Talk:Alternative for Germany

Leftist biased

Empty criticism by anonymous users.

This article fails Wikipedia Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Sources which make claims of racism or Nazism are of questionable reliability at best. 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) 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 That is entirely correct. Alekaa20025 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed remarks having no proposal to improve the article per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert edit by Volunteer Marek

I want to ask why my edit on this page was reverted by one "volunteer Marek", as I believe he did not have any justification to do so and I was infact in the right to fix the bias and the slander against the AFD party which has been deliberately protrayed in a way that seems to defame the AFD and push a certain political agenda. Something which should be unacceptable on a supposedly objective and neutral site such as Wikipedia. I additionally gave my reasons for the edit and yet it appears as if he didn't even read them as he gave no reason for the reverting of my edit on the site. I was making the page neutral, unbiased, and objective. It seems to me this "Volunteer Marek" seems to want to political bias, and unfair, subjective portrayal of political parties. I would do well to add that part of my edit was taken directly from the page for the party "Die Linke". There it is stated that "while some journalists claim the party is far left the German government does not consider it extremist, or a threat to democracy". That was given as a reason for why the party is not far left, and that was approved my these moderators! Now while I directly use that same statement for why the AFD is motto be considered "far-right" my edit is immediately removed. If that isn't the definition of hypocrisy, bias, and subjective portrayal I truly do not know what is!!! Alekaa20025 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if you try to whitewash an article, that is what happens. You get reverted. Removing content based on the NY Times, CNBC and Al Jazeera, for example, clearly is a no go. And i did not even look at all the content that was removed, surely lots more reliably sourced content. A variety of reliable sources support the claims made. That you find sources to be biased is totally irrelevant in the end, if they are deemed reliable by Wikipedia editors. What happens on other pages is of no concern to this one either, bring it up there and talk about it. And finally, please stop pretending to be unbiased or claiming to make something more neutral, and so on, when it is based purely on your own opinion of something. On Wikipedia, it is less that we talk and decide content, but reliable sources and due weight of those sources do. But anyway, you could try to find some high quality sources that make the explicit claim that the AfD is not far-right or has no connection to far-right politics at all. Have a good day anyway. 80.138.65.122 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh it is very important as it shows that there different standards for different parties. I have no idea why you would claim I am "whitewashing" the article. That term has no relevance in this situation. So using it seems very strange. Additionally how exactly can you claim that the NY Times, and such others are good source material when

1. They are essentially opinion pieces inside news articles known for their left wing bias. How is removing biased subjective articles a "no go zone"? I may as well go and take out a source from Breitbart and according to your logic it should have the same amount of reliability. But see I won't do that because I actually care about sourcing neutral unbiased information unlike you.

Also are you admitting that you did not even look at the content that was removed? I am sorry but then how are you in any way qualified to tell me that my edit was unjustified?

To be socially right wing means to accept socially right wing policies such as a reduction in immigration, Christianity, and traditional moral values. Being socially "far right" means to establish a totalitarian state where opposition is not allowed, and where foreigners are forcefully kicked out. Or worse. Nazi Germany is considered far right. So why are you equating a democratic right wing party with a totalitarian regime. It simply doesn't seem fair and is a blatant attack on the AFD. But you are of course free to to explain to me in what world is the AFD politically the same as Nazi Germany. Until you do I am going to assume that the reverted edit was made on a politically biased and subjective nature.

Also my beliefs are irrelevant. Even if I was a fascist or an anarchist I wouldn't insert my views into a Wikipedia article so they mislead thousands of people and give them subjective information like yours are obviously willing to do. Alekaa20025 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... It is not up to you to define what right wing or far-right wing means. You have obviously not read RS OR NPOV or Verifiability. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, that you think they are biased is of no relevance. And there is no point in me explaining my personal position because it has no bearing whatsoever on deciding content anywhere on Wikipedia about any subject, be it benign or contentious. I told you the only way to change the content of this, and any other article, is through reliable sources. You just do not get to remove parts of articles because you do not like them or personally disagree with them. That is not how Wikipedia works. By the way, Breitbart is not a reliable source, per consensus of Wikipedia editors. You can read the RS board archives if you care about why. And you know i did not say i did not look at the removed content. I said i stopped looking for more once i realised what you were doing is not in line with policy. Otherwise, sticks and stones you know. Policy is not on your side so go ahead and call me things for following policy. Only makes me chuckle, so cheers for that at least :) Now i will say this again, the ONLY way to change this article is for you to cite reliable sources on this talk page (so give RS a read so you don't waste anyones time, especially your own). But anyway, unless you read and follow the policies i linked it seems your way is not compatible with the Wikipedia way, may i suggest Conservapedia as an alternative which may be more to your liking? 2003:D6:270E:8398:8192:3FA:5A40:1ADD (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, i did not question your beliefs, nor do i care about them one way or the other. I asked you to stop pretending to be unbiased and to stop claiming to make things more 'neutral' when it relies entirely on your opinion instead of on RS. 2003:D6:270E:8398:7D9F:A2BC:B7D6:4AFB (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't it up to me when everyone else on this website seems to be doing it? Who is it up to define what is right or left wing? CNBC? The NY Times? That seems very convenient considering they have an obvious left wing bias. Yet Breitbart isn't considered a reliable source. Now you you are not incorrect but also hypocritical in your position. To you the only articles that have some credibility are those that share your obviously left wing opinions.

As for the RS I have read them though still fail to see how you consider opinion pieces as objective content. You have not only failed to answer every single query that I have had for you but you also throw meaningless statements my way.

You tell me to read the RS board... Ah of course right away sir! I will get to reading all 286 archived lists and I'll get back to you. Either show me exactly what you want me to read or don't show me anything at all.

The RS itself states;

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Now please go ahead and explain to me how the New York Times expresses a neutral opinion in the sources which were reinstated because I've looked them over several times and I'm afraid I cannot find anything that isn't subjective opinion and it certainly shouldn't be used as a source on a Wikipedia page.

You have yet to proove that I am biased on the matter. You accused me of "whitewashing" the article yet you are asking me to admit that my edit was biased. That's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Especially if you haven't even read my edit. Well you always can since it's in the edit history, so what I would suggest you do before you reply again is read my edit and tell me what exactly is unbiased about it and what in the RS clearly backs your case to not allow my edit on the article.

I vehemently maintain my position that all I did was remove biased or otherwise irrelevant content with sources which shouldn't be there in the first place. I edited in a strictly neutral and unbiased manner in order to better inform the wider public. Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not only incorrect* Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I thank youf or the suggestion to turn to conservapedia, however I feel I must once again stress that my goal isn't to make opinion pieces but rather to create factual and neutral information and remove that which obviously has a political bias one way or another. Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a lot of text which says very little about improving the article. Breitbart is not reliable because it has a strongly negative reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and has a clear record of publishing falsehoods or overt distortions, almost always for political ends. This summarized at WP:RSP, among other places. Noticeboards mostly have search bars for their archives, and don't be too surprised if people are not eager to re-explain something like this for the millionth time.

Regardless of your vehement statements of being neutral, CNBC and the NYT do not have the same problems with their reputations. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alekaa, what you did is remove sourced content. Content you disagree with on a personal level. Sourced content you removed without any policy basis or sources of your own that support your position. That is not good enough when it comes to Wikipedia. I am not sure what else to tell you. You have your opinion of how content should be dealt with on Wiki but... that is just your singular opinion. And despite disagreeing, you have two options. One is, you work within the structure despite disagreeing with it or two, you do not and will continue to be reverted and be eventualy be blocked from editing entirely. Which is most emphatically not a threat but the inevitable outcome.

Anyway, you quote the part of RS which talks about "making sure that all majority and significant minority views" are shown. How is that in any way compatible with what you did? As just one example, even if it were a minority view that he AfD is far-right, which in itself is arguable, it is a notable view and held by many sources, yet you removed it. How does that go together? Also, you make the claim of opinion being used, can you link to the pieces please? Keep in mind that just because you disagree with the reporting does not make anything opinion. Opinion pieces usually are specifically marked, for good reason, by the publications themselves after all. Also keep in mind that the sources you see in any given article are usually far from an exhaustive list. Say, the description as far-right in the lede has 12 sources (which almost is an insane amount for a claim anywhere on Wikipedia), but the list would not end there. It would go on and on. Same for some of the other things you removed. They may have only had one or two sources attached to them, yet there are an abundance of more RS that also make the claim. Not every claim needs 12 sources or that list would be thrice as long as any article. Which of course is not desirable from a usability standpoint alone.

And once again, i did not ask you to admit to any bias, i asked you to stop pretending to be unbiased. And i am sorry if this still is not good enough for you but i tried to explain, perhaps more than i should have. Does not look like you take anything on board at all. Despite that...the next time you use this talk page, please make actual suggestions to change specific things in the article, offer sources to talk about specific changes or the like. Enough of the 'everyone is biased but me' thing, not what this talk page is for. The rules have been explained, the expectations have been explained, please act accordingly. 2003:D6:270E:839E:4578:6BFB:E0B8:949D (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

References to Nazism scrubbed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there multiple references to how AfD members had made comments sympathetic to the Third Reich in this article? They appear to have disappeared.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ideology section

Just a small thing here - shouldn't it be mentioned in the "ideology" part of the infobox that the party is neo-Nazi? That is a well-known fact, as these links may tell. The article also mentions the same - adding that fact under "Ideology" will make the article more uniform. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)