Talk:Alternative for Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

völkisch not Volk[edit]

The phrase "For example, Petry, who led the moderate wing of the party, said that Germany should reclaim the German word "Volk" from its Nazi connotations" seems to be misleading and put out of context. The context was that she wanted to defend the use of the term "völkisch" from its Nazi and Weimar reactionary connotations, a term coined by naturalists around 1880 originally meaning democratic rule in times of monarchy which later became a slogan for the far right related to an ethnic community watching its purity. The term Volk (people, demos) does not have any "Nazi connotations" as is found in the constitution and political writings of the whole spectrum. The term "völkisch", however, is usually exclusively used to describe various historical racist and antisemitic movements prior to 1945 (with the haydays in early Weimar) and certain post war rightwing movements like the Ludendorffer religion. Petry suggested that "völkisch" was just an adjective of Volk, sort of "folksy" or "popular". As the AfD party ideology was criticized/smeared as "völkisch" by political opponents and media observers she simply embraced the term. The phrase as it stands in the article is false as "Volk" is not a controversial term. "Völkisch" is. And Petry's suggestion reclaiming "völkish" as a normal word, that roughly translates into a call to reclaim the swastica as a far eastern peace symbol. --Froschmaterial (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The context is clear. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Froschmaterial is correct here. Petry was talking about reclaiming the word "völkisch," which has very different connotations than the word "Volk." Here, for example, is an article from Die Welt discussing this incident: Petry will den Begriff „völkisch“ positiv besetzen. The article should say "völkisch," not "Volk," because there's a big difference, and she was talking about the word "völkisch." -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No links to Neo-Nazism[edit]

Germany has one political party giving home to such an ideology, its called NPD. The party itself looks to be pretty clear here: You cannot join the AfD if you have been a former member of the NPD nor the right-wing extremist DVU. An incompatibility list is including a larger number of neo-nazi groups.

Newsweek can hardly be described as a credible, objective source here and the Haaretz article, a left-wing newspaper, is quoting the former foreign secretary Mr. Gabriel speaking tough on the campaign trial trying to demonzine one political opponent. The AfD is basically a patriotic party with free market liberal economic policies. Please delete this statement in the opening part of the article. (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The cited sources do not provide evidence for the idea that the party is neo-nazi or has neo-nazi ties. I will be deleting that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on independent, secondary sources, not on what article subjects say about themselves. Newsweek is a fine source for the statement. You can test that at WP:RSN if you want. This has also been discussed to death here - this talk page has archives linked in the beige box above - please see discussions there. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The article from Newsweek simply calls it a neo-nazi party with no supporting evidence. The problem is not that the article is from Newseek, but that the article does not provide any evidence for the idea that it is a neo-nazi party, it is simply claimed in the headline. The article for that matter does not make the claim that it has ties to the neo-nazi movement, but that it is a neo-nazi party. If the Newsweek article is used as source, the party should be described as a neo-nazi party, not as a party with ties to the neo-nazi movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you can see it but Newsweek isn't the only cited source. what you are doing on this article and on Median income at this point is vandalising the page (repeated removal of cited content against consensus that is sourced) and edit-warring from a POV that is unsupported by sources. That's not allowed on WP. R9tgokunks 19:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC

You're good at moving the goalposts i see. The Newsweek article does not claim that the party has ties to the neo-nazi movement, but that it is a neo-nazi party. The Haaretz article does not make the claim that it is a neo-nazi party or has ties to neo-nazism. It quotes a politician as making that claim, but does not actually endorse that claim. Thus, neither of the two cited sources provide any evidence for the statement that it has ties to the neo-nazi movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they both do. Read the articles. R9tgokunks 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I did read the articles and explained why they do not provide support for that assertion, while you explain none of your reasoning and make the extremely arrogant claim that i have not read the articles. As for the talk page you cite, it consists exclusively of people repeating "the statement is supported by the sources" despite the fact that neither of the two articles provide evidence for the claim. The only people actually bothering to provide any reasoning for their stance is people who support removing or altering the section. Are you aware of how this kind of stuff makes wikipedia look to people who are not a part of the political cult that you seem to be a part of, or are you so lacking in self awareness that you cannot see this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)