Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)

message: I've re-written sections of this article and re-arranged it. I think it would be useful to expand the early history/origins of the FDP in this article. As it stands now, the article seems to imply that the party miraculously emerged for roll of creating majority governments. --metzerly 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone with better knowledge have a go at clarifying the 2005 federal election section. It currently reads as though a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition was unviable because of social issues and the CDU/CSU weakness. My recollection is that these parties were all prepared to form a coalition but the problem was the creation of the Left Party and absorption of fringe votes meant that it qualified for top-up seats and put a fifth element into the Bundestag that meant both normal coalitions lacked a majority. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the History 

message: This has recently been controversial. However, it is problematic to word it this way as it is unclear how "a government" is defined. Does it go per cabinet (which seemes to be Mogelzahn's view)? Or per legislature? Or by coaltion (which seems to be the IP's view)? Things are further complicated by short-term departures of the FDP from the cabinet during the Spiegel Affaire and in 1982. Therefore I suggest replacing the ambiguous calculation by "governments" by a calculation by years, which also avoids treating short-term "governments" equally with longer-lasting ones. My calculation goes like this:
*CDU/CSU/FDP/DP coalition (Chancellor Adenauer): 1949-1956 = 7 years
*CDU/CSU/FDP coalition (Chancellors Adenauer and Erhard): 1961-1966 = 5 years
*SPD/FDP coalition (Chancellors Brandt and Schmidt): 1969-1982 = 13 years
*CDU/CSU/FDP coalition (Chancellor Kohl): 1982-1998 = 16 years
which summs up to 41 years. I'll change the passage to that effect. Str1977 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "has participated in all but four/six governments"

message: The logo in the infobox is outdated. The actual logo can be seen in German Wikipedia. Please update. -- Felix König ✉ 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: :Why is the party classed as classical liberal?  I find that very off, considering the mentions of internationalism and civil rights.  Classical liberalism implies isolationism as well as gov't non-intervention on civil rights.  Civil liberties are different.  The FDP is very much not classical liberal.  68.227.163.169 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you're getting 'civil rights'.  The article explicitly states 'civil liberties', as is the party's principle, and states that the party rejects egalitarianism.  'Internationalism' does not mean invading other countries, but engaging in multilateral diplomacy - which is not either classical liberal or anti-liberal per se.  The party is well-documented as a classical liberal party: indeed, the world's most prominent and successful classical liberal party. Bastin 14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical liberalism

message: I propose rewriting the section on Europe. In the last couple of weeks and months, a new internal movement developed in the FDP: The Liberaler Aufbruch. It claims that the FDP is not a classical-liberal party. The goal of the Liberaler Aufbruch is to promote classical liberalism inside the FDP.
They are oppposed to the development of EU into a centralized government. They want to go back to the Treaty of Rome. 
I think, this wing of the FDP is best described as soft-eurosceptic.
Source: http://www.liberaler-aufbruch.net/europa.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.198.7 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a reference to a soft eurosceptic national liberal faction.  Note that any additions will need to be better referenced than the nonsense that currently inhabits the article. Bastin 09:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euroskepticism 

message: Poll is missing. 2.210.43.153 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EURO opinion poll  

message: Since when does one translate proper names into another language?--78.42.129.158 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I realize that all German parties have articles where the party name has been (badly) translated. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: For political parties, kings, popes, etc. this has long been the practice in English. It is also not unusual in German: the FAZ talks of "Großbritanniens Konservative Partei",  Obama's "Demokratische Partei", etc. and writes "Cameron muss mit den Liberaldemokraten unter Clegg zusammenarbeiten". So what is the problem?--Boson (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see that "Wilhelm Külz" was also translated. I presume this was done by Google Translate. --Boson (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you stupid? 

message: I tried to put more information in the info-box, which I took from the German page.
All of the new information occurs in the source, but unfortunately only some occur in the visible info-box while some old information does not appear visible any longer.
May someone try to fix it?
The order of information as seen in the source is correct, this shall be transferred in the visible info-box.
Thanks!
--Johannnes89 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925021313/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705072802/http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/ to http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903224113/http://www.freiheit.org/files/288/1948_Heppenheimer_Proklamation.pdf to http://www.freiheit.org/files/288/1948_Heppenheimer_Proklamation.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925082144/http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/nach-der-wahl-in-bremen-eine-rundum-ratlose-kanzlerin-1688143-infographic.html to http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/nach-der-wahl-in-bremen-eine-rundum-ratlose-kanzlerin-1688143-infographic.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello  Please provide a source for the purported use of your "flag" by the FDP. How is it even possible to use a gif as a flag? Is the flag in real life covered with LEDs that constantly change their colours? --RJFF (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flag" 

message: Which ideology/ideologies and political positions should be listed in the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All sourced ideologies and Centre to right-wing - I strongly disagree with the notion that infoboxes should be as slim as possible. I think quite to the contrary they should be as all-encompassing as possible, as many readers will not even read past it. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "" notion is the complete opposite of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "" and "". Vacant0 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you argue that this information is not crucial. As you quoted so nicely, . This should then encompass all key facts and I think any ideological description is relevant information, since it usually describes different factions inside the party. As I see this compressing of ideologies has taken root in articles about German political parties, but I see it mostly as a thinly veiled attempt at hiding divergent viewpoints. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 23:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Hi, would you kindly provide a summary of the discussion above? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above was about the ideology and political position of FDP. It turned to be a rather large discussion, with editors expressing their opinions multiple times. I don't think that a clear consensus would come from that discussion as some editors also kept changing their opinion on what ideologies should be included in the infobox and edit warring already occurred a few days ago, while the discussion was still ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Sources that are once classified as right-wing include: In the discussion above, discussions were held on whether to go from 'center to center-right' or a simple center-right, but no conclusion was reached. Regarding ideology, there are many ideologies, but it would be better to write liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and conservative liberalism mentioned in many sources. The Free Democratic Party is described by many sources as a right-wing party. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem I have with your references is that they are South Korean, where they view things politically different from other countries. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Placing the FDP on the left-right spectrum is not trivial. One problem is that during it's long time as junior party in CDU/FDP governments (Kohl/Merkel) it wasn't always clear which policies they supported because they believed in them and which policies they supported for whatever-it-takes-to-be-in-power reasons. Another problem is that it has moved around a little in the past. There were definitely times where they tried their hand at right-wing populism (e.g. around 2000 under the influence of Jürgen Möllemann). But long term I would say centre-right is probably most accurate. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I'd like to refer everyone to this graphic: . It summarises how 361 experts place the political parties in Germany on several spectra. These are (left to right, top to bottom): left-right, economy, society, law and order, immigration, integration, climate, education, EU integration. It is from the article Die Positionen der Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2021: Ergebnisse des Open Expert Surveys (in German). Notice that regarding the left-right spectrum the FDP is placed about the same as the CDU. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  their ideology list was changed Braganza (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was changed back. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  no i mean it used to be Liberalism+Classical Liberalism just a few weeks ago Braganza (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: fair Braganza (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: The political position of centre should certainly be restored to the infobox. Before Jan/Feb this year this was the long term cited position in the infobox and was removed without a consensus to do so. Helper201 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Infobox is meant to be merely a summary, not a long list of everything described or referenced in the article body, particular cramming every redundant or tautological piece of information that is best elaborated upon inside the article.-- Autospark (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but since when is two political positions, or three political ideologies a "long list"? A huge array of political parties across Wikipedia have multiple of both in each section and this is not commonly flagged up as a problem by many editors other than yourself. A wider Wikipedia consensus is needed on what constitutes as "too many" ideologies and political positions for the infobox. One or two editors making drive-by arbitrary edits of removing what they personally think consisted as "too many" ideologies or positions is not how this should be done. Helper201 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Two political positions that heavily overlap; three ideologies which overlap (one of which arguably problematic as a descriptor). There is a common problem on en.wiki articles about political parties, where editors cram Infoboxes with information that does not need to be there, including policies position; two ideologies are enough. More detail, should and can be provided in the article body. There is no requirement to list every reliably-referenced ideology or position on the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may interject, it's like when there is "nationalism" and "social conservatism" in the infobox. It's better to have "national conservatism" since it encompasses both. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Combining ideologies with references that do not support the claim is WP:HIJACK. I've just noticed that you've done that to Amanat (political party). I've reverted it. Vacant0 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

text: please stop enforcing your own point of view without a consensus. You have no consensus to remove stuff like "centre" from the infobox. You are removing what is supported by sources and what has long been established and cited on the page. What constitutes "enough" is entirely subjective and does not get to be determined solely by yourself. Just because something isn't "required" doesn't mean it cannot exist within the infobox. No one should be gatekeeping what is allowed in the infobox if it is supported by sources and has no consensus to remove. There was clearly no consensus to remove what you have removed and it seems one has not been established, so the infobox should return to how it was before you starting removing cited information from it. Helper201 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey above and several other discussions show that what User:Autospark wrote above is consensual. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus in favour of Autospark's views here. Helper201 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The user that ends up closing this RfC will determine whether there is consensus or not. Vacant0 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, refrain from edit warring, especially while the RfC is ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

text: The RfC expired so I'll ask someone now to close it manually. Vacant0 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

text: @Vacant0 - I have closed it. If you or any other editor has questions regarding my rationale, please ping me or ask on my talk page. casualdejekyll 18:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Infobox 

message: *Liberalism and Centre to centre-right or just Centre-right As I've stated in the discussion above, we should be following the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline which states "" and "". I believe that regarding articles like this, the ideology section should only contain an ideology (or ideologies) that is/are mainly associated with a party while listing every single one of these ideologies would only clutter the infobox even more and this would then not fall under "key facts" (key ideologies in this case) part. In the case of FDP, this ideology would be liberalism, as this ideology is more commonly used by reliable sources and it already encompasses its variants that are listed above. Regarding its political position, a quick search would show that "centre" is the most used one, followed by centre-right and right-wing. The right-wing descriptor is in the minority here, so it should be avoided, while the "centre" descriptor does outweigh the "centre-right" one, I would accept either one of these to be listed in the infobox including the current status quo "centre to centre-right", as FDP does lean very much on the right regarding economic issues, so IMO, leaving only centre in the infobox would create a false perspective regarding its position. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All sourced ideologies and Centre to right-wing - I strongly disagree with the notion that infoboxes should be as slim as possible. I think quite to the contrary they should be as all-encompassing as possible, as many readers will not even read past it. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "" notion is the complete opposite of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "" and "". Vacant0 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you argue that this information is not crucial. As you quoted so nicely, . This should then encompass all key facts and I think any ideological description is relevant information, since it usually describes different factions inside the party. As I see this compressing of ideologies has taken root in articles about German political parties, but I see it mostly as a thinly veiled attempt at hiding divergent viewpoints. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 23:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey (Infobox) 

message: I hope we'll see an outcome through this RfC as the discussion above has turned out to be large with users repeating their opinions several times. Let's abstain from original research and state the evidence that is provided by reliable sources regarding this party. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, would you kindly provide a summary of the discussion above? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above was about the ideology and political position of FDP. It turned to be a rather large discussion, with editors expressing their opinions multiple times. I don't think that a clear consensus would come from that discussion as some editors also kept changing their opinion on what ideologies should be included in the infobox and edit warring already occurred a few days ago, while the discussion was still ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Sources that are once classified as right-wing include: In the discussion above, discussions were held on whether to go from 'center to center-right' or a simple center-right, but no conclusion was reached. Regarding ideology, there are many ideologies, but it would be better to write liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and conservative liberalism mentioned in many sources. The Free Democratic Party is described by many sources as a right-wing party. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem I have with your references is that they are South Korean, where they view things politically different from other countries. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Placing the FDP on the left-right spectrum is not trivial. One problem is that during it's long time as junior party in CDU/FDP governments (Kohl/Merkel) it wasn't always clear which policies they supported because they believed in them and which policies they supported for whatever-it-takes-to-be-in-power reasons. Another problem is that it has moved around a little in the past. There were definitely times where they tried their hand at right-wing populism (e.g. around 2000 under the influence of Jürgen Möllemann). But long term I would say centre-right is probably most accurate. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I'd like to refer everyone to this graphic: . It summarises how 361 experts place the political parties in Germany on several spectra. These are (left to right, top to bottom): left-right, economy, society, law and order, immigration, integration, climate, education, EU integration. It is from the article Die Positionen der Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2021: Ergebnisse des Open Expert Surveys (in German). Notice that regarding the left-right spectrum the FDP is placed about the same as the CDU. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  their ideology list was changed Braganza (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was changed back. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  no i mean it used to be Liberalism+Classical Liberalism just a few weeks ago Braganza (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: fair Braganza (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: The political position of centre should certainly be restored to the infobox. Before Jan/Feb this year this was the long term cited position in the infobox and was removed without a consensus to do so. Helper201 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Infobox is meant to be merely a summary, not a long list of everything described or referenced in the article body, particular cramming every redundant or tautological piece of information that is best elaborated upon inside the article.-- Autospark (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but since when is two political positions, or three political ideologies a "long list"? A huge array of political parties across Wikipedia have multiple of both in each section and this is not commonly flagged up as a problem by many editors other than yourself. A wider Wikipedia consensus is needed on what constitutes as "too many" ideologies and political positions for the infobox. One or two editors making drive-by arbitrary edits of removing what they personally think consisted as "too many" ideologies or positions is not how this should be done. Helper201 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Two political positions that heavily overlap; three ideologies which overlap (one of which arguably problematic as a descriptor). There is a common problem on en.wiki articles about political parties, where editors cram Infoboxes with information that does not need to be there, including policies position; two ideologies are enough. More detail, should and can be provided in the article body. There is no requirement to list every reliably-referenced ideology or position on the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may interject, it's like when there is "nationalism" and "social conservatism" in the infobox. It's better to have "national conservatism" since it encompasses both. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Combining ideologies with references that do not support the claim is WP:HIJACK. I've just noticed that you've done that to Amanat (political party). I've reverted it. Vacant0 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

text: please stop enforcing your own point of view without a consensus. You have no consensus to remove stuff like "centre" from the infobox. You are removing what is supported by sources and what has long been established and cited on the page. What constitutes "enough" is entirely subjective and does not get to be determined solely by yourself. Just because something isn't "required" doesn't mean it cannot exist within the infobox. No one should be gatekeeping what is allowed in the infobox if it is supported by sources and has no consensus to remove. There was clearly no consensus to remove what you have removed and it seems one has not been established, so the infobox should return to how it was before you starting removing cited information from it. Helper201 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey above and several other discussions show that what User:Autospark wrote above is consensual. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus in favour of Autospark's views here. Helper201 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The user that ends up closing this RfC will determine whether there is consensus or not. Vacant0 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, refrain from edit warring, especially while the RfC is ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

text: The RfC expired so I'll ask someone now to close it manually. Vacant0 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

text: @Vacant0 - I have closed it. If you or any other editor has questions regarding my rationale, please ping me or ask on my talk page. casualdejekyll 18:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (Infobox) 

message: The last paragraph of the section 1949–1969: reconstruction of Germany reads:
I am a native speaker of English and I can't understand what this is trying to say, mostly due to its awful grammar. I guessed that the first sentence was a typo and "to" should be "too", which is redundant so I deleted it. In the third sentence, "Walter Scheel" has no coherent syntactic role, it's just tacked on the end of a sentence, so it's unclear what its role is supposed to be. Did Scheel elect delegates? That makes no sense: one does not unilaterally elect anyone, that is an appointment, not an election. Did the delegates elect Scheel? That makes more sense, but what delegates are they? Should it say "members of the Bundestag"? Who was Scheer anyway – the chairman? His name needs to be somewhat near the word "chairman" to make that anywhere close to clear. The final sentence is totally garbled and incoherent. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible paragraph 

message: I would like to open a new discussion regarding the political position of the FDP, since I do not at all agree with the removal tout court of its centrist positioning: this positioning is indicated by multiple authoritative sources, including the encyclopedia Britannica () and several books (, , , , ), and its removal seems to me unjustified. The consensus to include only the centre-right as a political position was very weak, so I would like the choice to exclude a political position attested by numerous sources to be reconsidered. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are perfectly free to add those references to the article body if you wish. Are you talking about the Infobox? Well, that’s meant to be a summary, not an exhaustive essay in itself. The elaborations and wider range of descriptions can be in the Ideology section. If summarising the FDP as a party, centre-right is the most accurate description for a brief summary, and is well-referenced.— Autospark (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, if a political position is widely referenced, it seems to me a rather arbitrary choice to want to exclude it from the infobox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Infobox is only meant to be a brief summary, and centre-right already includes “centre”.— Autospark (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Centre-right has a different meaning than centre, if the party is very often described only as centrist, I find it wrong not to point this out. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one is denying that. However, this discussion is seemingly about what to put in the Infobox. We have sources describing the party as right-wing as well, but I wouldn’t put “right-wing” as the primary description of the party in the Infobox either.— Autospark (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "centre-right" is the more correct political position and it already includes "centre". Please also note that the party is surely not centre-left, but a centrist party oriented toward the right, thus "centre-right". This said, I take also this opportunity to point out that political positions are quite deceptive and confusing—I would remove them from infoboxes altogether. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  that centre should be restored to the infobox. I've outlined my thoughts about this in a discussion above. However, I also support the retention of centre-right, so it would read "Centre to centre-right". IMO this is in no way exhaustive and provides important nuance. Nor do I agree the statement "centre-right includes centre", as if this justifies the reduction of one when it can be well cited with multiple reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I also believe that the position in the infobox should be "center to centre-right". I think an RFC on the political position of this party should be repeated. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

text: @Helper201:“Centre-right” includes “centre”. It’s inherently there. “Centre to centre-right” makes zero sense. One or the other. I’d prefer no position to be listed in the Infobox rather than that, frankly. (The FDP is a centre-right party anyway, being to the right of the CDU/CSU. And no, “centre-right” isn’t some kind of ‘slur’ description, or a more controversial one like “far-right” which needs careful supporting evidence via suitable references. If we can describe the British Tories, Dutch VVD, Forza Italia et al as centre-right, we should be able to do the same with the FDP.)—Autospark (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the narrative framing of "centre-right includes centre" so therefore centre-right shouldn't be included. You could say the same for centre-right includes "right" so you can't call a party centre-right to right-wing, or a party right-wing to far-right because they both include "right". Many editors would have a problem with this, as position frames like this have frequently achieved a consensus across many Wikipedia pages. Also, I never called anything a "slur", so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I disagree that assertion that the FDP is to the right of the CDU/CSU as well. Maybe this could be argued to be the case on some economic policies, but certainly not socially and even just generally on non-economic matters. Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the FDP is not to the right of the CDU/CSU, furthermore it is not even comparable to parties like Forza Italia (which is indeed comparable to the CDU/CSU).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about a party with a history of containing both liberal and conservative factions, the latter stretching rather far to the right at times. We aren’t talking about something identical to the British Liberals/LibDems, namely a centrist party with a centre-left tilt.— Autospark (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For this reason the proposal is to indicate "Centre to centre-right", the FDP is a centrist party with conservative inclinations. If the Liberal Democrats' position is "centre to centre-left", I see no reason why the FDP's position cannot be "centre to centre-right".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should another article dictate this one? I usually try and avoid articles about UK parties, often unsuccessfully, but would not leave the “centre to centre-left” nonsense there either. Not that it matters. (Also, why is everyone focusing on Infoboxes recently? Why not actually contribute material to the article bodies?)— Autospark (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Helper201 I’ve noticed a general pushback recently about describing centre-right liberal parties / ALDE member parties as centre-right or right, as if it’s a slur or extreme description, not a perfectly acceptable description for a mainstream party backed up by sources. This of course may not be your motivation here.— Autospark (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It was you who cited the Liberal Democrats as a comparison, and if a lot of parties' articles indicate Centre to centre-left/right as a political position, it means that it is not nonsense as you say. And why shouldn't I focus on the infobox? If you have intervened in this discussion it means that the infobox is of interest to you too.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many poorly-written en.wiki articles about political parties. I’m trying to not let this become one of them. Honestly, if articles commonly have tautological nonsense like “centre to centre-x” in their Infoboxes, that isn’t an excuse to use that trope here – quality control is never a bad thing. I’m beginning to think we would be best off without the Position field in these Infoboxes, or at least have very strict rules about only listing one position per article.— Autospark (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If authoritative sources indicate a broader spectrum of positions for a party, choosing just one would be an arbitrary decision by users, who would instead have to consider all the most authoritative sources. I don't think there would be consensus to completely remove the political position from the infobox, since it is very useful information. However, I believe this discussion should be resolved through a new RFC. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . Helper201 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Broader spectrum? That’s for the article body, particular the Ideology section to describe, not the Infobox. I’ve already put the legwork in, adding dozens of references for this article adding to describing the trends in and nuance of the party. I’m not denying a “broader spectrum”, quite the opposite.— Autospark (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I totally agree with User:Autospark. And, let me say it, there is much nonsense in this discussion. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position 

message: Which political position should be indicated in the Free Democratic Party's infobox?
*Centre 
*Centre-right
*Centre to centre-right
Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fiscal: Centre-right, Social: centre-left. I believe this describes their position most accurately. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Saying something is centrist doesn't contradict it being centre-right necessarily. The latter is more specific often. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pincrete I don't pretend to change your mind, but... do you seriously think that a party described indiscriminately as centrist, centre-left and centre-right should be described solely as centre-right? How can we justify excluding a vast amount of reliable sources from the page? It seems against Wikipedia principles to me...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Such descriptors are rarely universally applied in all contexts, they are a broad assessment of their principal - often economic - policies. You write as though being centre is a fundamentally different thing from being centre-right or centre-left. We cannot record every description ever made of every political position. If a party is, for example, consistently described as centre-right in one policy area, but centre-left in another, those specifics are worth describing. Otherwise it's fudging the issue that they are most commonly described as centre-right. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't understand your reasoning well, could you explain it to me again. In any case, here we are faced with a case similar to the Christian Union (Netherlands) (in reverse parts): in fact the FDP is a centre-right party on fiscal policy and centre-left on social policies, this cannot be denied: describing the FDP just as a centre-right party means taking into consideration only part of the policies of this party (and only part of the sources).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It means following the broad sweep of the majority of sources - which don't, as far as I can see, make the fiscal/social distinction that you do. I have commented on this RfC. I did so in good faith based on my assessment. I don't have to justify my assessment any further than I have already. Nobody thinks that a centre-right party is, or has to be, perfectly centre-right in everything it does, it's a broad descriptor. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I don't question anyone's good faith, and I don't pretend to change your mind, each user's preference is legitimate, even if I don't agree with their motivations: in particular, it doesn't seem to me that most sources describe the FDP as a centre-right party, but as a centrist party. Furthermore, a centre-right party does not have centre-left social policies, otherwise it is not a centre-right party! The sources explain it well. I wanted to point this out, even if I don't think that either you or the other users who indicated "centre-right" will change their minds... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc: political position 

message: Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fiscal: Centre-right, Social: centre-left. I believe this describes their position most accurately. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (political position)

message: you affirm that "there are many sources that make it clear that it is on the right and no sources that actually contradict this": this is not true at all, there are many sources that say the opposite. Some examples: the FDP is "centrist, a smaller party with politically progressive but economically conservative values" (); "classical liberals would present a firm economic liberalism and a centre-left position on cultural issues (e.g. the German FDP) (); another source describe the FDP as "centre-left liberals" (); the social liberal wing of the FDP in 1966 highlighted German liberalism's democratic and progressive tradition that overrode national-liberals' anti-Communism" (); another source: "in the early 1970 the nationalist strain largely left the party, so throughout the 1970s the FDP could be more comfortable in the center-moderate left coalition with the SDP" (); then "the FDP, ever since its Freiburg congress in January 1968, ad acquired such a progressive image in matters of Germany policy, eastern policy, and domestic reform  that it now had more in common with the SPD than with the Union" (). As you can see your statement can be easily refuted, there are multiple sources describing the FDP as a politically progressive or even centre-left party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying something is centrist doesn't contradict it being centre-right necessarily. The latter is more specific often. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pincrete I don't pretend to change your mind, but... do you seriously think that a party described indiscriminately as centrist, centre-left and centre-right should be described solely as centre-right? How can we justify excluding a vast amount of reliable sources from the page? It seems against Wikipedia principles to me...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Such descriptors are rarely universally applied in all contexts, they are a broad assessment of their principal - often economic - policies. You write as though being centre is a fundamentally different thing from being centre-right or centre-left. We cannot record every description ever made of every political position. If a party is, for example, consistently described as centre-right in one policy area, but centre-left in another, those specifics are worth describing. Otherwise it's fudging the issue that they are most commonly described as centre-right. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't understand your reasoning well, could you explain it to me again. In any case, here we are faced with a case similar to the Christian Union (Netherlands) (in reverse parts): in fact the FDP is a centre-right party on fiscal policy and centre-left on social policies, this cannot be denied: describing the FDP just as a centre-right party means taking into consideration only part of the policies of this party (and only part of the sources).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It means following the broad sweep of the majority of sources - which don't, as far as I can see, make the fiscal/social distinction that you do. I have commented on this RfC. I did so in good faith based on my assessment. I don't have to justify my assessment any further than I have already. Nobody thinks that a centre-right party is, or has to be, perfectly centre-right in everything it does, it's a broad descriptor. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I don't question anyone's good faith, and I don't pretend to change your mind, each user's preference is legitimate, even if I don't agree with their motivations: in particular, it doesn't seem to me that most sources describe the FDP as a centre-right party, but as a centrist party. Furthermore, a centre-right party does not have centre-left social policies, otherwise it is not a centre-right party! The sources explain it well. I wanted to point this out, even if I don't think that either you or the other users who indicated "centre-right" will change their minds... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion (political position)