Talk:List of political parties in Germany

Untitled

I think it's wrong to call the DP an historical party because it yet existing, but perhaps somebody has strong arguments for leaving things as they are, so I don't change it yet.--Kiffahh 23:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a mistake. The CDU/CSU is not right of center. They're just center.

CDU/CSU are right of center like the SPD is left of center.

This is a matter of semantics, but most people would consider these parties to be right of center. Electionworld 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Left Party is no communist party, they have been in government in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

CDU/CSU aren´t centre-right. They´re just center. The Left Party is no full communist party, but they are in parts communism. For example it gives the "Kommunistische Plattform" (Communism Part), the "Marxistisches Forum" (Marxism Forum) or "Cuba Si" (Yes to the existence of state Cuba). All are far-left. Deutscher Patriot 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You make it seem that all German parties are centrist: there is no differentiation between SPD, CDU and FDP. According to Gallagher, Laver and Mair (2001) Representative Government in Modern Europe (pp.178-182) The CDU can be characterized as a centre right, conservative party. Could you provide me any academic references for the supposed centrism of the CDU? - C mon 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all I want to say that all this parties claim for themselves to be a center-party.

Examples: Die Mitte ist rot (Center is red) In allusion to the german-flag (SPD), Die neue Mitte (The new center) (SPD), CDU - Die moderne Volkspartei der Mitte (CDU - The modern peoples party of center) (CDU), Die goldene Mitte (The golden center) (FDP). Even Günther Beckstein, left wing of CSU, said: "Die CSU ist eine Partei der Mitte, in der sich auch die demokratische Rechte wohlfühlen muss" (The CSU is a centrist-party, in that also the democratic rights have to feel fine). And of course it gives differences between this three parties, this has nothing to do with that. The "left/right-system" is anyshow obsolete. For other explains look at my talk. Deutscher Patriot 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the CDU described as anything but "centre-right." That all parties try to claim the center in their campaign materials is irrelevant. I do, however, wonder at the designation of the FDP as "right." In some ways (economics, particularly) it is more right wing than the CDU/CSU, but in other ways it is more to the left. I think it should also be described as center-right. john k 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you live in Germany? In Germany nobody still use the "Left/Right-System". It is obsolete. So you have to orientate on Definitions. And I think parties, which extra call up for debates, whether it is allowed to be patriotism or not, or in they are Minister-Presidents, who entitle themselves "Arbeiterführer" (King of Workers) can´t be in whole as right of center classed. And FDP should be right? This is nonsense. Deutscher Patriot 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the parties is called the "Left Party," for god's sake. I don't live in Germany, obviously, but I don't trust anything you say about the subject, as you're clearly exaggerating to a ridiculous extent - all Europeans that I know use left and right as the basic terms of political discourse. I will note that I said that the FDP should be centre-right, not "right," as it was before. john k 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of where you live, but it is a case of getting sources: clear academic sources. I've already give you Peter Mair's book as a source, can you provide me anything else than your intuition or party slogans to prove your statements? C mon 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

you're going to be waiting a long time, C mon. john k 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that Fdp is more to the right than Cdu? I thought that Fdp was more free-market oriented but the Cdu was a little more socially conservative, though not as the Csu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.56.203.203 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've updated this page to reflect the 2009 Federal Elections using data from the German_federal_election,_2009. The data are the aggregates based on representation in the Bundestag. Dave Cole - unoriginalname38 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that niether Richard Kunze's Deutschsoziale Partei nor the Deutschvölkischen Frei- heitspartei of Reinhold Wulle and Albrecht von Graefe-Goldebee are listed here.82.253.49.59 (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

listed here.  82.253.49.59 (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor parties

I think it's confusing to say "Germany has three minor parties" in the top of the article and then have a list with over 20 "minor parties". I have no idea how to solve it, but if anyone have one it would be great. Thanks in advance.77.21.73.116 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

does three a the minor parties that are in parliament the others are not. So they could be described as mid-sized parties when you talk about all parties, yet they are the small or minor parties when you talk about parties in parliament178.210.114.106 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why have some logos been deleted? Nillurcheier (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

CSU logo and fair use

I tried to "fix" the link to the CSU logo by replacing it with an actual image reference, but that is apparently not allowed under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. Where exactly did I break it, and is there a workaround? --XndrK (talk | contribs) 16:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi XndrK. I am the one who removed File:CSU logo.png from the article. Non-free images such as this are required to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each use. This particular file has such a rationale for the file's use in Christian Social Union of Bavaria, but it it does not have one for this particular use. If adding a rationale is all that is needed to make using a non-free file compliant with WP:NFCC, then I would've added one myself. Unfortunately, decorative usage such as this in list articles, tables or galleries is generally not allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. WP:NFCC#8 requires that non-free use be contextually significant and WP:NFCC#3 requires that non-free use be minimal. It can be argued that seeing the logo in the stand-alone article about the party significantly improve the reader's understanding to the degree that removing the logo would be detrimental to that understanding because the entire article is about the party itself and (ideally) there may be sourced content in the article specifically discussing the logo, etc. In a list article such as this, it's hard to make such a justification simply because the 60px logo just seems to be there for show; neither the party or logo itself is really the subject of any discussion and the list article is simply just a list of wikilinks to other more detailed articles. All the logos are being used in a manner similar to that described in MOS:LOGO which is generally not recommended for freely licensed or otherwise which makes it really hard to justify non-free use for this logo by simply by saying all the logos should be seen.

As for a possible work around, one option is to simply remove all the logos, freely licensed or otherwise, from the article. This might sound extreme and I am not saying it should be done, but there are plenty of similar articles where logos are not being used in this manner at all. Another possibility is to link to the non-free logo(s) like is currently done. Linking to non-free logos is fine, and not problematic with non-free policy. Some editors, however, do not like this because "Link to logo", etc. looks out of place/ugly compared to the other entries or because two links (one to the file itself and one to the stand-alone article) to essentially the same information seems redundant. One more option I can think of would be to find/create a freely licensed equivalent of the non-free logo for use in lists such as this. The text part of this particular logo and the other geometric shapes are almost surely too simple for copyright protection; it's the lion imagery that is problematic. Perhaps there is a way for someone at WP:GL/I or c:COM:GL/I to remove the copyrighted element of the element to allow it to freely licensed. I don't think its possible to convert the entire file to public domain using c:Template:PD-text logo, Template:PD-USonly or Template:PD-logo, but you can ask about this at c:COM:VP/C or WP:MCQ if you like. Finally, you could always contact the copyright holder of the logo (I assume that's the CSU) and ask them to agree to freely license the logo as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

FDDV

has not yet been founded according to Bundeswahlleiter. Please provide source for founding before reverting. --Nillurcheier (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

More information in tables, party notability

Accomplishments

The current and historic notability of a party is often not apparent to the average reader. I propose to add their most important accomplishments (no matter how old) in one free-text column. The highest number of seats and/or vote percentage for BT and EP (with year) would be useful. Government participation may include the vice-chancellor position or (on state level) ministers who are members of the Bundesrat. In particular, we could place the coalition details (that have been deleted recently with little explanation (but I am biased) in the table.
Example: FDP has no BT members for now, but they were in the BT for decades and were part of several federal and many state government coalitions. They "provided" two presidents: Theodor Heuss, Walter Scheel.
Example: CSU has controlled Bavaria's government for decades, often as a single-party rule. The CSU has provided two chancellor candidates (a completely informal, yet notable role), which are notable (unlike others from minor parties) because they ran for both CDU and CSU.
Example: The Greens are/were part of several governments on federal (incl. vice-chancellor) and state level (incl. minister-president).
Example: The Left is and was part of several governments on state level, even with a minister-president. Renaming and heritage (SED-PDS-Linke.PDS) and merger with WASG should be mentioned here.
Examples: Pirates, NPD, Republicans and AfD entered several state parliaments. Statt Partei in Hamburg found itself in government.
Example: Free Voters have notable influence below state level, so results from Kommunalwahlen may be useful.

Notable Parties

Defunct or merged parties that were notable are still notable. So, yes, I am saying that even minor parties from the 19th century onwards should be checked on notability. But we need criteria to not get swamped, and natural ones would be: parliament representation (maybe except for a single deserting MP), government participation or their role in crucial votes/movements/decisions/scandals/incidents, reflected by sustained media coverage.
Newly founded/running parties would, in my opinion, best be placed in the election article, only to be mentioned here if they gain notable publicity (e.g. by running for decades). On the other hand, even minuscule first-timers get articles of their own, so why not list them here? But if, then this inclusion extends to earlier times. Removing entries because they are outdated will not fit the purpose of this list.
I do not intend or propose to fill this list with loads of details, only with most important facts (in as few words as possible) that give hints to readers who are not familiar with German politics or history. --92.211.192.188 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has criteria already, we can't decide ourselves what the criteria should be. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Read the whole page for details, also WP:GNG. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Party Leaders

This page lists Andra as leader of the SDP, but the Wikepedia page for Andrea Nahles states she was in the position until June 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.245.133 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. It has now been updated. Helper201 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Logo Klimaliste

The logo for Klimaliste ist outdated, the logo in the Klimaliste article is the correct one, I tried to change it, but didn't manage :-/ 185.104.137.32 (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Helper201 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

party colours

many of the party colours are very fictitious! who is hallucinating them? without sources? 2001:A61:11A9:A601:475:5E48:DA20:B367 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)