Talk:Junge Freiheit

Old talk (section heading added 6/16/13)

This article ignores the fact tja Junge Freiheit is an extremist newspaper from the far right. It's not liberal or anything. It's extremist.

Sounds to me as if this wikipedia article has been written by the junge freiheit editors themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.234.247 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by User:Barry Troost who was blocked on the german wikipedia for edit wars about this subject. -- memset 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

go to www.npd.de if you know the german language and want to see something that is really from "far right". There's nothing ideologic about that newspaper and they distance themselves from right parties and organisations. Helmut Markwort who is also mentioned in this article praised the Junge Freiheit. He is Chief Editor of the German magazine "Focus" which you probably would call "liberal". Of course there's much data to be added if you take a look onto the German wikipedia page. But it's wrong that the JF is from far right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.252.208 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberal-conservative

JF is a rather classic liberal-conservative publication. One of its most well known supporters, Alexander von Stahl, the former Attorney-General of Germany, is a well-known liberal politician.

The Editor-in-Chief, Dieter Stein, says this:

"Die 'Junge Freiheit' ist, würde ich sagen, im Grunde genommen eine liberal-konservative Wochenzeitung, die in einer Tradition steht, wenn Sie auch die großen Namen nehmen, die bei uns schreiben, der alten 'FAZ' und der 'Welt'."[1] Marina Taurus (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one opinion. Here are others:

• ...the right-wing extremist weekly Junge Freiheit - the repository of contemporary völkisch thought...[2]
• the neo-fascist weekly Junge Freiheit[3]
• Nolte's most consistent advocates are periodicals such as the newspaper Junge Freiheit which describes itself as a newspaper in Germany for “patriotic right-wingers.” [4]
• ...the extreme-right weekly paper Junge Freiheit...The Junge Freiheit paper is regarded as the leading mouthpiece of the so-called “new right” in Germany and has, as a result, been put under surveillance by the intelligence services of another German state, Baden-Württemberg....[5]
• ...Junge Freiheit (for which I write regularly) ...Junge Freiheit has annoyed both the political Left and the bogus Right-Center, both of which endorse the curbing of “fascistic” publications. In Germany and in other European countries, “fascist” means that which the Left does not want said. Enlightened Germans hurriedly bring up the Nazi past whenever conversation turns to a politically-unfashionable topic...Junge Freiheit says that “extremist” actually means “rechtsaussen [anything thought to be right of right-center].”...To its credit, Junge Freiheit has responded to this anti-fascist bullying by seizing the banners of freedom and German national dignity both at the same time...Junge Freiheit is defending itself by retaining a distinguished jurist and longtime public servant, Alexander von Stahl, .. Paul Gottfried [6]
• In the last couple of weeks I was in touch with several German friends about these issues. First they all said that Junge Frieheit is almost universally seen as an extremist neo-Nazi group that plays very carefully with the words it uses so as to get it’s message out without having to be too explicit....My main point is that everyone who knows about such topics in Germany knows that Junge Freiheit is a very antifreedom newspaper and that they play a game with the public, to broadcast the racist and extremist ideas of the German past but without being too closely tied to them. Tom G. Palmer [7]

So I don't think we can blithely say that it is a liberal-conservative paper. It's better just to leave off their political affiliation rather than misrepresent it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea! Greetings, Entfremdungskammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.107.174 (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All of your sources are heavily biased or rely on personal opinion or anecdotes. I really don't think that the World Socialist website, for example, is anything close to a reliable source on categorizing right-of-center parties, papers, or people, since socialists are by definition the most opposed to them.Evil Maniac From Mars (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that Trotskyist WSWS pages and the blog post by a certain David Vickrey carry as much weight as the opinions of Alexander von Stahl or the court ruling, one clearly hasn't got a clue as to what a reliable source might look like. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation is required regarding some of the claims in article

Confirmation is required regarding some of the claims in article.--Molobo (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by Volunteer Marek

Recent edits by Volunteer Marek do not conform to NPOV and Due weight policies. The alleged far-right classification is dealt with in the main body, and authors listed like Helmut Markwort (editor in chief of Focus),[6] Ephraim Kishon[7] and Erwin Scheuch who deny any far-right trends in the newspaper are clearly superior compared with a relatively unknown figure like Martin Lee. Also, the so-called Junge Freiheit ruling in the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany meant that the classification far-right in the Nordrhein-Westfalen Verfassungsschutz' annual reports was invalid. It is not mentioned in any Verfassungsschutz annual reports since then. This is clearly the majority POV. The controversy is already mentioned in detail and, needless to say, the lead section must reflect the body, not just personal views of 1 or 2 authors. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The alleged far-right classification is dealt with in the main body - uh, no, it isn't. It might have been at one point but it has been removed. All it says is that so-and-so denies they're far-right, without actually stating that the paper is referred to as far right. And as far as that goes all three of those sources you mention are self-published sources. The way that Wikipedia works is that we want independent sources about a subject. And that'd be a source like Martin Lee - where do you get this "relatively unknown figure" nonsense from? Anyway, it's a reliable source. So no, it's not "clearly superior".

The court ruling here only stated that the authorities shouldn't list it as "far right" as that might be a violation of freedom of speech. It didn't "rule that JF wasn't far-right" or anything. Regardless, what matters is what the sources say.

And I gotta say. I love how when it comes to Polish politicians you try to portray them in as bad light as possible, but when it comes to extremist organizations and parties in other parts of Europe you vehemently try to portray them as respectable. Consistency at least? Volunteer Marek 13:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, the court ruling is very relevant, as it is based on the scholarly consensus at the time in Germany, otherwise it would not have forbidden the mentioning of the paper in the VS yearly reports. You see, true far-right (Nationa-Zeitung; Deutsche Stimme) or far-left (Junge Welt) papers, websites, organizations are listed in those reports with no problem arising. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As to the Polish politicians argument... Well, where have I portrayed guys like this [8], [9] in a negative light (despite obviously not agreeing with their views). No, I haven't. Not liking endecja proto-fascists does not equal disliking all Polish politicians.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that the publication is called "far right" in numerous reliable sources. I'm also not buying that the ruling court was based on the "scholarly consensus at the time in Germany", nor that these kinds of issues can or are settled by a court ruling. On Wikipedia, they're settled by what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Added another source that is both reliable and sums things up clearly [10] (2005). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your link be broken.Volunteer Marek 14:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And try this [11] Volunteer Marek 14:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No-one has claimed there's no xenophobia or racism in the Federal Republic of Germany. On the other hand, an avowedly far-right party has never had seats in the FRG parliament, unlike the case of two of its great neghbours that fought in the anti-Hitler coalition.
What is also worth noting is that according to VS reports, the number of extreme left activists in FRG is greater than that of the extreme right activists. Similarly, the number of crimes of violence perpetrated by left-wing extremists is somewhat greater than the respective number perpetrated by right-wing extremists. But this is rather off-topic.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what the relevance of any of this, even if true, is supposed to be. Also, your link is still broken.Volunteer Marek 15:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Kühnen

I would like to see a quotation that ostensibly claims that several editors of Junge Freiheit belonged to Michael Kühnen's neo-Nazi organization. This is clearly a WP:Red flag claim, given who are the persons that explicitly deny any far-right affiliation of the paper. The page referred to is not available on Google books and a search gives no results: [12]. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The text can be easily seen in the link provided by the editor. It says:

Stein, however disavowed any connections with skinheads and neo-Nazis, even though some Junge Freiheit editors had matriculated from cadre organizations linked to Michael Kuhnen. Despite daily assaults against foreigners in Germany, Stein maintained that the threat of neo-Nazi violence was exaggerated by the media. "Germans have shown a lot of restraint in not attacking foreigners," he asserted

So it does say right there that some of the editors of JF were part of organization's linked to Kuhnen.Volunteer Marek 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I only have snippet view of that page, so I couldn't access it before getting the full citation. Nevertheless, it remains a 'red flag' claim and I consider it likely that the author (Martin Lee, who's just a journalist) has made a mistake there. For it's extremely unlikely that Jewish figures like Gerhard Löwenthal (cf Junge Freiheit#Gerhard Löwenthal Prize) or Ephraim Kishon would like to have anything to do with a newspaper connected to Neo-Nazi Michael Kühnen. I googled but couldn't find anything else as to supposed relationship of some editors and M. Kühnen. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "just a journalist" is supposed to mean in this context.Volunteer Marek 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you couldn't find the source either even so it didn't take more than clicking on a link, or, if it's not working for you, check the book at a library. Also we cite content to books and other media that is not available online. Asking for a quote and/or verification is the way to go, not removing such content just b/c you don't have it on hand. Please remember this in the future. Also, what you personally believe or not is to no consequence here; RS's trump your disbelieve.TMCk (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion/explanation IS relevant, since it substantiates my claim, why it's a exceptional/'red flag' claim. This is also policy.
Do you have any other sources that claim JF has been associated with M. Kühnen's cadres?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The given source is fine and RS. If you have a problem with this I suggest you take it to the wp:RSN board.TMCk (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)