Talk:Social Democratic Party of Germany

message: The fact that one can read the entire lede and the entire "History" section without ever reading that the SPD was Marxist for the first 50 years of its existence, but isn't anymore, begs the question why? Sorry, but the phrase "Marxist-influenced" is actually worse than saying nothing at all, because it is literally meaningless without context. Fucking Christ! 76.69.155.96 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and not a fucking word about Rosa. Who wrote this garbage??? 76.69.155.96 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scheißerpedia 

message: Is it really necessary to list factions in the infobox? The SPD is a catch-all center-left social-democratic party—of course it will have democratic socialist and centrist factions! In the interest of concision (especially since this is the infobox), I propose that the factions section be removed from the infobox. The references should be used in the article body instead. This same issue applies to the CDU and the CSU. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The factions absolutely should be removed from the Infobox, and several of them are backed up with references of which are dubious reliability, or don't claim that they supposedly do.--Autospark (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section from this page. However, I don't want to do it on the CDU/CSU pages, since I'm not sure which ones to keep. Should we start a discussion on those pages? Ezhao02 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree with the removal because they should be under a Factions parameter which I am proposing to add. Since we have a section about factions on several political parties articles, I believe they should be in the infobox, not under Ideology because that would be the wrong parameter, but under a new Factions one. Since the infobox is supposed to list key facts, factions may be important enough to be listed. Of course, there would need to be  a sourced section about them, etc. Otherwise we would simply leave the parameter blank and only have one main ideology under Ideology. Any thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I will respond on the CDU's talk page. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , if there is still no faction parameter, Chinese Communist Party could a good way of reflecting changes or controversy without having to use the awkward Factions or Majority/Minority. But this is not the case, and I still agree that "[t]he SPD is a catch-all center-left social-democratic party—of course it will have democratic socialist and centrist factions!" Pro-Europeanism was also added again and I had to remove it. Davide King (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help! I agree with the catch-all statement. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factions section under Ideology in infobox 

message: Shouldn't 1875 (the merger of ADAV and SDAP) be the founding date instead of 1863 (the founding of ADAV), since ADAV is only one of the two predecessor organizations? 
178.218.236.111 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be right, but I wonder what other editors think. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any citations to support the merger date of ADAV and SDAP that you wish to include to support the 1875 date? Jurisdicta (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding date