that be clear? Why should two articles about a Facebook campaign and an opinion piece prove that the AfD is an anti-feminist party? Please address my comments. Hayek79 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the citations? One is a study of the party's positions on gender issues. It has nothing to do with Facebook. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't be invited to cite a study disproving the thesis that AfD is an anti-feminist party, that's for you to prove. Hayek79 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the other references, since the paper is the only reference that supports the inclusion of this description. Hayek79 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Not without a WP:CONSENSUS to do so you don't - and you don't have one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to defend their inclusion? Hayek79 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD is a populist party and they pull a lot under their tent. We have sources saying that what they do includes opposition to feminism; that is all that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

They are indeed a big tent, but my point is that we don't need to list "anti-feminism" in the infobox, since this is not a defining element of their program (or even officially part of their program). It's also not mentioned in the main body of the article.

"We have sources saying that what they do includes opposition to feminism; that is all that is needed": for the reasons given, I don't believe this is accurate. The sources provided do not support the claim that AfD is an anti-feminist party. What's more, even if you can support the claim, I don't think this amount of detail is necessary in the infobox - as it stands, the infobox is a bit of a mess. Please find the guidelines for infoboxes I've linked elsewhere in this exchange. Hayek79 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We have had so many alt-right trolls coming by the article trying to whitewash it. I am not saying you are one (at all), but I do not give a flying fuck care that you think the infobox is too detailed. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC))

Firstly, please delete that language and refrain from using it again. Second, I won't allow you to address only one of my points and then move on. Hayek79 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we'll assume that User:Beyond My Ken has no intention of responding. I've checked their talk page history and they appear to have a long history of unconstructive editing and edit-warring, so I think we should try to get a consensus without them, and deal with them later if they become a problem. @Mélencron: You seem reasonable, what are your thoughts? Hayek79 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "reasonable" you mean "people who agree with me". BMK has already stated that they do not find what you are writing here to be compelling. Second time you have canvaassed in the very short time you have been here. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hayek79: You cannot ignore an editor's expressed opinion just because you don't like their history, or because they don't feel the need to repeat their opinion ad nauseum every time you once again object on the same grounds. My opinion is here, on this page, and it stands as part of a consensus determination until you hear from me that I've changed my mind, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life responding to you. There's no requirement in policy or Wikiquette that I do so.

Please stop canvassing other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The user pinged has not expressed a view, and has already commented here, which means that my contacting them cannot meet any definition of canvassing, as will be obvious to anyone reading this. The other instance you are referring to was a request for assistance from an administrator in response to obstructive editing and a refusal to discuss the issues raised on the talk page. Please remove your disgusting language from this page (and change your attitude) or I'll request that your account is sanctioned.

@Beyond My Ken: I can note that unless you are prepared to cooperate on the talk page, respond to my comments, and until you drop the surreally aggressive attitude, I can assume we'll move on without you. You have not responded to my comments about the articles you have cited, or responded to the majority of the comments I have made, so you are not being expected to repeat anything. Hayek79 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinged everyone who has commented on the talk page since 14th May 2016. @Tpbradbury:@Kamalthebest:@Rphb:@Gerry1214:@Cunard:@Lacunae:@Vanamonde93:@Zxy5000:@PaulPGwiki:@Pincrete:@Checco:@Number 57:@Autospark:@Mandruss:@Bermicourt:@Redrose64:.

To summarise, this is what I have argued so far:

i. The four sources provided do not provide sufficient support for the claim that AfD is an anti-feminist party. Two are articles about a Facebook campaign organised by the youth organisation, one of which is 400 word opinion piece, and a third is an article about the views of an AfD representative in the Baden state parliament. The fourth is apparently a paper about attitudes towards gender issues in the party, which I will have to look over.

ii. This content is also not mentioned at all in the main body of the article, so I would question why it's present in the infobox.

iii. The infobox is currently a mess. The infobox is supposed to provide a neat summary of what appears in the article, as per Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is not supposed to provide an exhaustive list of every minor ideological commitment within the party. "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

iv. As you can see, the response I have received has been mostly obstructive, and fairly unpleasant. In particular, User:Jytdog appears to have assumed that my motivation for proposing these changes is political; I assure you it is not. This is also not consistent with the following. Hayek79 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your desire to remove well sourced content from the infobox is not being "obstructive." You also should pay attention - you just wrote that the antifeminism bit is not in the body, but I added it well before you wrote your remark above. And I have said nothing about your motivations. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's obstructive because you haven't responded to my comments concerning the content of the sources, and continue to refuse to. They support your recent addition to the article, but that is all. They do not support the claim that AfD is an anti-feminist party. This is at best a fringe concern, and unnecessary description in the context of an info box, as I have said. But I realise you have gone too far now to make a concession. You suggested my motivations when you referred to "alt-right trolls". Hayek79 (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Where I specifically said i was not talking about you, but rather the history of disruption to this article. That is about the third misrepresentation you have made in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, at the risk of receiving a "tsk tsk tsk" from the peanut gallery, I'm going to point out the elephant in the room - what, exactly is your agenda here? I DON'T HAVE ONE other then having a well-sourced article which accurately describes the party in question. Your prosecutorial cross-examinating behavior says to me that your purpose is entirely different. Like Jytdog, I don't know if you're an alt-rightist looking to sanitize an article about a party on your side of the aisle or not, but it sure as hell looks that way from the way you have been ignoring every comment that you disagree with, demanding again and again that your questions be answered -- when they already have been answered, at least to the satisfaction of anyone without a bone to pick -- and being as aggressive as a dog whose got his choppers sunk into one's leg. For these reasons, I'm talking this to AN/I right now. I know that I can't take any more of your repetitive WP:IDHT behavior, maybe someone else can do something to put a halt to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ignore the substantive point, and then accuse me of more policy violations. This is both childish, and a complete waste of my time. FYI, describing my (perfectly reasonable) interpretation of your comment is not "misrepresentation". I can see no other explanation for your behaviour.

I've gone to considerable effort here, and on your talk page, to be reasonable. You're clearly not interested in working with me, instead being needlessly adversarial, so I'll take this to ANI unless some of the individuals pinged comment. Hayek79 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I see it's already gone to ANI, and someone has just lost all their remaining credibility in making the referral. Hayek79 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

AN/I exists to report behavioral problems, and, in my opinion, your behavior has been the causational problem here. Whether I have credibility in your eyes doesn't really concern me in the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've copied this over from the ANI page[1] page, because I think it might help clarify where we actually disagree, and where we have confused one another. Hayek79 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time you have actually attempted to respond systematically to my comments - even if your rendering of my argument is quite unfair. Thank you for doing this,

i. You did indeed ask for the guidelines, and I referred you to this Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as you can see from the link you have just provided. I'm fairly certain I posted this link on more than one occasion. It also happens to be true that the purpose of the infobox is not to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. "Anti-feminism" is not a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and if you believe it is, you haven't provided enough support for that claim.

ii. On your second point, neither of you responded to my reservations about the other three sources.

I believe you are confused about the following comment: "I can't be invited to cite a study disproving the thesis that AfD is an anti-feminist party, that's for you to prove." This does not imply, as you said, that I was "not even looking at the sources provided". The other editor had offered a study which discussed attitudes towards gender issues in the party, and I was merely making the point that I couldn't be asked to provide a study which proved the opposite. I recall that someone had asked me for sources, but I may have been mistaken.

iii. I have no objections to the Facebook campaign being mentioned in the article. The article still does not discuss AfD's purported anti-feminism, unless you think that the party can be designated anti-feminist on this basis alone.

iv. This is an instance where it might have helped if you had been a little more patient, and asked for clarification. My argument throughout has been that the two articles on the Facebook campaign, one of which was a very short opinion piece, and an article about an AfD representative from the Baden-Württemberg state parliament, is not enough to support the claim that anti-feminism is a significant feature of the AfD platform. Therefore, designating the party "anti-feminist" on the basis of those sources would be inaccurate. Since the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and given that there is no support for the claim that the AfD promotes an explicitly anti-feminist agenda, this is something, I argue, that can be cut from the infobox.

"Your complaint seems to be that we didn't agree with you" - this is obviously not a fair summary of my argument. Hayek79 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are just further repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not. If I'm repeating myself, and you were familiar with these arguments, then your comments on the ANI page concerning "accuracy" were deliberate misrepresentation. Hayek79 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's just my opinion, but since the consensus at the moment is to leave the article as is, it might be worthwhile not to respond here unless and until editors other than Hayek79 comment, and there's a possibility of actually having a discussion that's not entirely circular, repetitive and, ultimately, enervating. It's clear to me that there's not going to be any progress otherwise, given that editor's behavior pattern. If Hayek79 takes it into his head to remove the sources or otherwise edit against consensus, it's easy enough to revert him on that basis. I think that at this point, we're simply enabling his dysfunctionality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Dysfunctional" - oh, I don't think you can say that; after all, I'm the one who succeeded in managing my temper in such a way that I could respond to comments on a Wikipedia talk page without insulting strangers, or writing illiterate (and slightly deranged) nonsense like the following:

"at the risk of receiving a "tsk tsk tsk" from the peanut gallery, I'm going to point out the elephant in the room - what, exactly is your agenda here? I DON'T HAVE ONE ... I don't know if you're an alt-rightist looking to sanitize an article about a party on your side of the aisle or not, but it sure as hell looks that way from the way you have been ignoring every comment that you disagree with, demanding again and again that your questions be answered -- when they already have been answered, at least to the satisfaction of anyone without a bone to pick -- and being as aggressive as a dog whose got his choppers sunk into one's leg." Hayek79 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Climate change denial

@Beyond My Ken: I don't take kindly to the insinuation I somehow support the AfD (hint: switch out the "r" in my username for an "h"). I've been reverting the past few edits primarily because it isn't clear to me that 1. "climate change denial" constitutes an ideology or 2. the sources you provide, sans the DW piece, are actually reliable or corroborate that claim. Furthermore with regard to (1), even on the articles of parties that explicitly deny climate change outright (mentioned within the body of the article itself), as here or here, it isn't clear that this constitutes an ideology which should be listed in the infobox – in either case, it isn't. (P.S. I'm not sure if WSWS constitutes a particularly reliable source, either.) Mélencron (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

When a party issues a platform which includes climate change denial, then climate change denial is certainly part of the party's ideology. (We have the same shit here with the Republican Party, as the world is learning now, with the head of the federal EPA claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant.) The sources are all reliable, and all support the contention that climate change is part of AfD's agenda, as the majority of them are simply reporting what the party said about itself in its platform issued in 2016. Your reading of the New Yorker pieces entirely misses the point of it. As for "Melenchon", I have no idea what that means, or any real interest in it. What I know is this pattern: someone adds something to the ideology list, you remove it, it gets re-added with sources to support it, you quibble over the sources, some get removed, but others take their place because the facts speak for themselves. To me, that pattern reads like someone trying to protect the subject of the article from having unpleasant facts about it revealed to the Wikipedia-reading public. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but you should review your behavior to see what it telegraphs, and you should also re-read the New Yorker piece with more nuance than I believe you have done to date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker piece doesn't actually state that the party espouses climate change denial; it's referring to statements by Petry. As with the previous dispute on the political positioning of the Liberal Democrats, the statements of party leaders do not suffice. Furthermore, if you actually see how the New Yorker piece refers to Petry's views on climate change – it provides an anecdote of Petry but never makes a specific reference to climate change denial.

“Now you’re repeating your hypothesis,” Petry said, leaning over him from the stage. “But how do you justify it?” He hesitated in confusion, and other protesters joined him. A teen-age girl began to speak from prepared notes, saying that the AfD denied climate change. “You have to hold the mike closer to your mouth,” Petry interrupted, and then rocked from foot to foot, marking the slow tempo of the girl’s speech. “Your party claims that CO₂ is not dangerous, but how do you explain all the people dying from air pollution in China?” the girl asked.

“I’m a chemist,” Petry said. “The problem is not CO₂—it’s the nitrogen and sulfur oxides that make the smog. So many people make this mistake.” She went on, “Let me ask you a question. If you dissolve CO₂ in water and the temperature rises, will you have more or less CO₂?” It was a trick question that Petry often uses.

“More,” the girl said, meaning CO₂ in the atmosphere.

If you're going to keep it in the infobox, though, I'd much rather prefer if you actually stick to reliable sources which actually explicitly state the party espouses climate-change denial (i.e., Politico Europe and Deutsche Welle articles) as opposed to flimsier sources. Sputnik, WSWS, and GlobalSecurity.org are not particularly credible sources. Also, you don't need to provide four or six citations for a single claim – it's excessive and unnecessary (especially when those references aren't reused elsewhere within the article). Please at least attempt to maintain a veneer of neutrality when it comes to your editing on political articles, especially with regard to ideology. I don't appreciate your insinuations about my political beliefs (they're the opposite of what you seem to believe), nor your belief that you feel the need to explain to me why AfD is a climate change denialist party (I never at any point contested that claim – I only indicated that I don't believe it's a political ideology). Almost all of my edits to Wikipedia are on political topics, and yet I always attempt to remain scrupulously neutral in my editing. You don't need to justify to me the fact that AfD are climate change denialists. I just don't believe that's a political ideology which merits inclusion in the infobox (which is becoming excessively lengthy, in any case). Mélencron (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What exactly, makes you say that GlobalSecurity (for instance) is not reliable? Be specific please, including any discussions at WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And the writer of the New Yorker pieces makes it quite clear that the subject is using a "trick question" to deflect the claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Aad the multiplicity of sources is necessary because people like you and Hayek79 and the Helper person fight tooth and nail about the sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this the way you deal with losing a discussion in an article dispute? By reporting the person you're discussing with to WP:ANEW? It's not a very new tactic, but it's often effective. Still, it only goes to indicate that you are heavily invested in "protecting" this article to keep it as positive for the AfD as possible, or else why take such drastic measures? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Calm down and stop accusing me and other editors of being NPOV, seriously. Click on the "ideology" link in the infobox. It leads you to List of political ideologies. "Climate change denial" is not one of them. (Let me just say, if it's not on this article's infobox, then I don't think it really belongs here, either.) Mélencron (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So, you believe that the Wikipedia list is all-inclusive, that there are no other ideologies except those that are listed there?? And you're also not aware that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source? Again, if you don't want to be seen as NPOV, don't behave like an NPOV editor. I can't read your mind, or look inside your heart, all I can do is judge you by your edits, and the edits say that you are protecting AfD. (And why am I even talking to you when you attempted to put me out of commission with an ANEW report? Why should I have even a smidgen of respect for someone who does that to win an argument? Tell me that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This reply is not remotely constructive and you've refused to substantively address my original points (1. the reliability of specific sources – mainly, I object to the use of Sputnik, WSWS, and GlobalSecurity.org, none of which are reputable; 2. the use of the New Yorker piece – again, the Politico Europe and Deutsche Welle pieces are simply better because they explicitly refer to the party's climate change denialist views, and 3. that this isn't a "political ideology"). You also seem to have forgotten what happened in the previous dispute – User:Hayek79 removed the far-right label, they posted on the talk page suggesting that antifeminism be removed because it wasn't "properly sourced", then I restored the far-right label and provided a citation for antifeminism, Hayek79 reverted me and pointed out the source I added was an opinion piece, then I removed it after another editor restored it because of that, noting that on the talk page/acknowledged I was wrong about that source. In that situation I acknowledged I was wrong to restore the source. It isn't that difficult to acknowledge when you're wrong as opposed to accusing an editor of having political motivations in their edits when you're reverted on a political article. I never accused User:Hayek79 of breaching POV at any point, so I'd appreciate it if you could actually acknowledge substantive concerns rather than being repeatedly accusatory. Mélencron (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole amount of sources was a minor issue and I could see your point. That's why when I edited again I did not revert your edit, I removed different sources. I did this because two of the sources used are clearly not reliably neutral sources. You ignored my comment on the fact that these sources are not credible and proceeded to revert my edit, without giving good reason, other than addressing one of my points. Then to go and leave a note of editing warring on my page. Please make sure to see the reasons I give for the edit before reverting and have a good reason to revert before doing so. I am also in total agreement with everything Mélencron said in their last edit. Helper201 (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So, here's a suggestion for a compromise: The Sputnik News, SWSW and New Yorker references are removed, but the remainder stay. "Climate-change denial" stays in the "Ideology" list. If there is a concerted effort in the future to remove it, the removed references can be restored unless others can be found, since only weight of references seem to stop "Ideology" items from being removed. Ping me if there's a response, I'm not watching this article currently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That would be satisfactory for now; in any case, I should emphasize, there's only a need for a single reference for any given statement on Wikipedia. The party's program, Deutsche Welle, and Politico Europe are all good sources for that.

I still contest the notion that climate change denial constitutes a political ideology which should be listed in the infobox, but should you remove those three references, I don't have any further issues with regard to referencing. It's certainly a not one the ideologies listed within party infoboxes are (e.g., nationalism, national conservatism, x nationalism, anti-Islam, Christian democratic are all typical descriptors) – even the parties that blatantly deny its existence don't have it listed in the infobox, as they're not the primary descriptors of the party. (Personal view of the AfD: German nationalism, right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, national conservatism, and economic liberalism are the most applicable.) For that, though, that'd request outside comments to actually achieve a consensus on that issue. Mélencron (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, @Helper201: Is the above compromise satisfactory to you? If so, I will request an edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a dispute similar to the one over the inclusion of "Anti-feminism" above. I agree with User:Mélencron and User:Helper201 that this claim shouldn't feature under the ideology section, and that the sources are mostly invalid and inadequate. There is a reason why, to my knowledge, no other article for a major political party lists things like climate change denial in the infobox. Since at least two of the contributors here appear to be of the opinion that as long as a claim is supported by enough references, it can appear anywhere in the article, regardless of the advice available here: MOS:INFOBOX, it's unlikely that this will be resolved. Would arbitration be an option unless others comment here in the next few weeks? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Infobox should only list actual political ideologies (with reliable references) such as right-wing populism (clearly the party's main ideology), not individual policies or political standpoints. Most of the AfD policies and standpoints, anti-feminism, climate change denial, anti-immigration and so on, fall under the umbrella of right-wing populism anyway.--Autospark (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely with what is written above. MOS:INFOBOX addresses this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There are currently ten items listed under ideology for this party, which is far too many, forgetting that "climate change denial" and "anti-feminism" are inappropriate entries for the ideology section of the infobox, and that many of the 11 or so references provided are inadequate. Please compare with the following articles on German political parties: CDU, CSU, SDP, or with those of European parties of a comparable ideological persuasion: UKIP, National Front L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Note to all that User:L.R. Wormwood = User:Hayek79. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Climate change denial started out as a position; but as the evidence for it grows and the idea becomes more of a statement of faith than a position on an issue, it is becoming more like an ideology. I agree that this needs to be defined as a modern political ideology in climate change denial and perhaps a list of political ideologies before it's added in an infobox on a page such as this. I haven't seen any serious "anti-green" party that literally campaigns with something like climate change denial as a central tenet yet, however; including AfD. – SJ + 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Because some editors are already counting noses, champing at the bit to find a consensus, and because counting !votes is not how consensus is determined, I am opening a formal RfC on this question, so that a neutral party can close it by determining consensus according to Wikipedia's standards of doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog has taken "political ideology" to refer to "belief" or "faith", which is not conventionally how this phrase is used. See: List of political ideologies. Climate change denial would be a policy position if adopted by a political party, that is to say, if Alternative for Germany embraced the platform that the planet is not experiencing climate change, that would be the position of the party on the issue of climate change, and this would have policy implications. Unfortunately, we simply disagree on the sources. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Equally, if we're going by how often words are used in an article, "policy" features 25 times in the climate change denial article, "ideology" does not appear at all, neither does "faith", and "belief" 6 times, but this is obviously not a reliable measure so we can ignore all of this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

On the "big tent" point, as I noted above, this is an abnormally large list even for a "big tent" party. The following parties are much bigger tents than the AfD, and have a lot less listed in their infoboxes: Labour Party (UK), Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States). The only two major parties with comparably long lists that I've found are the British Conservative party and the GOP (nine each) - but in these instances this is clearly justified. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Climate change denial" be listed in the "Ideology" list in the infobox?

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.

---

• Should "Climate change denial" be listed in the "Ideology" list in this article's infobox?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - "Climate change denial" is intrinsically part of this party's core beliefs, as shown by the many sources which are cited to support it, and should therefore be included in its list of ideologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• No - "Climate change denial" is a policy position, like supporting or opposing capital punishment. It is not an ideology, like socialism, liberalism, nationalism, anarchism, etc. (Incidentally, "Antifeminism" should also be removed from the infobox, for the same reason. The list of ideologies clearly includes too many things). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• No – concur with FreeKnowledgeCreator, in addition to the comments I've already made in the discussion above (i.e., that "climate change denial" is not a political ideology). Mélencron (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• No – it's a policy, not an ideology. And honestlty, that standpoint is covered by the (well-referenced) right-wing populism, which is an recognised political ideology.--Autospark (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• No – Climate change denial is not a political ideology. The sources do not support the claim. Parties with similar positions do not have the same claim listed. The infobox is also far too cluttered. A more developed exposition of my views can be found above (currently on my phone). It is for these same reasons that "anti-feminism" should be removed from the infobox. I suggest that the scope of this RFC should be expanded so that we don't have to go through the same thing for each claim. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• yes It is a bit difficult to describe any ideology at all to the big tent (which is why we list so many) but "climate change denial" is not a policy position (that term doesn't appear, for example, in our article on Climate change denial) It is more a matter of faith, belief, or ideology - a view on reality itself (or a looking away from reality, i guess) akin to the belief/ideology in which one sees a happier world when women stay at home and those brown people stay out of my country. And it is well supported by reliable sources of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: Germany, Politics/Political parties, Conservatism, Green politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• No — it is not an ideology and the infobox "ideology" camp should include just a few distinctive ideologies: out of the current ten, I would leave "right-wing populism", "national conservatism", "economic liberalism" and "euroscepticism"; the others are redundant and/or out-of-scope. --Checco (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• No Eventhough the party's general viewpoint is generally sceptic to the climate change issue, they do not campaing or advocate for that matter in any significant way. Also the infobox should not include dozens of single-word aspects regarding a party, but rather contain basic major ideologies and viewpoints. Things like positions regarding climate/environment, in case they are not a major political issue for the party (like for most if not all green parties), can get an own section in the article and be portrayed there.--Joobo (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• No Ideology is for stuff like "social democracy" and "Fiscal conservatism," not "Single-payer healthcare" and "Low taxes." The latter are policy, not ideologies. Climate change denial goes under policy. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• No, but for purely practical reasons, listing every 'belief' in the info box, while they are not very developed in the text is inapt, and most readers will not read them. Whether Cl Den is a policy or an ideology is too philosophical for me, but what I do understand is that the purpose of the infobox is core beliefs, here that would include R-W populism, anti-immigration and others, this one does not seem to be 'core' and should be developed in the article. Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)No - it's policy, not belief. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Jytdog explains it quite well. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. "Climate change denial" is part of this party's core beliefs. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: User:Gouncbeatduke Yes, it's part of their platform, but as other users have noted, that doesn't make it a political ideology (in any conventional sense). Equally, the "ideology" field is conventionally used (UKIP, for example) to provide a short (usually about four or five) list of political ideologies to give the reader an impression of the party's leading ideological commitments at a glance (as per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). At the moment, there are 10 entries (mostly redundant) accompanied by a veritable WP:REFBOMB, which both looks a mess and doesn't help readers. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• No: Climate change denial isn't an ideology. RoCo^(talk) 07:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• No: Including that in the infobox is absolutely ridiculous. Might as well jot down every little minutum of belief in there as well!--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

discussion

• There seems to be, among some editors here, confusion about what "ideology" means. Reaching back for my Webster's New World Second College Edition, I see that it means, in this context:

  The doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc.; specifically, the body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based.

  Put more briefly, an ideology is simply a set of beliefs. Some editors seem to want that to mean "a set of beliefs, but only those that appear in this particular list of beliefs", but that is erroneous. The set of beliefs of a party, as laid out in its party platform, is its ideology. There can be no doubt that "Climate change denial" is part of the set of beliefs held by the AfD, that means, by definition, it's part of their ideology. It doesn't need to appear on Wikipedia's list of political ideologies, because the statement of the party's program released by the AfD trumps that completely. If they say "we believe in such-and-so" then it's part of the party's ideology, and should be included on the list. We don't need the hand of God to tell us that this thing they believe in is part of their ideology, but this other thing is not: if they believe it, it should be in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your quoted definition defines an ideology as, "the body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based". "Climate change denial" is not a "body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The infobox field says "Ideology", not "Ideologies". The list is not one which outlines multiple ideologies, it outlines the set of beliefs which is the party's ideology. So "Climate change denial" is not an ideology, it is part of the set of beliefs which make up the party's ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the infobox field links to the following page: list of political ideologies. This field is used to give a brief overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, as you can see here: UKIP, or here: New Zealand National Party, or here: Podemos. It is not used to provide a pastiche of links to different commitments, or "beliefs" as you put it, for the purposes of painting a general picture of the "ideology" and policy commitments of the party. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see political ideology. Neither the definition you provide nor the one linked apply to "climate change denial". Mélencron (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both users above. I'll paste my response to Jytdog which I left in the section above (I wanted to avoid turning this vote into a discussion, but it appears that ship has already sailed):

User:Jytdog has taken "political ideology" to refer to "belief" or "faith", which is not conventionally how this phrase is used. See: List of political ideologies. Climate change denial would be a policy position if adopted by a political party, that is to say, if Alternative for Germany embraced the platform that the planet is not experiencing climate change, that would be the position of the party on the issue of climate change, and this would have policy implications. Unfortunately, we simply disagree on the sources.

On the "big tent" point, as I noted above, this is an abnormally large list even for a "big tent" party. The following parties are much bigger tents than the AfD, and have a lot less listed in their infoboxes: Labour Party (UK), Socialist Party (France), The Republicans (France), Democratic Party (United States). The only two major parties with comparably long lists that I've found are the British Conservative party and the GOP (nine each) - but in these instances this is clearly justified. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Opposing a carbon tax would be a policy position, based on an ideology of climate change denialism. Like "shoot illegal aliens at the border" is a policy position based on an anti-immigrant ideology. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a policy position in the same way that "pro-life" would be a policy position. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't agree. Pro-life is an ideology; making abortion illegal is a policy based on that ideology. policies flow from ideology. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly just disagree. A majority of us believe that there is an obvious qualitative difference between descriptors such as national conservatism, economic liberalism, social democracy, and so forth, and things like climate change denial. I think your interpretation of ideology, particularly in a political context, is unusual, but I respect that we do not agree. I think we ought to wait now until others have responded to the survey, since it would seem there is little chance of one of us convincing the other. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's much I can add that hasn't already been said. I would personally agree with the previous edit and others with regards to ideologies such as national conservatism being more warranted for the reasons already outlined above and that anti-feminism and climate change denial should be removed from the ideology section of the info box. However I think a compromise can be made, where due to the large amount of backing via citations, anti-feminism and climate change denial should be mentioned in the main body of the text. In the mean time while the overall decision is being decided, can we agree to at least remove the non reliably neutral citations (such as Sputnik News and World Socialist Website) that are included among climate change denials citations? Helper201 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"In the mean time while the overall decision is being decided, can we agree to at least remove the non reliably neutral citations": Someone said they would request an edit for this, but so far nothing has happened. I think there's a consensus for doing this before the survey above has concluded. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

the RfC is just getting started, there is no point in tallying (ever). The RfC will be closed per policy-guideline-based !votes. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't tallying for a consensus, don't worry. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Although I oppose the inclusion above, I think some here are being over-pedantic in their defs of 'political ideology', they appear to be expecting the ideology to a coherent political position. In political terms, especially with populist parties, there IS no coherent ideology. I think it justifiable to define a political ideology as 'core beliefs'. No one would define anti-europeanism as an 'ideology' in ordinary discourse, but it is a key belief of UKIP, and their defining characteristic. Pincrete (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone has that expectation - we all accept that AfD is a "big tent". Regardless of whether we agree on the definition of "political ideology", the field has always been used to list a few of the leading ideological commitments of the party. Besides, we wouldn't include something like "anti-Europeanism" under the ideology field for the UKIP article anyway (for several reasons).

Since several people have now offered suggestions for what ought to listed under the field in the survey, and what ought to be removed, can we get a consensus on which of the items currently listed should remain? I would join User:Checco in suggesting that we maintain the first five: German nationalism, Right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism, and remove the rest. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with the above suggestion by User:L.R. Wormwood and User:Checco. Helper201 (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone help me with protocol? Would we need to open a new Request for Comment, or are we in a position where we can just agree among ourselves? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed five points. They characterize the general ideology of the party. Everything else could be portrayed in a more detailed way in the text. I do not know if there is some kind of particular protocol. Eventually it all comes down to the consensus and/or most user opinions. --Joobo (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I would pare down the Infobox to just three ideologies, right-wing populism (arguably the main ideology), Euroscepticism and National conservatism. Nationalism is implied by Right-wing populism and Nationalism conservatism, and Economic liberalism, while not untrue, was more the ideology in the party's original incarnation before the split that formed ALFA.--Autospark (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is true that Economic liberalism was one major point in the early party beginnings together with Euroscepticism. Yet eventhough some part split off and formed ALFA, Economic liberalism is still part of AfD party ideology today.--Joobo (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with the user above that economic liberalism is still a leading feature of the party's agenda. Of the five, I object more to national conservatism, which I have always regarded as a fairly flimsy phrase. I am prepared to compromise on this, however. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't just make things up here based on anybody's opinions. We rely on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody argues that. That does not mean one may not give assessments. --Joobo (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is explicitly not a place to give personal "assessments" or other general discussion of the topic. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem with giving different views regarding developtments in the party. General discussions however should not take place on the talk page, that is correct. --Joobo (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(RE: Jytdog) This is now a discussion about article layout, i,e. what should appear under the "ideology" field, and what should not. At the moment, we are trying to build a consensus on how the infobox should look, and which of the items we are removing (depending on the RfC, of course) should feature more prominently in the main body of the article. It's all (to varying degrees) sourced, but that's besides the point. We are entitled to do this, and you are welcome to object at every stage. Nobody is providing "personal assessments" (whatever you mean by that) or engaging in "general discussion" of the topic. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And my comment was no more a question of "just mak[ing] things up [...] based on anybody's opinions" than the following: "It is more a matter of faith, belief, or ideology - a view on reality itself (or a looking away from reality, i guess) akin to the belief/ideology in which one sees a happier world when women stay at home and those brown people stay out of my country" (despite that argument having already been addressed). What I meant was that national conservatism is a fairly ambiguous term which doesn't carry as much explanatory power as, say, German nationalism or right wing populism. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@L.R. Wormwood: It is already some time ago that this discussion was held. Does one have an outlook for a reslut regarding the decision of changing the ideology points?.-Joobo (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's probably time to close this RfC. If necessary we can have a second RfC addressing the question of which items should remain in the infobox. There's a clear consensus that the list is too long, that some items are dubious, and that it would be improved by listing four or five items rather than nine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As for what should remain in the infobox, I think I'll stand by my initial suggestion (German nationalism, Right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism). I am prepared to compromise for the purposes of being finally done with this. As for the question of whether climate change denial should feature, shall I go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.--Joobo (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I broadly agree with User:L.R. Wormwood, even though I would not include German nationalism, but just National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Economic liberalism and Euroscepticism (possibly in the former order). --Checco (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Unsourced

The following tables are unsourced; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against those sources, and citing the sources.

Tables of election results

Federal Parliament (Bundestag)

Election year	No. of constituency votes	No. of party list votes	% of party list votes	No. of overall seats won	+/–
2013	810,915	2,056,985	4.7	0 / 631

European Parliament

Election year	No. of overall votes	% of overall vote & ranking	No. of overall seats won	+/–
2014	2,070,014	7.1 (#5)	7 / 96

State Parliament (Landtag)

State election, year	No. of overall votes	% of overall vote & ranking	No. of overall seats won	+/–
Hesse, 2013	126,906	4.1 (#6)	0 / 110
Saxony, 2014	159,611	9.7 (#4)	14 / 126
Thuringia, 2014	99,548	10.6 (#4)	11 / 91
Brandenburg, 2014	119,989	12.2 (#4)	11 / 88
Hamburg, 2015	214,833	6.1 (#6)	8 / 121
Bremen, 2015	64,368	5.5 (#6)	5 / 83
Baden-Württemberg, 2016	809,311	15.1 (#3)	23 / 143
Rhineland-Palatinate, 2016	267,813	12.6 (#3)	14 / 101
Saxony-Anhalt, 2016	271,646	24.4 (#2)	25 / 87
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2016	167,453	20.8 (#2)	18 / 71
Berlin, 2016	231,325	14.2 (#5)	25 / 160
Saarland, 2017		6.2 (#4)	3 / 51

To address this objection ahead of time, a Wikilink is not a source, and WP articles are not reliable sources in any case. -- Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wahlrecht.de has results for all of them, as you might expect. Mélencron (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

At least mention climate change denial in the article?

I can understand removing it from the infobox - but shouldn't the fact at least be mentioned in the text that this party is promoting the anti-science conspiracy theory of climate change denial? It fits right in with all the other unrealistic beliefs those people have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Will fix that. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideology field

Since this part of the closure decision is apparently already being contested, shall we do a quick straw poll to determine whether we are satisfied with the "ideology" field as it stands? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Not how we do things. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is how we do things, though it might not be convenient for you in this case. It would save a huge amount of time and energy, but I'm sure you'll take this to AN anyway. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw polls are allowed, but please remember that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -Obsidi (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

Are we satisfied with the infobox as it stands?

• Yes My views are littered all over this page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes and no. I would not include "German nationalism", while leaving the other four ideologies in the following order: "National conservatism", "Right-wing populism" (even though I have strong reservations on this being an ideology), "Economic liberalism" and "Euroscepticism". --Checco (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sort of. Leave out German nationalism, because right-wing populism and national conservatism are more specific ideologies. My preferred order would be" Right-wing populism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism, and Euroscepticism.--Autospark (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add to this that in the german language there is a certain connotation to German nationalism and that it is distinct from the other ideologies listed. So if there are reputable sources describing them as German nationalist, or "deutschnational" in german, it should most certainly stay included. Just my two cents as a native german speaker. 91.49.90.151 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) per @Autospark:, I am mostly satisfied but contest "German nationalism". In historical context that term doesn't make much sense, or is quite debatable. Unnecessary in my opinion. In fact insinuating the other parties like CDU as against German nationalism (modern rhetoric aside) may be POV. Remove.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

But the CDU, SPD and pretty much all the other established parties are in fact against german nationalism, so it is not an insinuation but a political reality in modern day germany. German nationalism is not plain nationalism, nor is it national populism. There simply is a distinction in that area in society. It may seem like semantics but there is a difference. It is mostly, if not exclusivly, used in the context of the far right, which the AFD arguably is according to reliable sources. And in the end that should be all that matters really, if they are called that in reliable sources, it shouldnt matter to me, you or anyone else if it makes sense in a historical context, which by you determining so makes it pretty much original reasearch. Appologies if that comes across as harsh, i mean absolutely no insult and am just speaking my mind and am trying to give an oppinion or perhaps another perspective on the matter. As an IP i dont think it would be appropriate to take a vote anyhow. 91.49.86.17 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that nationalism in Germany is considered "far-right" is its own issue. Before the Reunification, the CDU and even the SPD could be considered nationalist because they wanted a united Germany; it was even the latter's posters to even desire Danzig and West Pomerania (imagine that from the SPD today). However I also see your point. I'll leave it to RfC I suppose.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldnt exactly say that nationalism itself is seen as far right in germany, frowned upon to a degree perhaps. German nationalism specificialy is another matter though. But anyway, you lot do what you want to do even if i disagree personally to a degree, although i do see some valid points as well. So... have a good one everyone. Nice to have not been treated as complete dirt on Wikipedia for being an IP for once haha 91.49.86.17 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment We need a consensus on whether this version is an improvement on the last. This would appear to be clear from comments here and elsewhere, but I think it needs to be more explicit. Clarification So far you've all suggested further entries that might be removed, but could we be clear that we agree that the four items already removed were inappropriate/redundant? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes it is ok, but "German Nationalism" has to be taken out as well. The party is not advocating for a forming of a bigger German country with new parts included of German speaking regions as in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium etc. Actually that is what this ideology means. The using of this term is presumably a misunderstanding. So either taking out or better replacing it with another more correct one like mere "Nationalism". --Joobo (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment "German nationalism" is possibly not appropriate in a German context. It might be useful to include this field nevertheless to distinguish the AfD's position from that of mainstream parties which, for obvious historical reasons, as has already been noted, are explicitly anti-nationalist, and which interpret German identity in European terms. I don't feel especially strongly about this; my only concern is that we have had more than one editor with an apparently limited understanding of European politics accuse contributors, including myself, of trying to "cleanse" or "whitewash" the page for removing content which they believe to be negative from the infobox before. I would suggest, nevertheless, that given the current consensus, per WP:SILENCE, that someone WP:BOLD-ly make this change and see how it goes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I just changed it from German Nationalism to Nationalism, since that is the correct term in this context due to the fact that the first term has a particular meaning that does not apply here. However, I do not think this change is what users would argue about, but rather regarding the infobox points. Though it is unlikely for now that there will be a consensus on including again several more points into the infobox; the formality of the RfC close is still in question on the noticeboard though.--Joobo (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit note said "non-existing parameter". What does that even mean? The ideology parameter exists; German nationalism is the German form of nationalism. This is well sourced in the article. What exactly is the problem? Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It means that there is no such thing as party newspaper. Furthermore the reasons why "german nationalism" is wrong and why such usage of the term is a misunderstanding of the term are given here by me and others. The AfD does not want to expand German territory into f.e. Austria, Switzerland etc. That is what "german nationalism" means. Hence "Nationalism" itself is the correct term, not "German Nationalism".--Joobo (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

unsourced conventions table

the following is unsourced. moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them. Please note that to show that this content is not WP:UNDUE independent sources would be useful.

Party conventions

Party convention	Date	Location
Founding congress (statute, election of the executive committee)	14 April 2013	Berlin
1. congress (candidates list for the European parliament election 2014)	25 January 2014	Aschaffenburg
1. congress (continuation)	1 February 2014	Berlin
2. congress (election programme for the European parliament election, election of the executive committee)	22 to 23 March 2014	Erfurt
3. congress (new statute)	30 January to 1 February 2015	Bremen
extraordinary congress (election of the executive committee)	4 to 5 July 2015	Essen
4. congress (statute)	28 to 29 November 2015	Hannover
5. congress (party programme)	30 April to 1 May 2016	Stuttgart
6. congress (election of the top candidates and programme for the German federal election 2017)	22 to 23 April 2017	Cologne

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)