Talk:Alternative for Germany

Leftist biased

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

I agree. The article is not written from a neutral perspective and rather from someone who prefers to hurt this party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.82.38 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Colbert). Should you have something more concrete to criticise, feel free to provide some reliable sources in support of your claim. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ✦ _hugarheimur 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I raise in support of this issue. Left-wind liberals are all over AfD across multiple-language versions of party's articles. The Russian version just resolved an issue with a "Racist" tag and there are still talks of putting more stress on xenophobia and anti-Islam movement. I urge support of Wiki administration for the neutrality. Wikipedia is not a field of political battle and not the left-wing administred resource. By writing and editing biased posts on German politics authors are doing one thing and one thing only - mocking Germany in the face of the world community! 94.25.169.65 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Wolf3319

“Ultranationalism” in ideology section

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

So you want to whitewash that description, or at the least move that ideology out of the ideology section... because a source that describes them as such, a top of the line source i might add, is biased in your view? This is a far-right extremist party with strong ultranationalist overtones and dogwhistles. Are there any proper sources that actually dispute the description of ultranationalism? 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Here would be another source calling them ultranationalist. This time in The Sunday Times, hardly a liberal paper. And i have seen more as well, but this at least fits your criteria, ie a reliable source that is not leaning to the left but right. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Times article actually calls them ultranationalist in the very first paragraph, still in the free bit. And again, this is realiably sourced content, now to two different outlets with differing political views. Yet still you want to exclude it or move it to a less prominent position. How do you justify that policy wise? 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)