Jump to content

Talk:Alternative for Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hayek79 (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 9 March 2017 (→?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, I have temporarily removed the link to the 'Anti-Islam' disambiguation page because I feel like linking to a disambiguated article page is pointless and vague. However, moving forward, should we leave the phrase without a link like it is now? Or should we link it to one of the individual article pages that were on the disambiguation page? If so, it would appear that Alternative for Germany's platform and policies coincides closest to 'Islamophobia,' which is defined as "prejudice against, hatred, or bigotry towards the religion of Islam and Muslims" but that particular phrase is rather controversial in and of itself and I don't want to make that change without some level of consensus from other Wikipedians first. Kamalthebest (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Islamophobia' could be defined as fear of the prejudice, hatred and bigotry exhibited by Islam and Muslims toward non-muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.19 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not usually how that term is used. I believe you are referring to 'Criticism of Islamism,' which is different. It appears someone has disambiguated anyway using the terms I suggested, so I guess it was appropriate anyway. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is one thing to criticize Islamism and quite another to advocate for saying nasty things about, and advocating taking nasty action, with respect to people from countries that are predominantly muslim or who are muslim. No. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the point I was making. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

This shouldn't be a disputed label, unlike the below. Mélencron (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mélencron: Those are probably better references than the three up there at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is "too long" discussed in any guideline or policy about infobox fields? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Acather96: Invitation to comment. Hayek79 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

?

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)[reply]

The thread right above yours? Mélencron (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you need to justify your complete removal of that sourced content. What is your justification? Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion piece. Mélencron (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for pete's sake. restoring with a small pile of sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added one source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
The material is sourced. That you don't like it is immaterial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would you like to defend their inclusion? Hayek79 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 be an exhaustive list of every minor faction within the party. The guidelines state: "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. It is also not consistent with the following. Hayek79 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_for_Germany&oldid=769472447"