Talk:Alternative for Germany

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)

Its not Nazi propaganda. Zyxrq (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Ideology section - violation?

Out of curiosity, why is there a right-wing to far-right label, when there was consensus on the far-right only label back in 2021? What changed since then? The discussion can be found here: Talk:Alternative for Germany/Archive 6#Political Orientation of AFD 2A02:587:4C1B:AF00:65AD:32C1:CED:1CF2 (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

IMHO the biggest issue in this section (and the article in general) is over-reliance on mass media do the detriment of peer-reviewed research works. Especially this reliance on media (and WP:primary sources) is noticeable towards the end of the section. This is really not needed, as AfD is important enough to attract attention of researchers. In my experience, researchers tend to be way more careful with words than journalists. Therefore, when researchers say "far-right", they at least explain why is it so, eliminating the need for discussions on this talk page or at least shortening them. My suggestion is therefore to (gradually) replace sources here with research works first. Викидим (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added a book on extremism by Eckhard and Mannewitz, where a full chapter is dedicated to the AfD. As expected, they have a very detailed introduction that can be useful to describe the evolution of the ideology, and explain (in section "Provokationen") why other parties and the media vie AfD as extremist. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not my personal view (actually, I think differently here, but I am no expert), but a (very recent) view of two very respected experts in the field of extremism, who live in Germany, speak the language, and understand the culture. The book is in German, but then Google Translate is our friend. Викидим (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Surely, academics and researchers use words more carefully, but the media are more responsive to ideological shifts. Nonetheless, in mu view, expressions like "far-right" and "far-left" should be used parsimoniously and especially for extreme, anti-democratic and/or fringe parties. If "far-right" and "far-left" are used too often, their meanings are blurred. Like a painter has several colours in his/her palette, we also should use all the positions of the political spectrum. --Checco (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That argument is fundamentally flawed. Although some far-right groups reject the label and claim to be centrist (as in the cases of Lega and National Rally), that does not negate @Викидим's point. Academics have comprehensively documented AfD’s political orientation and support the far-right classification. Certain mass media outlets and poor journalism often fail to clarify this position and instead introduce terms like ‘hard-right,’ which lacks recognition in political science. Ample scholarly evidence reinforces the far-right label. Should we follow the community’s previous consensus and update the political designation? The decision was explicit: ‘far-right’ was chosen, and ‘right-wing to far-right’ was dismissed. I present a number of fully peer-reviewed papers that refer to AfD as far-right. The amount of those articles outpaces any other labels used by obscure scholars or unreliable journals. In my humble view, the article must accurately reflect the party’s true nature. Even the National Rally refused to collaborate with them, and Patriots for Europe declined to include them due to their extremism. Meanwhile, random edits by anonymous users, denying the party’s antisemitic stance, demonstrate ideological and politically driven attempts to distort its established character on Wikipedia.

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=542943

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3328529.3328562

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.12859

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644008.2014.982546?casa_token=wp5GCw-3wJcAAAAA:4NE1WlnSjeRgxzc5D5-ohMJdNr81d4forSVYI9vy6wTdo5oAt3Y0nbxuokl9kgXpYDOikwdHhocGPg

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003120049-11/far-right-parties-divisions-movement-party-strategy-man%C3%A8s-weisskircher

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/gps/39/1/gps390104.xml?ArticleBodyColorStyles=contentSummary-4283&utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=German_Politics_and_Society_TrendMD_1

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/181255/1/dice-report-2017-4-50000000000855.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268021000999?casa_token=GjW6HH-k-RcAAAAA:6kEt8bsejLeDuHu34Z8rg4h8ion8p_eXAAneanUJSXF7W57XaCljGlSCYlbvVThMG00uicR_8SI

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/25785648.2022.2069337?casa_token=hIYRDUqT9BsAAAAA:-MYyISeDymaWRz7BVM6E4Mgb5M4VCjJY4WiZ59yXFAuxFIVYK3i-eczizKalieJ-LnWW0-O3Y0UtmQ

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379418305158?casa_token=kEf4uqH-BfsAAAAA:QvQsZA-dihtFM_kOzyzITrpTucBYPyCradidv5X5QZAla85evMaiEjzZmKhp23XU8OrVhSpx3eI 2A02:587:4C1B:AF00:D0B1:D93A:4622:5FA3 (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Will the community acknowledge the consensus established in 2021, as shown in the referenced discussion, and classify the AfD's ideology as far-right—the only accurate label for a neo-Nazi party designated as an extremist entity in German politics? I discovered the edit made by Doc2129. There is no consensus for this change, it has not been agreed upon by the community, and it must be reverted immediately. 2A02:587:4C1B:AF00:D0B1:D93A:4622:5FA3 (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They doubled down here. Can anyone revert it please? 2A02:587:4C1B:AF00:D0B1:D93A:4622:5FA3 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Aficionado538 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfD is not a Nazi party, but yes the far-right orientation is appropriate because of its inherent radicle nature. Zyxrq (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a "radical right" label for the "radical nature". But ...

"Far right" in the past was typically used to designate a party with its own German: Sturmabteilung, which is a very different thing from the AfD IMHO. However, we live in a world where label "far-right" is applied liberally to a great variety of parties and movements with little in common between them, except for "a strained relationship with liberal constitutionalism" and a goal to "hollow out ... liberal content [of democracy]" (Pirro, Andrea L P (2023). "Far right: The significance of an umbrella concept". Nations and Nationalism. 29 (1): 101–112. doi:10.1111/nana.12860. ISSN 1354-5078. Retrieved 2025-01-18.). Since "liberal content" is in the eye of the beholder, any right party refusing to join the post-politics party cartel will be branded "far-right" by its opponents. We are supposed to write the encyclopedia using the works like the one I have cited, and Germany due to historical reasons is a militant democracy that tends to be overzealous when it comes to the right-wing parties, so for AfD here and now there is no escape from the "far-right" label.

The change (if any) will come from academia: crying wolf one time too many might eventually normalize the "far-right" term, like it just happened with remigration, so this case is not hopeless, but will in any case take many years. Until then it makes sense to stop arguing about the "far-right" label here, IMHO. My proposal is to agree to disagree, keep the "far-right" label, and work on the content of the article. Викидим (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"beginning as a centre-right alternative"

Note "A" in the infobox states "Although beginning as a centre-right alternative to the CDU/CSU, the AfD has been considered to be part of the radical right (...)", referencing Cas Mudde (2016), "Introduction to the populist radical right". While Mudde indeed states that the AfD was originally not a radical right-wing party but moved to the radical right in 2015, he does not explicitly say that it began as a centre-right party.

Germany's Federal Agency for Civic Education stated as early as in April 2014 that the party was "labelled as right-wing populist by large sections of political science" ([1]). The AfD was never seen as a genuine centre-right party due to its openness – from the outset – to more radical currents that would have been unacceptable to the centre-right, even if the original leadership and programme were not yet far-right. For example, Björn Höcke, the most prominent representative of the extremist wing, was already involved in the founding of the party's organisation in his state in April 2013 and became chairman of the state organisation as early as in August 2013. Someone like him would never have been given a leading position in an actual centre-right party.

I propose to stick more closely to what Mudde writes in the reference and change the wording of the note to: The AfD was not a radical right-wing party in its early phase, but moved to the populist radical right in 2015 with the replacement of its first leadership. RJFF (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not far-right

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.

---

The party defines itself as a conservative libertarian party and thay it's false to say they are far right. 97.119.160.19 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2025 (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.

Edit Request

• What I think should be changed: Add the {{Failed verification}} tag after the last sentence in the "Antisemitism" section. The sentence currently reads: The AfD supports a ban on kosher slaughter within the country, as well as the "import and sale of kosher meat".
• Why it should be changed: The cited reference does not say anything whatsoever about AfD party positions. It only discusses what a small subset of Jewish party members think might be politically acceptable positions for Jews generally. It states for example, that banning kosher slaughter may be acceptable but banning kosher imports would not be.
• References supporting the possible change: Just read the existing reference. It doesn't say what is claimed in the article at all.

136.60.47.149 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The second paragraph of the source says "The AfD party’s platform has long included support for a ban on kosher slaughter in Germany, as well as the import and sale of kosher meat...". LizardJr8 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Nachdenkseiten

DE EN translation This looks interesting, though IDK what kind of site Nachdenkseiten is. From intro:

... if you look at the AfD's program, you quickly see that the supposed workers' party is neoliberal to the core and pursues a tax policy that would give the rich and super-rich billions and billions. Given all the other political overlaps, it's no surprise that front woman Alice Weidel gets on so well with the richest man in the world . The AfD is like a cuckoo's egg that was laid in the nest of its voters. Image and reality are diametrically opposed.

2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:512B (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a well-written article that strongly argues that AfD is not a party fighting for the workers' rights. Our own article does not say the opposite (and it is kind of obvious anyhow), so nothing needs to be changed in out text, IMHO. (offtopic to explain my remark) Experts on populism think that people unhappy with the status quo, regardless of their background and long-term interests, vote for AfD because there is no alternative in the mainstream German politics: if one does not like any major decision of Merkel era, like open-borders policy, there is no way to go but vote for the extremists. Викидим (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk

I'm surprised the article so far has no mention of Elon Musk and his recent activities, despite receiving a lot of media attention in the past month. Would this be worth being worked in, e.g. with a section under Public profile? Mystic Cornball (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It is mentioned on Musk's page but has it become notable enough to be added here? RickGonja (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Not every bit of gossip and scuttlebutt is worth inclusion in encyclopedia articles. We're not a newspaper. Remsense ‥ 论 04:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's absolutely not gossip. German coverage of the 2025 election in the past month has focused a ton on Musk, including comments by several party leaders and across a ton of reliable sources. Some quick examples, all of which received coverage across pretty much all notable German media:

- his enduring support on X, which was followed by several leading politicians commenting on it, e.g. Christian Lindner and Olaf Scholz, as well as investigations by the EU following their livestream (see eg here)

- Die Welt op-ed, which was widely criticized as potential foreign election inference (see eg here)

- his recent appearance on an official AfD campaign event (see eg here)

All of these incidences have received wide and enduring coverage. There also have been more general analyses on Musk's recent support, e.g. here and here, as well as recent comments by Olaf Scholz.

I don't think every single one of these incidences is worth its own section, but not mentioning Musk at all when he has been pretty much dominating this election cycle's coverage because of his support (that is, until yesterday's events) seems inadequate. A good comparison is probably Reform UK, which Musk also recently commented on and which is included in the article. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't care what is included in other articles, cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT. What matters is we are not a newspaper. If a substantive synthesis can be added, that's fine as long as the aforementioned policy is being kept in mind. Remsense ‥ 论 23:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And again: I'm not talking about including a throughout history of every single thing Musk said, I'm talking about mentioning his support at all, which has been dominating their public campaigning for the 2025 federal election. I brought up Reform UK because I'm not sure you understand this isn't just gossip, considering a potential language barrier, though even in international media this has received a lot of attention at this point. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page, I just wanted to explicate the relevant policy. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I indeed didn't see your edit before my comment. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

The IP is using a confrontational tone and is not being helpful by not offering a source, but their suggestion is broadly true. Reuters [2] "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)

Extremely biased - extremely obvious

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Far right stink label?

Well if the cap fits Jaybainshetland (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)