Talk:Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance

Colors

There is no "customary" color. The party is not even really established. GDNGHT (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not even a political party. I fixed that. Willi P (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The INSA poll from the 23rd uses a shade of dark purple (#7A2350) in the visual representations I could find 1 2. When having to decide for a customary colour (as in infobox style) I believe that it should be used until a better/different alternative is brought up. Frijfuhs (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

BSW political stand is not "Far-left". Most scientific fellows see Sahra Wagenknecht psoitions as Querfront - mixing far-right positons with left fragments and rhethoric. I am looking for sources. --TotalInformation (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

She (as in Wagenknecht personally, not BSW as a whole) has been described as Querfront and a National Bolshevik, yes, however only ever by the media, never by actual and serious political science. If you can find any sources that say the contrary, please do share. Frijfuhs (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We need to talk about the ideology section

There is absolutely no evidence that the new party is even remotely socially conservative. While it‘s true that Wagenknecht has often argued against perceived „political correctness“ and "wokeism", at the same time she has in the past strongly supported liberal issues such as LGBTQ rights, euthanasia and cannabis legalization.

At the same time, there is no doubt at all that Wagenknecht and her colleagues are pro-Russian. Wagenknecht has distanced herself from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but at the same time she repeatedly uses Russian narratives in talk shows, such as that the expansion of NATO is the cause of the war of aggression. Their demands are also very much in Russia's favor: no more arms deliveries, no more sanctions, but Ukraine should cede large parts of its territory to Russia. To claim that there is no "proof" here is ridiculous. 2001:638:504:D818:0:0:0:3C (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No mention of social conservatism anymore so presumably that was earlier on. At the moment my issue is with "soft euroscepticism". I can find one Springer article from the summer describing Wagenknecht herself as a Eurosceptic but I can't find anything from the media describing her party as such. Citations should be added or it should be removed and the party simply described as "left-wing populist" in the meantime, but with some information about Wagenknecht's beliefs. Horarum (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Should ‘anti-immigration’ not be included in the ideology section? Since this position is the sole reason the party was created? To counter AfD?

https://www.ft.com/content/b18d8fee-b622-4e09-8865-4b200a62436c Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Anti-immigration is a policy position, not an ideology. (The ideology section in the Infobox should just list “left wing populism” or just “populism”, really.)— Autospark (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it’s such a principal and definitive issue in European politics, I’d argue it should be included, although you make a good point. Here some other political pages that include it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_People%27s_Party

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom

If you feel confident in your judgement that it’s a political position, maybe edit these, and add a talk topic, so there’s a consensus and so Wikipedia is consistent. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter? There's already too many en.wiki articles about political parties which list half-dozen of more ideologies in the Infobox when one or two listed would suffice (and ideally two should be the mandated maximum limit, except in rare cases). Anti-immigration is a policy position that is an expression of an underlying ideology (populism in this case, or even left-wing ideologies – historically left-wing/socialist parties weren't exactly favourable to migration for protectionist reasons).-- Autospark (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

By this logic, anti-NATO is a policy position, not an ideology, and shouldn’t be included under Ideology Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have another section in the info box that has ‘key/defining positions’? As this would serve best for people who want a cursory understanding of a political party, the ideology section seems too broad. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Frijfuhs (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case anti-nato is an ideology. it goes far byond just a positioning Norschweden (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Political position

this party is (I believe) far-left because the leader has had communist associations in the past. HoopaRoopa (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wagenknecht is clearly trying to cast a very broad net with this party, all statements in regards to its policy so far indicate a move to the right. I also did not simply replace "Far-left" with "Centre-left", I replaced it with "Centre-left to Far-left" because I think its fair to say that the association has so far positioned itself somewhere between the SPD and the Linke. Msrainynight (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree with msrainy given wagenknecht's press conference, & also want to point out that this justification is absurd. you might as well label the SPD as far-left because Scholz used to be a Marxist. SoylentRichard (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, I propose using "Syncretic". Though the current arrangement of "Left-wing to Far-left" also works. Msrainynight (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, syncretic would be the most fitting word 84.255.35.135 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree because no sources say this HoopaRoopa (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Sources so far are describing as "left-wing" or "far-left".

"Far-left" is testified to by Bloomberg, DW, the World Politics Review, while Yahoo and the New York Times describe as left-wing. I cannot find any sources describing her party as "syncretic". Horarum (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

i'm sorry I think what we need to add two sections, the ideology of the party socially is the the centre to centre right whilst economically it is on the left wing BoxVulture (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Syncretic" is an absolut good term for Wagenknecht. I gues, US media is impressed by Wagenknechts personal history as spokesperson of the "communist plattform". But that dates back years and has nothing to do with her recent positions. Wagenknecht is basicly syncretic populistic: "tax the rich" is working the same way like "stop uncontrolled immigration". So there is no clear political philosophy, more capture fearful social groups with catchphrases.

For the phanomen SW, there are some scientific sources in German, I will consultat. let´s do it here and not in the articel. --TotalInformation (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Syncretic could work as her fiscal policies lean left, while cultural are more right. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Until reputable sources describe the BSW as "syncretic", it should not be included. Horarum (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@FellowMellow I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning you have for the political position. You cited Christian Union (Netherlands) as an example, but this is a centrist Christian party that is not similar to BSW at all. The

"You can only define it left-wing if all policies fit in." - I again feel like this does not work. What do they have to fit in? Why is the Communist Party of Greece listed as far-left and not "culturally conservative", given their positions of LGBT and drugs? Will you deny a party a left-wing label if they oppose abortion for example? Is leftism when abortion? Is leftism when pro-immigration?

I do have a source where a political scientist speaking for ZDF cautions against calling the party right-wing: "I would be a bit cautious about that, because it is of course a clearly left-wing project, Wagenknecht is politician with a left-wing profile, even within the Left Party. This is certainly not a politician who represents a right-wing position."

I strongly disagree with your reasoning and I would request either a vote on that or maybe even Arbitration Committee. You seem to be going down the route of making leftism very narrow and rightism very broad, and you argue that a party cannot be "fully left-wing" unless they have liberal social policies. Would you be arguing the same thing for the aforementioned Communist Party of Greece? Or Nasserism? Or Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland? BSW is left-wing because it is described as such by source such as Deutsche Welle. Brat Forelli (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I’m not comparing the political positions of CU and BSW. I think you got that confused. I was giving you an example of the same idea, meaning the format. You can go ahead and quote me because it really does as you say " cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning you have" (in my usage) understand how a fiscal left-wing party becomes a left-wing party in its entirety. Literally in the political position section in the article, it’s written there that it has right-wing positions, yet you don’t wanna really acknowledge that there. Also, we’re talking about a party’s platform, not a person in general. It’s really funny that you bring up, Deutsche Welle because they actually said that the party is left economically and right-wing culturally (immigration/gender identity, not a simple left-wing party. The Left is described as a left-wing party, but have described BSW completely differently. (take a look here.) [1]

The KKE is far-left, as that is the position of communism. Sure they could add social conservatism, but they don’t, yet the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has that. There’s also nothing to do with denying a left-wing label. I strongly disagree with you there. It doesn’t make sense why you would believe a party would only be one position or the other. That it has to be strictly one or the other. Please show me a policy where that has to be the case.

Also you’re not really getting the right idea about the narrowing and broadening part. None of that is happening. To be more specific to what I meant is, I don’t really think it’s wise for you to suggest we completely ignore one part of the position of the party, and just focus about the other part. I don’t think it’s right to call the party “right wing” because it’s not, but you the positions it takes leans that way. BSW has also been described as far left. Why has that been omitted? Is that a rejection of the far-left label? Also take a look at the AfD, they are known for not taking left-wing positions because everything leans towards the right (socially/fiscally), so they have one position.

So I strongly disagree with your reasoning, but I do agree on one thing, that I would request either a vote on that or maybe even Arbitration Committee, if that’s how you want to it taken care of. - FellowMellow (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response!

I did see this other Deutsche Welle article - but the result is that both of our views are substantiated by something, and by the same publisher no less. Looking at the article you linked me, it does say: "Many analysts have speculated that Wagenknecht's unique political position — left-wing on economic issues, but closer to the far-right on issues like immigration and gender diversity — could pose a threat to the recently surging AfD."

What do I take from this? That the party is "closer to the far-right" on some issues, specifically immigration and gender. I do not see it explicitly called "culturally right-wing", merely "closer to the far-right", and this is something that the article you listed me solved by calling the party... left-conservative. The article you just listed me.

So yes, my argument is that conservative stances on two social issues do not make a party syncretic, or culturally right-wing. I do believe that a party could be hostile towards immigration and gender identity and still be a simple left-wing party, as you put it. That is the reality of most left-wing parties in post-Soviet countries too.

You pointed out that the party was also described as far-left, and it was omitted. If you think that the party should be described as "left-wing to far-left", or at least fiscally so as per your taste, I would support you in this change. Wikipedia does have a tendency to push parties' classifications in the centre. One of the worst offenders would be the article of the Polish Socialist Party. Still waiting for a source describing it as "centre-left".

You brought up AfD - here I would have to disagree. AfD does have an incoherent economic policy and it leaned into redistribution, pro-welfare and broadly left-wing economic policies at times. After all, AfD does not need to have a clearly cut economic policy, it would even harm them by limiting their appeal. That being said, this does not make the party any less right-wing. Just like I do not understand the idea of portraying a left-wing/far-left/left-conservative party as 'culturally right-wing' just because they are "closer to the far-right" on two issues.

That is my logic, hopefully I managed to explain it in a more clear and less hostile manner.

Yes, let's see if we can get a vote up or have an arbitration committee accepted. Should I submit one or would you prefer to do that yourself? Brat Forelli (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Traditional left-wing/socialist parties were often against immigration based on protectionist reasons, and would be considered cultural conservatives by modern standards. Being statist left-wing on economics and anti-immigration is not a contradiction as such. Nowadays we are more familiar with the post New Left influenced parties which have adopted elements of cultural liberalism and tolerance of multiculturalism, but socialist and social-democratic weren't like that historically speaking.-- Autospark (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point, thank you so much! Brat Forelli (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely use Syncretic in the infobox, as has now been done. I would like to ask opinions on the stylistic display of the decision however. I have added it in the format as it used to be on the page of the NBP ([[Syncretic politics|Syncretic]]<br>'''Fiscal:''' [ideology & ref]<br>'''Social:'''[ideology & ref]). My edit has been changed now, to only display "Syncretic" in the infobox with a very vague note and references moved to the into the body. While I understand this, as it's the same that happened to the NBP article (by the same person oddly enough), I don't think this is the best solution. In my opinion, it would be best to give a good and easy overview of the political positions ascribed to the group as well as their citations without having to leave the infobox section. Just for simplicity's sake.
Which way do you prefer? I'd like to hear some perspectives before reverting and/or being content. --Frijfuhs (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No to syncretic. As I argued before, we have numerous testimonies to the party being "far-left" (Bloomberg, DW, World Politics Review) or "left-wing" (Yahoo, New York Times) but NONE for "syncretic". Keep in mind that the vast majority of articles just describe it as "left-wing" or "far-left" and only DW noted that "some analysts" described it as having "conservative social values", and even then they said they were analogous to the Dutch Socialist Party and the Greek Communist Party which are both listed as "left-wing" on here. There are no articles describing it as "syncretic" or "third position" or anything. Just left-wing, with one noting a degree of conservatism and even then, it could be argued that the "conservative" aspects of BSW (anti-immigration, climate scepticism) are not necessarily conservative positions but populist positions. Sorry, this talk of "syncretic" just seems unnecessary. Horarum (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The "conservative" description has been used more widely in other, primarily German, sources; though admittedly they aren't on the article yet as far as I saw. I understand where you've coming from, however I do think that it can be described as "syncretic" without having to have the exact word mentioned in a source as long as there are enough sources on the article claiming the (supposed) opposed positions. Though that is admittedly not the case yet so I agree to wait.

Still, if that does become the case, I remain interested in how it should be showcased stylistically. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of citations from the infobox, which has now also been done in the "ideology" section, regardless for the aforementioned reasons. I think that the citation placement and general stylistic theme of the infobox definitely needs be discussed. Frijfuhs (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think to consult German sources. I have a cursory knowledge and Google translate would help well enough, so if you can share any reputable German sources describing them as conservative that would be great! Horarum (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The taz pretty explicitly mentions syncretism, if not by name: "Her/Their program is as to be expected: in questions of economy, foreign policy, and social issues social-democratic to left-wing; on issues of immigration, climate justice and cultural issues; conservative to right-wing." (analogous translation) [2]. So does Deutschlandfunk: "[...] how much place there is for Wagenknecht's left-conservatism. [...] „economically left, culturally conservative“" [3]
The term "left-conservative" (Linkskonservativ) is used by many sources as it is a self-descriptor of Wagenknecht (see: Die Selbstgerechten). Also used as a descriptor of the party by Bernd Riexinger [4] and in several articles, example: "Wagenknecht wants to take over the political centre of society with a left-conservative party" [5].
There were two specific articles I had in mind when I wrote that, but I can't seem to find them right now. But there are definitely more than enough examples to be found. Frijfuhs (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Just for simplicity's sake" is exactly why I put that footnote. We also must not create parameters where none exists. If you want to add the fiscal and social views of a party to the infobox, which I tried to do in the past, then we must first set up an apposite parameter for it, rather than creating our own new parameters with Fiscal and Social. Besides, I agree with Horarum. Unless reliable sources explicitily describe the party as being syncretic, rather than left-wing or far-left, it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to do so, just as it is using sources that are describing Wagenknecht's views and positions rather than the BSW itself; for example, sources used to support "Democratic socialism" and "Anti-neoliberalism" did not support either and did not even include the words or something to the same effect. Personally, unless more sources come out, I would put "Left-wing" with the footnote, also noting that severals news outlets described it as far left. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, thank you for saying this, and I was quite bewildered when someone made the party "syncretic". No source ever used that wording, but what we do have is the party being called left-wing.

That being said, there are sources that call the party socialist, this is even mentioned in the "Political Positions" section. "Democratic socialism" definitely does not appear, but "socialism" does. So I think that could be included. Brat Forelli (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Davide King, do not use "syncretic" unless reliable sources explicitly use that term. I also strongly oppose splitting the "position" section into "Fiscal and Social" (almost always a case of WP:SYNTH the used by en.wiki editors.-- Autospark (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

- Wagenknecht's personal claim, that migration leads to loss of social security, if those people don't work like herself, is contrasted by her view, that she UPHOLDS believed claims that anybody should get the same by a Socialist/Egalitarian Welfare State. Not only are they for central restribution of production and goods, they want these goods for anyone, including those foreigners or refugees. So they are against any conservative social order.

- taz is only a political source for political controlled TV and for TV education (of a full spectrum). They are not a reputable source or had an importance anytime.

- The term conservative means only one thing at left-wing parties: They are "classical" or "Old" Socialists, and not Neo-Socialists and only "conservative" against Neo-Marxists. But the thing here is, that the party members are also Neo-Marxists, but the party goal is to get voters with "Old Marxism". Only at specific labour partys, who concentrate on labour and are often times Socialist on only that regard, conservative could mean "conservativism". In most parts, former parties of the centre-right like Christian parties moved to the left here and stay for the same, while some are also getting just more secular.--Hmmcevapi (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli, maybe we should list like Die Linke only "Democratic socialism" and "Left-wing populism", perhaps inverted as BSW seems to be more left-wing populist? I agree with @Autospark that we should list only main ideologies (no more than three), and cultural conservatism is more of a position or stance than proper ideology. Additionally, it could be argued that the party cannot be considered cultural conservative as a whole because, at least from the sources I read and in particular one that I remember, it is said the party is closer to the right and on two issues (immigration and gender diversity), so there may be some WP:OR/SYNTH issues going on, which must be avoided. Besides, we have already the note explaining this.
I also dislike the "Left-wing to far-left" wording (this goes for other parties, I would rather have a clear position and a note explaining this; for example, I would put "Centre-right" to describe the British Conservative Party but have a note explaining that it also has right-wing or far-right factions rather than say "Centre-right to right-wing", which does not say anything or explain this) because that is not what sources say; they do not say the party is left-wing to far-left. Some label it "left-wing", others label it "far-left", and yet others label it "left-conservative" (which seems to be closer to the centre than the far-left), so we should have the only position that sources generally agree (e.g. "left-wing"), and have the various other labels in the note.
Davide King (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, thank you for contacting me!

I do have sources that call the party socialist (Sozialismus) and left-wing populist (Linkspopulismus), and I do think these would be accurate terms for the party. If you want a broad but short list, then these two would be a way to go - I agree!

Regarding cultural conservatism, I did encounter this and I strongly disagree with this idea too - I had a discussion with a different user who insisted on classifying the party as "syncretic". His source was this,, which merely calls the party "closer to the far-right" on two social issues in total - I found this unsatisfying, not to mention that calling it syncretic would be original research at best given no source uses this term.

"Left-wing to far-left" is done to cast a broad net and accomodate both the sources that call it left-wing and that call it far-left, but I see what you mean. If you want to make it just "left-wing" then that would be fine, I am just against abominations such as "syncretic" or "fiscal: left-wing; social: right-wing". But I see that another approach to accomodating all sources would be just "left-wing" too (with a footnote).

All in all, I approve of your ideas! Thank you for sharing and I appreciate your help! Brat Forelli🦊 15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it! :-) Just a few notes about the refs though.

The first and third refs for "socialism" are actually a quote from a CDU politician saying that "anti-Americanism, proximity to Putin and socialism are completely incompatible with our stance". So I would not use them in support of socialist description but could be useful to describe that Wagenknecht is willing to govern with the CDU and in fact the first ref says the party does not want to call itself "left". The second one supports more "socialism with a right-wing code" and "right-wing socialism" than "socialism" per se.

The first ref for "left-wing populism" actually says: "And on the other hand, Wagenknecht's socio-politically rather conservative left-wing populism, her rejection of everything that she perceives as an expression of woke big-city hipsterism." So this is better used to describe Wagenknecht's views, so as to avoid any WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. It also puts it in a conservative context. The second one is also referred to Wagenknecht. Okay, one may say: "But she is the leader! The party is even named after her!" True, but to avoid any OR/SYNTH issue it is better to use sources that explicitily refer to BSW's view as BSW's view, and make it clear when sources are referring to Wagenknecht's views.

Said this, it is a useful source for a context within a comparison to the AfD. The source says: "If the party is founded, the new movement could lure away voters from the AfD. That wouldn't be a bad thing on the surface: left-wing populism à la Wagenknecht is still better than a party on the far right. That's why they're afraid of the new group there." The third ref for "left-wing populism", I cannot read it but it is labelled opinion and also seems to be more about Wagenknecht than BSW's views. The fourth ref is actually the same as the first.
Davide King (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing the cutural conservative position from the infobox is missinformation, this now looks like a regular left wing party not like the left-conservative protoparty is actually is. even wagenknecht herself referst to it by that Norschweden (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

source? 2001:8003:33CE:8200:873A:4D16:AE36:178B (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

is already in the article Norschweden (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Populism vs Left-wing populism

I added "Left-wing populism" as a descriptor based off of two articles which describe it as a populist party. @Davide King removed this because it did not call it a "left-wing populist" party specifically, but just a populist party. I think this is unnecessary as it is widely agreed upon in the media (see past discussions) that it is a left-wing party and that it is a populist party, therefore a left-wing populist party. Horarum (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, it is not a big deal to me but it would be good to have reliable sources using "left-wing populist" to describe BSW and not Wagenknecht herself. Perhaps the reason they only used "populist" is because of what we are describing above, e.g. the party syncretism and the fact it is just being established and there is no clear platform yet. You are using the same argument Jonahf used to desecribe the party's political position as syncretic, e.g. sources saying it is economically socialist and culturally conservative, ergo we can use syncretic even though that is not what the source says. Your argument in support of "Left-wing populism" makes more sense than the argument for "Syncretic" because at least in this case they have described the party, not just Wagenknecht (though I will have to check again), as left-wing, so it is not an OR/SYNTH issue as it would be for "Syncretic". Again, it would be good to have sources using "left-wing populist" to describe BSW, as it would end this. Davide King (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would have just "Left-wing populism" in the inofbox, as "Cultural conservative" and "Russophilia" are more of political stances than propoer ideologies like left-wing populism, just like "Democratic socialism", "Social democracy", "Christian democracy", and "Right-wing populism" are the main ideology of Die Linke, SPD, CDU, and AfD. Davide King (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with this and I changed it to left-wing populism, and I also found two sources that use that exact term (or rather the German term "Linkspopulismus"). I added a new paragraph to "Political positions" with these sources. Brat Forelli (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There are too similar threads here! I take this one. I agree with most of what User:Autospark and User:Davide King had to say. I would have few ideologies, basically "left-wing populism" or "populism" (but I would leave the door open for "democratic socialism"), and "left-wing" as position. One more thing: I would move the article to an English name, like "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". --Checco (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would state a preference for "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" as the article title, given that is the party name already commonly used in English-language news sources (example 1, 2, 3, 4).-- Autospark (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" is indisputably the best name for this article.--Checco (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No it's not, Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht is correct. Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance woud mean Sahra Wagenknecht Büdnis in german, but that's not how it was named Norschweden (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance is more commonly used translation (at least so far), and it makes grammatical sense in English.--Autospark (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

sahra wagenknecht alliance would be wrong, its not the alliance of wagenknecht but the alliance named after her 2A02:8108:29C0:1B4:8C85:5F40:E74:FBFB (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated mentions of "Socialism" or "Democratic Socialism"

I understand the tendency to label Wagenknecht and her new association as "Socialist" considering both her past and the work so far done by English-language journalists, but nothing so far indicates that the BSW's economic platform will be a far-left one. Wagenknecht has not only stressed the need to strengthen the middle class as of late, but she has also repeatedly denied accusations by third parties that her aim would be to establish a planned economy. Her actual inspiration is apparently the Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato and her model of the "Entrepreneurial State", a term she coined to describe US funding policy. So unless you want to label the United States "Socialist", I don't see why you would label the BSW as such. Linke politician Gregor Gysi has even gone so far as to compare its economic policies to the Ordoliberalism of Ludwig Erhard. Source for the Mazzucato stuff is an online article by the Taggesschau, Germany's biggest public news broadcast, who I believe in turn got it from her books. Rough translation:

"The fact that Wagenknecht refers to the economist Mariana Mazzucato also seems less radical. Mazzucato draws the ideal picture of an “entrepreneurial state”, i.e. an active economic policy. She is also considered to be the source of ideas for Wagenknecht's quasi-adversary: ​​the Green Economics Minister Habeck." Msrainynight (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason why the party is described socialist is because that is how political commentators and the media describe her as such. This term was used by Müncher Merkur, by Die Tageszeitung, by OstBelgien Direkt, and lastly by Das Bild.

In contrast, USA is not described as socialist by the media. We are not supposed to do original research, so it is much more sensible to just rely on what labels were used for the party instead of delving into our views on what is socialism and what it is not. Brat Forelli (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Tagesschau is a better and less biased source than any of these, both the Müncher Merkur and Bild are infamously right-wing. Msrainynight (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright I give it up with you people, there's no point trying to contribute anything constructive when the Bild is going to be used as an actual source. Idk why I even bother Msrainynight (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Bild should absolutely not be used as a reliable source, and I'm actually shocked that it isn't already considered WP:DEPS.-- Autospark (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BILD Frijfuhs (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Things to add, and to look at sources:

- Main members are precisely neo-Marxist and not only far-left. They are "conservative" towards "classical Marxist-Leninism" and are against protection of marriages but in favor of prostitution and LGBT. That's why they are left of the party "The Left", which is already far-left. And that's what the term "conservative" means here. It's conservative in East Germany in regard of the GDR.

- They are nowhere socially conservative and absolutely nowhere nationalist. They are in favor of Socialist United Nations and forced rule/mandates of a mass opon individuals and citizens. So they are not against vacination mandates or putting handicapped towards non-handicapped in public schools.

- Wagenknecht's personal claim, that migration leads to loss of social security, if those people don't work like herself, is contrasted by her view, that she UPHOLDS believed claims that anybody should get the same by a Socialist/Egalitarian Welfare State. Not only are they for central restribution of production and goods, they want these goods for anyone equally, including those foreigners or refugees, so they are against any conservative social order. And for price inflation and wage depreciation.

- The party's members are known for being intrusive towards mostly socially conservative and anti-Socialist multiculturalism or foreigners. They are anti-refugees if they come from Afghanistan, from the Balkan wars, Syria or Ukraine. Always, when those are fleeing from Moscows wars, but never against the IS. So they work as a fifth colonne of Russia to influence those.

- The party organizes such demonstrations for non-Germans, what is against the constitution! Like the recent "Pro-Hamas" demonstrations, who had a direct Russian, IS and Socialist imprint.

- While the party is pro-Soviet Russia and more national, they remain "euro-communists" and try to include also the Persian area into this Union. So that's why they claim to support Palestine, Kurds, Iranians and Turks, while being part of a Moscow-Peking-Iran-Turkey axis and their organisation.

- Party members don't care about Holodomor (an event prior to WW2 with 8 million deaths), Great Leap Forward (in China with 55 million deaths) and are in favor of a glorification of violence as their definition of darwinism. So they reject a rule of law.--Hmmcevapi (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the main reason you couldn't find any sources on that is that it's made up. Amira Mohamed Ali Has indeed (at least in the past) held opinions typical of The Left party (New Left), but projecting that on the whole party is wrong. Also wrong is to make up very obviously false and ridiculous things like you did for most of that comment. If you do end up finding proper reputable sources that say that, please share, but I would strongly doubt you could. Frijfuhs (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Article's name

What about moving the article to Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance? There are plenty of sources (see Google hits). -- Checco (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is the English language wiki so we should use the English language name. Horarum (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Full agreement with both of the above.— Autospark (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any indication the party is going to be called Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance in English. There are also thousands of results for Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht [6]. If we knew which of the two will be used officially, I would support changing the name. Until then, Oppose. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" is clearly the most common name in English-language sources. As far as Google is concerned, there are many more hits for "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" than hits for "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". --Checco (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Checco: I’m not denying that Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance is more common but, with 9,930 hits against 5,800 for Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (as of the writing of this comment), both are widely used. The party isn’t going to choose the former as its English name just because it has 1.71 times more Google hits than the latter. I think we should wait until we know what name the party is going to use in English before moving the article.

There are, for example, 98,900 hits for Alliance 90/The Greens [7], compared with 155,000 for German Greens [8] and 138,000 for German Green Party [9], but in Wikipedia the last two redirect to the first one. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That party, by the way, translates Bündnis 90 as Alliance 90, not 90 Alliance. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree, until there is a official translation this is a Oppose. Frijfuhs (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly oppose 'Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance' it's simply wrong translation Norschweden (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

How can a literal translation be wrong? --Checco (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not really a literal translation though. It changes the word order. And I would argue that there is in fact something of a difference in meaning, albeit perhaps a somewhat subtle one....IMO "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" emphasizes the "Sahra Wagenknecht" part more, whereas "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht" emphasizes the "Alliance" part more, which was clearly their intention - hence the word order in German.

From statements Sahra Wagenknecht has made, it's clear that the presence of her name in the party's name is only intended to be temporary - for a transition period until the new party becomes more well known - as she has long had widespread name recognition in Germany, so that's supposed to help give the new party momentum. -2003:CA:8717:D2F8:6E9D:ADFB:58D1:54F8 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a statement in which Wagenknecht says that the name is to be temporary? Brat Forelli🦊 17:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: It’s pretty clearly stated in the FAQ of the party’s website: “However, the party does not consist only of Sahra and should be renamed as soon as it has established itself.” [10] Brainiac242 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Brainiac, thank you so much for your response! This makes this matter clear and I would support renaming the article in this case. Brat Forelli🦊 19:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If the party is to be re-named soon, it is reasonable to keep the current article's name, otherwise I still think that it would be better to move it to "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" or, btw, "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". The is no reason to have a German name, especially when the translation is so simple. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Green politics and position

The lead says the party is "sceptical" of green politics, yet the "Political positions" says they oppose green politics; so, which is it? These are not the same thing; opposition is more extreme than scepticism. I can't find a source that explicitly says either one, so in your response please provide a reliable source we can use on the page. Also, is it really fair if the party opposes green politics to that the party is only socially on the political right? If the party claims to be on the left, then opposing green politics would not be consistent with that, and green politics is not a social issue. Therefore, does the party not divert from the left on more than simply social issues and should this not be more clearly highlighted? Helper201 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello there!

I am not sure if I understand your message here - you wrote "If the party claims to be on the left, then opposing green politics would not be consistent with that." While green politics is overwhelmingly on the left, it is a part of a greater left-wing spectrum and not the defining part of it. Not all leftists are green or really base their identity on that. Unfortunately many leftists also oppose some green policies such as restricting the usage of cars or veganism (well, sadly the majority of leftists are not even vegan as of now).

German journalist Ralph Ghadban for example wrote this:

"There is no real left anymore. The New Left is all about gender and climate, which are issues that the working class doesn't care about," says Ghadban. He himself is an "old 68er", as he says. "The left used to stand for social issues, for the redistribution of wealth." Parties like the SPD and the Greens have completely lost sight of this, he says, and the major parties are basically a uniform mishmash.

As for BSW, it does appear that the party does not take a clear stance on green politics, and the best I could find is this, which is quite vague in itself:

"Wagenknecht plans to "defend individual freedom and reject this new left-green authoritarianism that wants to dictate to people how they should think, talk, heat their homes, which car they should drive or what they should eat". Her "analyses of woke identity politics" were also recently praised by former Green Boris Palmer."

Brat Forelli🦊 10:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to add that green politics is not unique to the center-left to far-left spectrum, otherwise I think we'd have a major problem explaining the existance of green liberalism and green conservatism, who are generally to be found between the center and right, and let us not forget the rise of far-right ecofascist ideology. Simply put, green politics in the broad sense transcends the political spectrum, and can be equally present and absent from any particular part of the political spectrum. The fact that leftist parties are more likelly to adopt green politics in no way means that it is necessary to adopt green policies to be considered left-wing! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses Brat Forelli and Vif12vf. I think there may have been a bit of confusion here. I'm not necessarily saying a party has to be politically green to be on the left or vice versa. What I'm saying is opposition to green politics is not something typically associated with the left. Its only usually those on the right who actively oppose green politics. You can be on the left and not follow green politics, but to actually oppose green politics is a different matter and something almost always associated with the right. To me the party seems pretty syncretic, though I can't find an English source saying this. Perhaps there is a German one? The only main area it seems to be on the left to me is on economics. I see a mention of it supporting social justice on this page, so that could possibly extend outside economics in terms of being on the left but there's really not much written in the article currently outside of economics that sets out in what other ways the party is on the left. The page should therefore in my view set out in what other ideological and policy related areas the party is on the left outside economics. This could, as just one example, be an expansion of how and in what way the party supports social justice (providing that isn't just in some economic way). Helper201 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing entirely contradictory about a more self-styled radical left party holding anti-green (and anti-migrant worker) positions, as those aren't actually inconsistent with the more traditional form of the socialist left. It's a borderline case of recentism that ecological and green politics have been accepted as part of the usual left-wing or mainstream centre-left platforms; I remember that certain sections of the Marxist-based radical left were at one point openly sceptical of climate science, while many mainstream social democrats have only really adopted "soft green" policies within the last two decades or so. It's possible BSW might be considered syncretic by modern standards, we should wait for clear third-party sources to emerge first.--Autospark (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with User:Autospark, I am against "green politics" for this party. In the infobox, I would describe it simply with "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism" as ideologies, and "left-wing" as position. I would also move it to an English name, noting that most English-language sources refer to it as "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance". --Checco (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

They are definitely anti green and meanwhile 95% right wing with some left reminiscenses. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Mission Impossible, or how to define BSW

@Checco@JonahF@Autospark Hello there!

I decided to create this thread and ping you here because I've attempted to provide a (hopefully) coherent definition of the party's positions in the infobox. Maybe I will get berated for this, maybe I will get praised, or perhaps I get some improvement suggestions. Given how you were the 3 most active people on this talk page, I suppose I can give it a try!

First important thing that I did is that I provided references for the infobox. An unholy amount of them. While this breaks with the "neatness" of having an infobox bereft of sources and references right there, in case of this party it will just result in the positions being constantly removed and changed all the time, and whatever I did wouldn't have lasted an hour and most likely succumb to [11] such edits. If I'm honest, most people don't read the article proper at all, they just take a quick look at an infobox, and having no references right there will thus encourage people to rework it according to their own interpretation of the party.

I gave the party 3 political positions that I provided at least 5 sources for - "Socialism", "Left-wing populism", "Left-wing nationalism". And yes, sources explicitly call the party "left-populist"/"left-nationalist" or a variant thereof. This remains quite vague and we might still consider a ‘key/defining positions’ parameter (as proposed by someone else earlier), but this might be the best I can do. While I saw earlier suggestions that the party might be "ordoliberal", the sources that call the party such that I found are "Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung", "Jacobin", "New Left Review" and "World Socialist Web Site". I do not mind the Wikipedia article on BSW taking an explicity leftist analysis of the party, but I did not want to appear too partisan.

I lastly want to say that I am unhappy with labelling the party just "socialism". While it appears correct to me and I did source it, this might make the party look more radical than it really is. "Democratic socialism" appears more accurate to me, but the problem is that no sources that I found actually include the "democratic" part; it's just "socialism". Therefore I wanted to ask if it would be fine to make it "Democratic socialism" despite the sources only confirming the "socialist" part. There are also assessment of the party as "national and socialist" or "nationalist socialist", but that seems to be an attempt to equate the party to NSDAP, and is probably inappropiate for Wikipedia.

Last but not least, I considered adding "Social conservatism" as the 4th ideology of the party, but not only would 4 ideologies be probably too long for Autospark's liking, but the party's social positions aren't all that novel. Anti-immigration stance amongst left-wing parties is somewhat common in some countries, and parties such as the Dutch Socialist Party did run on an anti-immigration and anti-"identity politics" platform, something that Cas Mudde mentioned in his article for The Guardian - [12].

Thank you so much for reading this and I am looking forward to your responses, suggestions, praises. If you completely disagree with what I did, then I am of course sorry. It took me a lot of time to complement the sources and I wanted to be accurate.

Best regards! Brat Forelli🦊 12:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, decided to add "social conservatism" after all, there are enough sources who claim this and it is important to emphasize what the party differs in from Die Linke, namely nationalism and social issues. Brat Forelli🦊 03:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights! There are too many ideologies now, in my view. I would have only "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism". I would remove "social conservatism" as the party might be somewhat opposed to immigration and other policies, but it surely not social-conservative in all respects. I also oppose "left-wing nationalism", as left-wing populism suits better the party—surely, I would not have both of them in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Checco, give or take, but would prefer left-wing populism to be listed first. As for the other ideologies, they should be described in the article body, notably the relative social conservatism and tilt towards nationalistic sentiments when compared to Die Linke.— Autospark (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your insight; I see your point and implemented the suggested changes! Brat Forelli🦊 11:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: I completely disagree with what you just did. You had done a great job defining the party. You had provided 24 sources describing the party as socialist, socially conservative, left-wing populist, and/or left-wing nationalist. And now, because two editors disagreed with that description, you reverted everything you had done. I’m sorry, but Checco and Autospark aren’t reliable sources. If reliable sources describe the party as socially conservative, it doesn’t matter whether or not they agree with that description. It doesn’t matter whether or not you and I agree with it either. You even replaced “Socialism” with “Democratic socialism” after saying yourself that you couldn’t find a single reliable source describing the party that way. Again, I’m sorry, but I have to revert this. This is all original research.

As for the amount of ideologies, it’s not unusual for parties to have four or even more listed. The somewhat similar Smer has five; and the not similar at all, but also German, SSW has four. We could discuss the order these ideologies are listed, but your work defining the party is the best one so far, and I am bringing it back. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes should be short summaries. No information was removed from the article, simply not every single information and source should be included in the infobox, which would lose its scope. By the way, I argue that also references are better placed in the article's text than the infobox. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Infoboxes are summaries, not essays. They are to summarise the article, not replace it. I honestly don't care about any defence that there are other en.wiki articles which have 5 or 6 ideologies in their Infobox, that just shows that those examples are in need of some serious editing. And as per Checco, no one is arguing to eliminate certain descriptions of this (of any) party from the article, merely recognising that those descriptions belong (with reliable references) in the article body, and preferably in the Ideology section. (And yes, references if made in the article body don't need repeating in the Infobox.)-- Autospark (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Brainiac, thank you for your input!

I apologize for my decision, and I did not mean to ruin my work or cause a disagreement. I also appareciate your complement a lot, it means a lot to me - thank you so much! The main reason behind my rather amenable stance on this is because I already tried to define the party in late October, when the article was first created. Unfortunately most people did not bother discussing anything in the first place, and amongst those who did, no consensus was reached. As such, consistent overview of party's ideology in the infobox perished to edit wars, and even when it was stripped to nothing but "left-wing populism" in the end, this too disappeared to objections of the party being left-wing in the first place.

No such luck as on the party's article on Spanish wiki, it seems - they have 10 ideologies listed in the infobox with no sources next to them, with no controversy. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and happens on this Wiki as well - Alliance for the Union of Romanians has 15 ideologies in the infobox, all sourced though. I personally don't mind, and it's probably gonna stay that way - unless Autospark decides to do something about it, of course!

And well, I am a source junkie. I wrote the Ideology section for the Montoneros from scratch, and also rewrote the lede based on the Spanish article. And then something caught my eye - the talk page had a conversation from 2009 where three Argentinian Wikipedians claimed that "It is not accurate to say that Montoneros was a Catholic group." When I saw this, I decided to respond to this conversation - all three interlocutors are no longer active on Wikipedia, but I decided that it is important to explain to any future lurker seeing the Talk page why these gentlemen were wrong. I left citations from 6 sources that affirm the Catholic nature of the organization there. And I also found a book that explicitly calls the organization "Catholic" and used it a source for the first sentence of the main article.

And so I decided to do something about this party's article as well, and that's why I spent my time on gathering sources that I could then bundle together and use for the infobox. Want to delete "left-wing populism" again? Take a look at the 5 sources that explicitly call BSW "left-wing populist" or "left-populist". You know the drill!

This is also where I would have to disagree with the opinions expressed here that references shouldn't be included in the infobox. I can perfectly see why one might think that, but we need to be brutally honest with ourselves here - people don't read the body. They only look at the infobox. And if there's no reference provided, they jump to the conclusion that it's unsourced and edit it to match their opinionated interpretation of the party. And this is a controversial party, and this article has a history of edit wars and infobox purges. This is why I believe that referenes have to be included to prevent disruptive editing. It's hard to argue against a nice footnote next to the ideology listed that contains several sources confirming it.

This is especially so because this party introduces some novel ideas to European politics, namely combining left-wing (and in this case, socialist) economics with some social stances typically considered conservative. Now, while this is not really new and anti-immigration is a traditional left-wing stance (as a part of protectionism, another traditionally left-wing stance) and there already are other European parties with "left-conservative" stances such as the Dutch Socialist Party and the Danish Social Democrats, it remains unthinkable for some who considered "progressive", cosmopolitan and/or libertarian social stances the part and parcel of left-wing politics. Knowing this, I find it necessary to make the article be and look as well-researched as possible. Even if infobox full of references may look untidy to some.

That being said - I understand what you mean, Brainiac, and I am once again sorry for waddling into original research. I am of course happy with all 4 sources being there as well, and I am happy to know that my hard work has not been in vain! Brat Forelli🦊 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with both sources and consensus, thus we should seek consensus here. Surely, User:Brat Forelli did a good job, but not all sources are the same. Indeed, some ideologies are more authoritative than others. Cherrypicking ideologies and sources has a lot to do with "synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources", hence original research. Long lists of ideologies, only because each one has one source backing it up, are not a good idea in infoboxes. Of course, the article's body, specifically the ideology section (there should be one), should feature all the possible nuances. --Checco (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your praise as well, thank you! <3

Interesting discussion on cherrypicking - I agree with you. This is also why I seek to have several sources for each ideology; this obviously does not guarantee that there is no cherrypicking at play, but it does mean that it is not an isolated opinion, which is important in itself. As for long lists of ideologies, it would appear to me that more ideologies can limit cherrypicking rather than possibly worsen it. Of course, cherrypicking can be done with multiple sources - I referenced a person who argued that BSW is "ordoliberal" rather than socialist. Out of curiosity, I checked how prevalent this view is, and it does appear - as written on "Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung", "New Left Review" and "World Socialist Web Site". But if I did that, that could have been cherrypicking, especially since "Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung" is directly associated with Die Linke, so the party that Wagenknecht deserted in the first place. Meanwhile a plethora of sources across the journalist spectrum do call the party "socialist", which appeared way more logical to me.

Oh, excuse my constant digressions. Brat Forelli🦊 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, take a look at this version of the article: I re-organised sections and sub-sections (some had names that were not encyclopedic and too much weight was given to reactions) and, more specifically, what the one I called "Ideology, position and policies" (logic is: first ideology, second position, third policies—more can be done, of course), while also moving references from the infobox to the article's body. --Checco (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that my edits, consistent with what we have been discussing, were completely rollbacked. Total rollbacks are not OK in Wikipedia, but more importantly it makes no sense to have ideologies in the infobox that are not even mentioned in the article's body: the infobox should be a summary of the article. In the rollbacked version, the article is very weak, not to mention the illogical names and organisation of sections and sub-sections. --Checco (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Choosing what ideologies should be mentioned in the infobox is important, but it is more urgent to have a proper "Ideology" section that is coherent and consistent, internally and externally. My good-faith attempt was unilaterally rollbacked, but I continue to think that it was good start and that contents would have been more rationally organised that way. As of now, the ideologies in the infobox are not even mentioned in the body (shouldn't the infobox be a summary?) and the current "Political positions" section is wrongly named, confusingly organised (there is a sub-section named "Descriptions by the media and political science", but contents are actually mixed in the two parts) and chaotic at best. I hope other users will reconsider what I tried to do and start from that (I also made sure that the ideologies in the infobox were properly mentioned in the section and moved references from the infobox to the body) in order to improve the article. --Checco (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried again and I do not think that I was particularly bold in just replicating what most articles about political parties have: a section on "ideology and platform". First the party's ideology is described, then its policies are enunciated. Of course, more consistency edits could be done and further infos could be found. And—I still hope we can find a consensus on which ideologies should be mentioned in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We should have a standard "Ideology and Platform" section, yes. And I agree with the consensus about what to actually list in the Infobox – left-wing populism and democratic socialism, and no other ideologies, with other ideological descriptions detailed and listed in the specific Ideology and Platform section.

(Aside, I question why we need a detailed section in the article listing all recent polling, given there's a separate article for German election polling, and the polling data itself isn't truly encyclopaedic information for a political party in a way that actual election results are.)-- Autospark (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. I would also remove the sub-sections within the newly-named "Ideology and platform" section. --Checco (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Neo Strasserism ?

Does the party's ideology have any similarities with Strasserism? Cause outside of Germany the party looks like a left-wing AfD. 188.32.244.225 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a very specific ideology, and a variant of nazism. They do not espouse much if any similarities with this ideology! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes there might be associations with Strasser, Niekisch or Jünger. But I don't know any reliable source for that yet. Today Süddeutsche uses the characteristic "Links-autoritär" left authoritarian.Nillurcheier (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

As Nillurcheier has mentioned, the party is described as left-authoritarian - an example of this is a political science paper Bridging Left and Right? How Sahra Wagenknecht Could Change the German Party Landscape by Sarah Wagner. In this context, "left-authoritarian" does not imply antidemocratic leftism, but rather parties and people "with left-wing economic positions while being authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues".[13]

In its (provisional) program for the 2024 EU election, the party demands a strict migration policy, abolishing CO2 certificates which the party considers unsuitable for climate policy, stopping arm exports to Ukraine and restarting oil and gas imports from Russia. The party also believes that the EU in current form is harmful and proposes a few reforms such as greatly decentralizing the EU and relaxing debt rules. Domestically, you have the party focusing on social inequality and accusing the governing coalition on cutting taxes for the rich and raising them on the poor.[14]

Generally, none of this is Strasserist or really anti-leftist in itself. The left was traditionally anti-immigration and treated it as a part of protectionism, so shielding workers from foreign competition and exploitation. Left-wing parties that are anti-immigration do already exist in other countries - the Danish Social Democrats ran on anti-immigration platform, and the Dutch Socialist Party likewise ran on an "old left" platform that was critical of both immigration and 'identity politics'.[15] "Class struggle instead of race struggle", they called it.[16] Brat Forelli🦊 14:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that the actual differences between Strasserism and its Nazi origin is minimal at best, with the only major difference being that the Strasser-brothers took the early nazi anti-capitalist rhetoric seriously, though they also quite clearly blamed the Jews for all of the problems of capitalism. Unless BSW starts making openly anti-semitic statements, adopts a national corporatist economic outlook, politicized militarism and a totalitarian führer-complex, I'd say I would rather doubt them being anywhere on the fascist spectrum. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Color change

I suggest changing the current color ( ) to a new color ( ) which is the center of the party gradient. I think this is appropriate because using the purple color creates confusion with Die Linke. I know that purple is used in polls, but those too can create confusion, which is only solved by captions with party names (like here). The new customary color will solve this confusion. PLATEL (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

i dont think Brown is the best color Braganza (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is just the color of the center of the gradient and has nothing to do with Nazism PLATEL (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

obviously Braganza (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If we wish to talk about party colours creating confusion, then look no further to the AfD and CSU, whose colours are arguably far more similar and can hardly be distinguished next to each other, for example in parliamentary diagrams like this. The difference between the BSW's dark-purple and Die Linke's magenta is absolutely noticeable and creates no confusion. There is a reason the media and polling organisations chose that colour to depict them. In fact, the difference between the colour of Die Linke and this colour you have proposed (and added to BSW's official page at the time of writing) is hardly much different at all even. A calculation based on the three colours' RGB values came up with a margin of less than 5 (Linke magenta vs BSW Purple: 78.626, Linke magenta vs BSW Brown: 83.36). If you really wanted a different colour for them, you should've gone with their orange - of course, then you'd run the risk of confusion with the Free Voters who use orange as well.

As for what you said about captions in external polls, these already exist on all the opinion polling pages here on Wikipedia - for the federal and state elections - thus there can be no confusion on that front. I would argue you create further confusion by applying a historically controversial colour onto a party that has already had its ideology misunderstood multitudes of times as something similar to 'national socialism'. This can be seen on this very talk page several times, with some people confusing it to advocate for Strasserist policies even, which is an explicitly Nazism-derived ideology. Linttttt (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Linttttt: FW, Pirates, ÖDP and Familie are all orange Braganza (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Holy smokes, it is almost impossible to tell CSU and AfD apart in these diagrams; good catch.

Anyway, I do feel like we should just include the gradient and not cut it down to one color on the basis of perceived QoL. And as Braganza pointed out, orange is already overused amongst German parties. Brat Forelli🦊 09:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ordoliberalism

"Ordoliberalism" is the one label that Sahra Wagenknecht (the unquestioned leader, founder, and eponym of the party) explicitly identifies with herself, and she also names Ludwig Erhard as her role model. As an economist, she knows what "ordoliberalism" means (even if the press doesn't), and it is radically different from any kind of socialism: it's a quite typical capitalist market economy, just with a strong role of the government ("big government"), though not necessarily even a welfare state. This economic system (including a more or less expansive welfare state) is promoted by the centre-right (conservative-liberal) FDP (who, however, prefer a smaller role of the government) and the equally centre-right (conservative) Union, who have always been openly hostile to socialism. Wagenknecht hasn't been a communist or Marxist anymore since at least 2010, when she left the Communist Platform of the Left Party. Wagenknecht explicitly repudiates the GDR and its economic system now. The press not knowing or ignoring her change in ideology, her abandonment of Marxism and her self-identification with ordoliberalism (as well as its meaning) does not excuse Wikipedia misreporting facts.

Her sympathy for Putin, who is far from a socialist, but a notorious social conservative and nationalist who supports capitalism, also makes more sense in this light. The combination of ordoliberalism (economic policy), nationalism and social conservatism (social policy) makes her far closer to the Union (and arguably the AfD) than to the Left Party (or even the SPD). The seeming "left-wing conservative" paradox does not really exist: Even if Wagenknecht misleadingly calls herself linkskonservativ, there is not a trace of left-wing politics in her ideology. Ordoliberalism is closer to "small-government" neoliberalism, as in Reaganomics or Thatcherism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, if she markets herself as "left-wing", she is simply a liar – and the press needs to call that out (but probably doesn't because for liberal, conservative and centrist media, it's easier to pretend she's still a communist than to point out the similarity of her ideology to Christian democracy and "regular" conservatism in general). The combination of ordoliberalism (classical liberalism with a greater role of the government), nationalism and social conservatism is clearly not left-wing, and nobody calls the Union (or other Christian democrats) left-wing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that you rely exclusively on what Wagenknecht says, or more clearly, that you pay attention to primary sources. We are not supposed to use primary sources, let alone interpret and draw conclusions from them, when there are secondary and tertiary sources available. Or in other words, instead of making independent and original analysis of the party, we rely on how the party is described in sources, be it political journals or the news. We certainly know that Wagenknecht is a liar, the idea goes that every politician is - which perfectly shows the point why the party is not supposed to be what Wagenknecht claims it is, but what it is described as.

What you wrote on Putin here is pretty huge WP:OR and your own analysis. Or namely, Wagenknecht cannot be socialist because she is sympathetic towards Putin, and because Putin is a conservative, then that supposedly makes Wagenknecht conservative too. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties took place in October 2022 in Havana. Signed by 39 communist parties and organization, this meeting produced a declaration in which these communist organizations clarified, in no unclear terms, their stance towards Russia and its actions:

The Communist and Workers’ Parties support the just anti-Fascist struggle of the working people of Donbass backed by the Russian Armed Forces.We come out against the US imperialism which is using Fascist methods in its foreign policy and, with direct participation of NATO, is in fact waging a war aimed at defeating Russia with the hands of the puppet bourgeois-nationalist Ukrainian regime.
We declare that we will do all we can to prevent Russia from repeating the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya, which is starkly at odds with the interests of the world workers’ movement. Reaction seeks to establish its new order firmly and for long. Russia cannot afford to lose the war against Nazism.

If that makes these parties conservative or at least non-communist parties in your eyes, that is fine. But that then becomes a personal opinion, and one that is not necessarily usable for Wikipedia. To really prove that, one would have to find sources that argue that this invalidates these parties as communist, and even then one would probably encounter problems with finding reliable and independent sources there.

We should not treat own opinions as facts, and the sources for the left-wing and/or socialist alignment of the party do not come from Wagenknecht herself but rather from the media descriptions of the party. Or in other words , secondary and tertiary. What so far you have presented here, given that I believe you are telling the truth, is that Wagenknecht is inconsistent and even dishonest in what she says. Wikipedia is aware of that tendency amongst politicians. Which is why it does rely on primary sources (or what the party/party members say about the party itself, in this context) when there are secondary and tertiary sources available instead.

Brat Forelli🦊 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Brat Forelli🦊 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Colour Change

@Number 57, Impru20, Vacant0, Siglæ, Rowei99, Μαρκος Δ, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, Erinthecute, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: Sorry for calling users here, but I think the issue with the colour of BSW should be solved. On this page], it has BSW as orange. I believe the party should use this colour, compared to the current one, to make it distinctive from Die Left. I understand if users may not wish to use it because of CDU's colourinf, but modules do not use the orange colour for the party, hereby leaving a space for orange to be used for BSW. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We could also use the burnt orange listed in the infobox if using the other orange is an issue. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Bundestag
Allensbach
INSA
Infratest dimap
F'gruppe Wahlen
MDR
RBB
RND
Der Spiegel
SZ
Tagesschau
ZDF
Wahlen.de
Dawum.de
Welt
Brandenburg
Saxony

So I went around and sampled the colours used for BSW by various sources – polling institutes, media outlets, etc – to get a sense of what German media use and what people will be associating with the party most often. Some use orange, but it's mostly purple. I think as long as the shades for Linke and BSW are distinguishable enough, it won't be an issue. Moreover, orange is already used not only by the Free Voters but several other non-trivial parties as well (ÖDP, Family Party, Pirates, PdF) which already caused issues for me mapping the European elections. In my view dark purple is clearly the better choice. Erinthecute (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Erinthecute: The problem with purple is it is a bit too similar to Die Linke, while no major party uses orange here (bar CDU, but it's not in the module). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree that they're too similar, though if people agree that's an issue then we could discuss changing one or both of the shades to make them more distinct. No other major party uses orange, yes, but several minor parties of note do, including the Free Voters, where this issue might simply come up again, particularly in the context of state parliaments. Erinthecute (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how it works here in WikiProject Germany, but over in WikiProject Canada we are not sticklers for using the exact hexcode that a party uses in its advertising, regularly adjusting hue/saturation to be more distinct or just more pleasant (ie: not eye-searingly saturated) for how Wikipedia's uses. So right from the beginning, I don't think we need to be restricted to what we can colour-pick from BSW's logo. Erinthecute raises a good point about how many political parties in Germany use orange, and I agree that it would be better to steer clear of that rather than add another party into that mess — minor or not, it's best to make party colour schemes as distinct as feasible. But I think the current purple has its issues, too, not just being a little similar to Die Linke (can easily see how they would be confused on a map, particularly one that uses different shades to represent intensity), but also because Volt Germany also uses a dark purple. I like the colour used by SZ; I think it really stands apart from the other two:

       (current colours for Linke, BSW and Volt, respectively)

       (above, but with SZ's colour used for BSW)

— Kawnhr (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Kawnhr has an amazing take here and picking SZ's purple could be the best option here. Not only is it the best in regards to making the party actually stand out, but it also solves the problem that Erinthecute mentioned, where using orange would go against the majority of sources. I am fully in favor of SZ purple. Brat Forelli🦊 17:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: I definitely don’t support this colour, and I think the previous one was much better. The BSW logo uses an entire colour spectrum, why would we pick a colour that doesn’t even look like any colour in that spectrum? You look at the table above, and the vast majority of those colours at least look like they could be in that spectrum, from purple to orange. Most sources use purple, some use orange, but no other source uses lilac, or anything similar. Therefore, I’d prefer purple, I could do with orange, but I oppose this one. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Brainiac,

Sorry to hear about the color, I understand. The reason for this color is what Kawnhr and Erinthecute mentioned, namely giving BSW a color that reduces its confusion with Volt Germany and Die Linke. The orange/golden shaded used by the BSW are nice to me, but as mentioned by others earlier, so many parties in Germany use some shade of orange that we should keep BSW out of this mess. But then there is a problem of finding a purple/liliac color for BSW that does not confused with Linke and Volt so easily. Feel free to find/mix a shade of purple that you find appropiate for BSW, and we'll see if it's distinctive enough! Brat Forelli🦊 18:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t think the colour we were using for BSW, #7B1E50   , is too similar to Die Linke’s. In the diagram used in Landtag of Thuringia, for example, you can clearly distinguish the two. I also don’t think it is too similar to Volt’s, and I don’t know where we could confuse BSW with Volt Germany, a minor party with no representation in the Bundestag or in the parliament of any German state. I would use #792351   , practically the same as #7B1E50, but if you download the logo and look at the code, you’ll see this is the colour actually used at the purple side of the spectrum. It’s also a tiny bit more different than #BE3075   , the colour we use for Die Linke, so. Brainiac242 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

i don't think there is a risk for confusion between BSW and Volt since they appeal to very different groups and thus don't cross very often, if you include minor parties orange is even more "confusing" than purple

   Piraten,    ÖDP,    PdF,    Familie,    FW,    FDP

but nobody complained about it since its such a rare scenario Braganza (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

to be honest i wouldn't mind @PLATEL:'s original proposal  , its brown but different enough from the oranges and still different enough to the nazi browns we use (  NSDAP   NPD   DRP   DRP   Heimat) to not be confused with them Braganza (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would go back to this suggestion of mine. Considering that even Heimat no longer uses a similar color, it is a good solution for a color that will not match the colors of other parties.  PLATEL  (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Dropping in after a period of inactivity, but if I recall correctly I was involved in the discussion to change Die Linke's colour to its customary shade of purple. I am, as a general rule, opposed to changing the colour from one that the party has explicitly chosen to identify with.

There's been a trend towards "customary colours" in Wikipedia lately, which leads to messy discussions after editors have made subjective, wide-ranging edits to party colour schemes without seeking an adequate consensus (not that I oppose editors using WP:BOLD for such a minor thing, but it's sub-optimal).

I don't deny that in some cases, like Die Linke, using a customary colour is necessary, but we should start with the assumption that whatever colour the party uses that 'slots in' best with the existing scheme (in this case, #7B1E50   ) is the colour that should be used, with a high bar for changing to a customary colour.

Also, while there is no rule against it, I am against the practice of looking to media sources and picking a colour that they have used. There is nothing that makes SZ more official than any other source other than the fact that their choice of lilac differs the most from the existing scheme. If we are to use a customary colour, then we should propose our own. That's the approach I took when compromising with Μαρκος Δ over #B5317C    as a customary colour for SV in Norway.

Therefore, I am opposed to changing it from #7B1E50   . It's sufficiently different from Die Linke's #BE3075    and Volt's #552D81    (which it won't touch on a parliamentary diagram anyway). JackWilfred (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JackWilfred: Why #7B1E50, though? As I said above, #792351    is practically the same, but if you download the logo on this article (or the one on the German Wikipedia article) and look at the code, you’ll see this is the colour actually used at the purple side of the spectrum. Brainiac242 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That's also fine. To my eye, I can't tell the difference between the two. JackWilfred (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree with #792351 for all aforementioned reasons. Not only is a shade of purple used by the majority of media sources and thus associated with the party, but it (particularly this shade) is as official as can be right now. And it is definitely distinct enough from TheLeft as well. Frijfuhs (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: bad example to be honest, nobody knows where the colors you use come from and when you use the "generic" colors and when you use the custom colors how i showed it herre Template talk:Canadian party colour/Archive 3#Discussion Braganza (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I said where I got all four of the colours I used… I don't know what you mean. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean the canadian colors are purely fictional and were introduced like 15 years ago Braganza (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Why the hell was the colour changed in the first place? Just use purole in Wikipedia, their official one. Hadjnix 18:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This, the Lilac just looks wrong and is bareky used by any sources, the darker purple is more official and makes more sense, without any contrast issues. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the dark purple come directly from the logo, and as Brainiac242 pointed out above, it's easy to distinguish from other parties. I think we should keep it.--Aréat (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox position

I've tried to make the infobox say:

Political position: Economic: Left-wing
Cultural and social: Right-wing

but keep getting reverted. It’s cited in the Ideology and platform section that: "its left-leaning economic positions and having right-leaning social and cultural positions" and "socio-economic left-wing and socio-cultural right-wing". So, I don't see the problem with outlining this distinction in the infobox. I know the infobox contains a note next to left-wing but I don't think this is prominent enough, as it’s not something most readers will notice. I can't see anyone claiming the party is left-wing on social or cultural issues, so to claim the party is left-wing as a whole is misleading and therefore, I think this distinction noteworthy and is supported by sources. Helper201 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The "socio-economic left-wing and socio-cultural right-wing" part that you are referring to is from Lechts oder rinks? Das Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht im Parteienwettbewerb by Aiko Wagner, who does classify the party as left-wing in the end. If we take a look at another source from this article, Germany's new populists BSW challenge the far-right AfD by Ben Knight, we see this: "Political analysts have been arguing that the unique position of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) — left-wing on economic issues but closer to the far-right on issues like immigration and gender diversity — may pose a threat to the AfD." So yeah, closer, or as another user pointed out in a related talk here, some social issues. There is also the statement from Thorsten Faas cited in our article: "I would be a bit cautious about that, because it is of course a clearly left-wing project. This is certainly not a politician who represents a right-wing position."

Here we could also bring up Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW): Left-Wing Authoritarian—and Populist? An Empirical Analysis by J. Philipp Thomeczek, who analyzes this party in particular. Thomeczek notes that no other party in Germany "combines cultural conservativism with an economic left-wing stance", with BSW being the first of its kind in Germany; he then lists other left-wing parties of Europe that combine their economic leftism with cultural conservatism: "the Social Democratic Party in Romania (PSD), the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and far-left parties such as the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM)". All four are consistently considered left-wing. Thomeczek himself concludes that "the BSW shows a classic left-wing populist profile, which includes attacks on the economic and political elites."

So as far as political science journals and media go, most simply point out the party's cultural conservatism (without equating it with "socially right-wing") and classify the party as left-wing, some specifically mentioning left-wing authoritarianism, so a subgroup of leftism characterized by "leftwing economic positions while being authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues" (per Bridging Left and Right? How Sahra Wagenknecht Could Change the German Party Landscape by Sarah Wagner). And even within those who do call the party's social position as "right-leaning" or "right-wing", some still classify the party as left-wing overall, as in case of Aiko Wagner.

Thus it should simply stay "left-wing" on the infobox while having a footnote, as to note this ambiguity. Puting "socially right-wing" there would be taking the side of the minority view while also ignoring the numerous classification of the party as left-wing overall. Brat Forelli🦊 00:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-right should be mentioned alongside far-left

There are quite a number of WP:RS that label BSW "far-right", just as there are many (probably more) that describe it as "far-left". The best way to deal with it in the article, as per WP:NPOV is probably to say that it has been described as both far-left and far-right and provide sources for both. Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To me it appears that calling the party far-right is a fringe opinion and would be WP:UNDUE. A quick test - google "left-wing Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht", "far-left Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht" (with the quotation marks). You will get results. Now try "far-right Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht", and you get nothing - because there does not appear to be any media service comfortable with casually calling it far-right, while for "left-wing" and "far-left" labels it is indeed the case.

This gets additionally complicated by the fact that there are sources in which political scientists explicitly argue against labelling the party as far-right. Some of such sources are featured in the "Ideology and platform" of the article already. Treating the far-right and far-left labels as equal would not be a good reflection of WP:NPOV in this case. Brat Forelli🦊 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

German language is less flexible when it comes to such constructions, but we can do the same with "linke Partei Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht" and "linksextreme Partei Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht". Both produce at least one result. How about "rechtsextreme Partei Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht"? Literally nothing. Brat Forelli🦊 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of mechanical Google searches as they say nothing about the reliability of the results. As for references to BSW being far-right, here are two examples just from this week Guardian explicitly calls AfD and BSW two far-right parties while Politico discusses at length whether BSW is far-right. Jeppiz (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Mechanical Google searches and reliable sources are indeed not a given, but if the far-right/"rechtsextreme" search turns up nothing while the searches for left and far-left turn up results, then at least some are bound to be reliable. It can at least measure the consensus "on the ground".

Thank you for sharing the links, though you don't need to send me links since there is a problem of WP:ONUS and it fails to address my WP:UNDUE concern. I read both links, and in case of the Guardian, it's not the Guardian considering the party far-right - it's clearly stated that it's an opinion piece by John Kampfner. In fact, just today, The Guardian published an article (without the "opinion" label), which says: "The campaign has included the remarkable rise of an eight-month-old party built around a veteran far-left firebrand, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance)."

I'm not sure what the Politico article is supposed to show. It calls Wagenknecht "Germany’s hard-left icon". Okay. And it also states that "Of late, however, she often sounds positively far right." The article also mentions the horseshoe theory and how Wagenknecht "has since grown adept at finding a leftist angle for what are commonly rightist stances." Does any of it say what Wagenknecht is far-right then? No, for me the conclusion reached there is that she is a "hard-left" politician who sounds far-right to the author. It is quite vague and not usable - if you used it to prove that the party is considered far-right, it would be an example of WP:OR since we would be jumping to a conclusion that the article does not state.

I assume there is no need for me to show that there are more reliable sources that call the party left-wing or far-left from this week (with this limitation to this week being quite arbitrary either way). Brat Forelli🦊 18:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, your lengthy comment is almost entirely beside the point. If my argument would be we should say BSW is far-right instead of far-left, the comment would refute that - but that has never been my argument. I quite clearly stated BSWA is more often described as far-left than far-right, but also at times described as far-right. Where we agree is that with two sources, it is probably too early. Still, both sources are from this week, potentially indicating a shift in how BSW is described. If no other RS make thar claim, we agree it's undue. If the claim gets more traction, the proper response is to include it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems we have misunderstood each other. I am sorry that you did not find my comment relevant. Hence I will restate - the second source, from Politico, does not call the party far-right. It discusses Wagenknecht herself, calling her a 'hard-left icon' and then stating that she "often sounds far-right". Is often sounding far-right the same as calling the party, or Wagenknecht herself, far-right? It's not. Hence it doesn't contribute to the "BSW is also at times described as far-right" claim. This is why I mention WP:OR. Brat Forelli🦊 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-left

We must add "left-wing to far-left" in the political position. Is like the media widely calificate the party. Real anticapitalist (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

We certainly can find a plethora of sources that describe the party as far-left. This change would make sense to me. Brat Forelli🦊 02:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I also support “left-wing to far-left”, but I think it might be necessary to reference those sources right next to that description to avoid an edit war. Brainiac242 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Far-left is clearly applicable. Polish kurd (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with adding far-left, as it can also act as a differentiator to die linke party. Guotaian (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

5 people agreeing is probably a record for this talk page. I have implemented the change and compiled a plethora of recent sources to show this point. Brat Forelli🦊 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: Beyond the uncertainty around the party's sociocultural positions, it is either part of the very known and very studied radical left (which is between the far/extreme-left and the Third Way social-democratic parties, and best represented by La France Insoumise, Podemos, Québec Solidaire, DSA, and, previously, Die Linke), or of the very known and studied far-right.

If the party is radical left or 'left-wing to far-left', then whether it is far left is a wide debate. See the talk page of Podemos, La France Insoumise, and Die Linke. Are there any academic sources claiming it is far-left, and are there any claiming it isn't? Also, there are academic sources who include the radical left in the far-left (this is shown on the page far-left, the radical left being the 'left of social-democracy'), and there are others who don't include it in the far-left, making 'far-left' a synonym of 'extreme left' (to the left of mainstream communist parties). Therefore, putting journalistic sources to show that the party is generally considered far-left is not the best way of handling this issue. Left-wing or left-wing to far-left, with the note, is a common way of dealing with it.

On the other hand, if it's somewhat far-right, like the micro-party République souveraine, founded by the former advisor of Mélenchon Kuzmanovic, then far-right might apply. République souveraine is in many ways similar to BSW, (Putin, immigration, Ukraine) only that it had no success so far. 80.187.81.6 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that journalistic sources is an optimal way to deal with the issue and provides us an actual framework to base ourselves off. I have yet to see fair grounds to classify the party as far-right. You drew some parallels between BSW and République souveraine, but such stances are not exclusively right-wing and are old news when it comes to left-wing parties. When it comes to Putin/Ukraine, stances on the Russian-Ukrainian war similar to BSW's stance are fairly common on the far-left. As far as immigration goes, Cas Mudde compared BSW to the Dutch Socialist Party and the Danish Social Democrats here.

The party is quite new which naturally limits academic coverage, but there are some academic sources that do consider BSW a part of the radical left family. One example was the ECPR conference Comparative Perspectives on the Radical Left in Europe and Beyond which included a paper which discusses the "recent emergence of a new radical left party in Germany around the personality of Sahra Wagenknecht and examines the factors that might drive electoral support for this newcomer in party competition." I could also mention A sharp right turn: A forecast for the 2024 European Parliament Elections which wrote: "The election will also be the first test for the new anti-immigrant radical left Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW)." Brat Forelli🦊 18:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't claim

the party was considered far-right. It is largely considered radical left, and the radical left is a difficult subject when it comes to labels. Die Linke, or at least parts of Die Linke, is also considered a part of the radical left. The problem is with the debate around if the radical left is far-left, like the far-right has a radical right and extreme right, or not. This concerns Die Linke as much as BSW. And while the positions on Ukraine of the BSW are fairly common in the radical left, following the 2022 invasion the positions of most of the radical left have nuanced. The BSW is in some regards different from other radical left parties on Russia, that is to say closer to it. The problem with overlooking the debate around the definition of far-left is that, if the far-left does not encompass the radical left, then 'linksextrem', not often used in German media, which is important considering it is a German party, is the German counterpart of far-left. 80.187.81.6 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: pinging you again since this question is rather important. 80.187.123.244 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the discussion of whether radical left is far left is outside the scope of this article since we might be talking about a Wikipedia-wide change. If we want to be consistent, radical left should be a type of far-left. This would be similar to Cas Mudde's classification of far-right, which he divided into radical right (does not oppose democracy) and extreme right (anti-democratic). Radical right parties such as Vox and the Alternative for Germany are classified as just "far-right" on Wiki. So here we go. Brat Forelli🦊 13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. The debate is specifically on if there is a difference. Luke March for example does exactly what you just described, he separates the the far-left into radical left and extreme left. Other languages work differently though, the AfD is called rechtsextrem despite being not quite extreme right, the same thing is generally true for the National Rally (extrême-droite). 80.187.122.219 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I do feel like this would be the most logical option, and I've read Luke March before, and I agree with him too. If we label radical right parties as far-right, then likewise radical left parties should be far-left. There might be an issue of what we could call "purity fetish" on the left and that also concerns doubts regarding left-wing authoritarian (parties that have "leftwing economic positions while being authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues" per Thomeczek) parties that BSW represents, but we should not be bothered by this.

After all, there are radical right parties that were described as left-wing economically or which at least have economic policies that could be seen as left-wing. These include League of Polish Families, Party for Freedom or the Danish People's Party. Yet nobody questions that they are right-wing. The same should apply to left-wing parties that we are to describe and classify here.

As for what you described, yes, there is this issue where this distinction between radical, extreme and far left/right can't be so neatly described in French or German. However, you can technically say "radikale Linke" in German, although it is a rare term. Still, die Tagesschau did apply that label to BSW at least. Brat Forelli🦊 09:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely worthy of a large debate, maybe on some Wikiproject. The problems with translation are a big part of the issue. Especially in French: La France Insoumise is described by a majority of political scientists as gauche radicale, and explicitly not extrême-gauche, while the National Rally is described as d'extrême-droite.

And common German political discourse today seems to have been influenced by the anglophone world, I can't explain articles like this in any other way. The new rhetoric seems to be that far-right is right, far-left is left, and the rest is all "Mitte". This makes it even harder to discern left from far-left. If someone, a journalist or even a political scientist, wants to make parallels between populisms or 'extremes', the terms used are often just "links" and "rechts". 80.187.81.140 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism

I propose to add 'Anti-capitalism' in the ideology. Real anticapitalist (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have found 5 sources for this position and put them in the Ideology section. I would support the change. Brat Forelli🦊 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox ideology order

Not sure if this is a redundant/useless discussion. But should socialism be the first ideology on the list of ideology in the infobox? I'm only questioning this as this isn't the first thing which is thought of when thinking or discussing BSW, and neither is it said in the opening sentence for this party (I saw no news outlet calling BSW "socialist" after the 2 state elections). With it stating "a left-wing nationalist, populist, Eurosceptic and culturally conservative German political party...".

The only "rule" (or de-facto "rule" I've found in Wikipedia) is that cultural conservatism shouldn't be on the top and Euroscepticism is always on the bottom (and obviously I'm suggesting that socialism shouldn't be on the top with the reasons I stated earlier) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to make it:

Left-wing populism
Left-wing nationalism
Socialism
Cultural conservatism
Euroscepticism

Should look good enough.

You also said - I saw no news outlet calling BSW "socialist" after the 2 state elections. I found 3 such sources from 1-2 September, I will add them and update the lead. Brat Forelli🦊 01:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and changed it. Should make more sense. I also put left-wing populism on top since I believe it was either Autospark or Checco that requested it to have it on top a couple of discussions back. And indeed, left-wing populism is the most defining ideology of the party. Brat Forelli🦊 02:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: There’s been a lot of users changing the ideologies in the infobox lately, claiming they are unsourced or undue... I think you were right in previous discussions about the need to include the sources right in the infobox. Some users were opposed to citing the sources there instead of in the body, but maybe we could name those sources in the body and reference them in the infobox. Also, I support your suggested order, but didn’t all those sources you found call the party “socially conservative” instead of “culturally conservative” Brainiac242 (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I knew that would happen and this is why I think infobox should have the sources right there. We could add them in the infobox, I would also collect sources for left-wing/far-left orientation in the footnote, since that was a point of contention too, and that could help somewhat.

Oh yes, I was gathering sources specifically for "social conservatism". I did not realize that someone changed it to "cultural consevatism" until now. Seems to be another one of these random changes that someone does that are just minor enough to go unnoticed. It can either be switched back to "social conservatism" so it is in agreement with the sources, or I can try to find sources for "cultural conservatism" specifically. Brat Forelli🦊 02:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding social vs cultural. My only take on this is that I've never seen a political party use cultural conservatism in it's infobox. I don't know if that holds any true value but I meant it when I say I've NEVER seen a political party use "cultural conservatism" instead of "social conservatism" in its infobox. I'm fine with "cultural conservatism" being in the body though! (perhaps with "social conservatism" too) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad I meant prior to the state elections I saw minimal reports of people calling BSW "socialist". I'm not surprised its more but I still stand that it shouldn't be the top ideology. But great to see we reached a consensus quickly! ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I just found sources for "cultural conservatism" (and Euroscepticism). I also included them in the infobox now, though that can be easily removed if someone really finds it an eyesore.

As for social conservatism vs. cultural conservatism, this is definitely a unique change to say the least but it is also a unique party. I can personally understand the change in that BSW is a left-wing authoritarian party. Left-wing authoritarianism is defined as having "leftwing economic positions while being authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues" in Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW): Left-Wing Authoritarian—and Populist? An Empirical Analysis by J. Philipp Thomeczek. Thomeczek clearly says cultural, so I suppose someone wanted to specify that.

Left-wing authoritarian parties were rare outside of Eastern Europe until recently, and now as they are becoming a somewhat mainstream concept, I see it might difficult for people to not instantly associate "social conservatism" with the political right. In this way "cultural conservatism" can be both more neutral while also adding the nuance that the party is not completely socially conservative but rather leans towards this position on some issues, namely the ones of cultural sphere.

I see - well, as I said, I found some sources from September 2024 that describe the party as socialist and I included them in the mega-list of sources for socialism. I had no problem moving it a bit down since populism is obviously more defining for the party than socialism. Well, should be better for you now. Cheers! Brat Forelli🦊 11:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Article’s name (again)

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.

---

When this was discussed, some editors, myself included, opposed moving the article to an English name. We argued that we didn’t have an official translation yet, and that the party claimed it would change its name to one not including Sahra Wagenknecht “as soon as it has established itself”. It made sense, at the time, to keep this name temporarily, after all, most of that discussion took place before the party had even been founded.

Well, it’s been almost year, the party has now participated in three elections, (as far as I know) we still don’t have an official translation, it has yet to change its name, and it increasingly looks like that change won’t happen anytime soon, if ever. So, I take back my opposition.

The party is often referred to in English as both “Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance” and “Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht”. This was another point of disagreement, even among those that supported using an English name. At this point, I would support either, but I have to say I’d prefer “Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht” as it seems to be the more “official” name. See, for example, these party lists at Europe Elects and Politico Europe. And this translation is also consistent with the article about Bündnis 90/Die Grünen being titled Alliance 90/The Greens. Brainiac242 (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Rename to "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" - I would support "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" because this is the name used by Financial Times (archive url), The Guardian, New York Times (archive url), Reuters, AP News, El País, Euronews, The Economist, BBC, CNN and Deutsche Welle. This means that most of the largest English-language newspapers - The Guardian, New York Times, Reuters, BBC, CNN - use "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance". This means we have a consistent and common translation of the party's name. Thus overall I support Brainiac here and I'm glad he brought it up, since it seems that the media have indeed figured a semi-standardized translation of the party's name out.

Brat Forelli🦊 00:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Rename to "Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance" - this by now is the common English-language name used by media and is an appropriate and accurate translation. Retaining "Bündnis" is not necessary or justified. Erinthecute (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance per WP:COMMONNAME – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Rename to "Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht". I don't personally see a huge need to change from BSW, but this appears to have been adopted by some sources as a more literal translation of the German. JackWilfred (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like a "literal translation" doesn't make sense here (also since that's more of a mistranslation than a literal one, "Alliance of" might be more literal), we should be going with what the majority of English-speaking sources are calling it, per WP:COMMONNAME. Keeping "Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht" also doesn't make sense here, since most English speakers don't have a keyboard with an umlaut and the name won't be recognisable to someone who reads English-speaking sources. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:09, 24 September 2024 (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.

Left and/or Syncretic?

Cultural conservatism is practically by definition not left or far left. Seems like infobox could be modified with something like "far left to syncretic" or something. 50.38.32.222 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a difficult matter, you know. Economical and political issues are, in politics, commonly referred to as defining the positioning of a party, with cultural ones being problematic when it comes to determining a party's positioning. The line between a left-leaning party and a right-leaning party, especially if the party is centrist, is difficult to determine, and similarly the line between a left-wing to far-left (radical left) party and a far-right party is difficult to determine. both are economically protectionist, so once a left-wing party becomes societally conservative, things get complicated. That doesn’t mean the party is 'syncretic', it very clearly is part of the radical left, if it isn't far-right. 80.187.81.6 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We have 20 sources, all recent, classifying the party as far-left. You can check them. I would be very impressed if you could find even a half of that amount labelling the party "syncretic", let alone recently.

But besides sources, there is nothing about cultural conservatism that makes it mutually exclusive with leftism. There are far-left and left-wing parties that take socially conservative positions. You have Communist Party of the Russian Federation or the Communist Party of Greece, both of which are consistently considered far-left.

In fact, there is a political science paper that deals with the phenomenon this party represents - Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW): Left-Wing Authoritarian—and Populist? An Empirical Analysis by J. Philipp Thomeczek. Thomeczek there writes:

From a strategic point of view, appealing to these voters could be promising, as no party in Germany combines cultural conservativism with an economic left-wing stance (Hillen and Steiner 2020; Steiner and Hillen 2019, 2021). According to the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (Bakker et al. 2019), there are several parties with a similar left-authoritarian profile in Europe. Examples are the Social Democratic Party in Romania (PSD), the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and far-left parties such as the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM).

Thomeczek here lists other parties that have a similar ideological profile to BSW - combining left-wing economics with cultural conservatism. And what all these parties have in common is that they are all considered either left-wing or far-left. Not syncretic. Likewise Thomeczek does not classify the BSW as syncretic, but as a left-wing authoritarian party. And what does left-wing authoritarianism mean? Per Thomeczek, it means having "leftwing economic positions while being authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues".

So let's put this issue to bed - left-wing culturally conservative parties existed and do exist. Just like right-wing culturally progressive parties do. An example of such culturally progressive right-wing party is Evópoli, as it was described as such in Reevaluating the Role of Ideology in Chile by Giancarlo Visconti. Brat Forelli🦊 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

agree, especially since BSW is more similar to WPGB than Smer even in the sence they are not opposed to SSM and attract muslim pro-Palestine voters too Braganza (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism

I start again the discussion to add anti-capitalism to the infobox. Please respond. Real anticapitalist (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I support this given that the amount of sources provided do show that it is a commonly used label of the party. Brat Forelli🦊 15:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201,@GlowstoneUnknown, @ZlatanSweden10. And what do you think? Real anticapitalist (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to adding it if there are non-primary sources to back it up. Other left-wing to far-left parties have anti-capitalist in its infobox like the Red–Green Alliance (Denmark) which seperates it from more convential left-wing parties like Green Left (Denmark) (isn't far-left and doesn't have anti-capitalism in its infobox) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If reliable third-party sources can be found that describe it that way, then Support. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support anti-neoliberalism, not anti-capitalism. 80.187.121.15 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Restoration of social conservatism to the lead and the infobox

There are two sources included in citation 52 calling BSW socially conservative. I'm sure more could also be found too. Helper201 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We do have 6 sources for "culturally conservative" and there definitely can be more given the increased coverage of the party after the state elections in Eastern Germany. I found 5 sources for socially conservative back in 2023/January 2024, though these were largely speculative of character given how the party was not registered yet. Anyway, that was changed to cultural conservatism and was accepted at a discussion above.

As for "social conservatism", the question is why we would have both social and cultural conservatism in the infobox, as that would be rather unnecessary and the reason for having both would be unclear.

I do think cultural conservatism is the best option since it's also what the Dutch Socialist Party has, and both parties were compared to each other for precisely the same 'conservative' stance (on immigration). Brat Forelli🦊 16:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Optionally there's "sociocultural conservatism", but not sure if we can find sources and why we are splitting hairs. Brat Forelli🦊 16:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in including both. We currently have both left-wing populism and left-wing nationalism in the infobox, so why not this? My understanding is that the BSW's conservatism goes beyond just immigration to other matters like LGBT (specifically trans) rights. Helper201 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

> We currently have both left-wing populism and left-wing nationalism in the infobox, so why not this?

We have both as they are distinct. Left-wing populists can be nationalist (Andrzej Lepper, Hugo Chávez) or they might not be (Bernie Sanders, José Bové). Nationalism is not an inherent part of left-wing populism. Meanwhile, it is not clear what point we are making with both cultural and social conservatism, which is something I would like to learn of.

> My understanding is that the BSW's conservatism goes beyond just immigration to other matters like LGBT (specifically trans) rights.

This is news to me. I have never heard of this before and it is not mentioned anywhere on this article. Could you provide a source about this? This would be very valuable info for this article if that is really the case. Brat Forelli🦊 18:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Social conservatism and cultural conservatism are both distinct enough to have their own separate Wikipedia pages. If they were more or less the same, they'd be combined into one article.

In regards to their stances on LGBT rights I can't remember where I read it. Here are two sources I just found that are of some relevance, though I'll admit they may not be the best. I would assume it would be easier for those more fluent in the German language than myself to find related sources on the matter. I'll post more if I found them, but here are the two:

• https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250995964/Regeln-korrekt-anwenden-Sahra-Wagenknecht-befuerwortet-Genderverbote-an-Schulen.html
• https://www.theleftberlin.com/anti-wagenknecht/ - quote - "The controversy around Wagenknecht being platformed by the NLR largely revolves around her active endorsement of socially conservative positions: on migration, on LGBT rights, on the environment."

Helper201 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are two more:

• https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-superstar-sahra-wagenknecht-far-left-far-right/
• https://www.dw.com/en/eu-elections-2024-bsw-wagenknecht-results/a-66470345 - quote - "Political analysts have been arguing that the unique position of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) — left-wing on economic issues but closer to the far-right on issues like immigration and gender diversity"

Helper201 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of those, the Welt actually elaborates on this (Wagenknecht proposes a ban on "gender language" in schools, such as the usage of gender stars). Tomorrow I'll have a look at other German newspapers and update the article. Thanks. Brat Forelli🦊 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Brat Forelli were you able to have a look at the other sources I listed above? Here are two more sources I found, which both explicitly call the party socially conservative:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/01/german-far-right-party-afd-state-election-victory-thuringia
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/14/young-germans-afd-european-elections

Helper201 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I did have a look at your sources and used some to add information about the party's stance on gender issues, as promised - thank you.

You have two sources that call the party "leftwing but socially conservative". For me these two count as one though, since they come from the same author (Deborah Cole) and use the exact same phrasing.

Whether the party is considered that is not the issue, we are aware of WP:VNOT. My concern is that I do not see where the improvement lies in including both 'conservatisms' in the infobox. You were able to enlighten me about the party's stance about the gender issue which some media consider conservative. Even so, "gender is a cultural issue" so cultural conservatism already covers it. Brat Forelli🦊 04:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Type of socialism

Hi. Reading this article, I realised the infobox says BSW is socialist, even though reformist parties are usually referred to as democratic socialist on Wikipedia. Is BSW not reformist? PassengerOfTime (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the result of how sources describe the party - a plethora of media outlets consider the party 'socialist', but the specification of "democratic socialism" is hard to come by. So we just have to stick to what sources say, since we cannot assume that they refer to democratic socialism specifically (that would be WP:OR). In other words, we need to stick to the sources, hence why it's just 'socialism'. Brat Forelli🦊 10:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there no sources that actually argue about it? Because the party is factually reformist, and nobody questions that. It's not revolutionary or observed by the Verfassungsschutz, that detail is relevant. There has to be some source for this. PassengerOfTime (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any, unfortunately. Let me know if you can find a source that describes the party as democratic socialist.

So far I've only found a source that argues the opposite, that the BSW is a rejection of both social democracy and democratic socialism - in Left Conservatism: Sahra Wagenknecht's Challenge to the German Party System by Jörg Michael Dostal:

Ultimately, the Wagenknecht challenge is down to the failure of classical social democracy—including its democratic socialist variety—to defend effectively national regulatory and welfare capabilities in the era of globalised capitalism. This collective failure and the resulting decline in electoral support for parties such as the SPD and the left explain the ‘Wagenknecht moment’ in contemporary German politics.

Brat Forelli🦊 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)