Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

RFC for dispute regarding inclusion of UKIP/BNP comparison in lede of UKIP article

Several weeks ago a statement was added into the lede of this article which (in its current form) states that "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)." This is then cited to an article from The Guardian newspaper. There was never any consensus obtained to add this information into the lede, and many editors have objected to it, resulting in edit wars and administrative blocks on editing the entire page. Concerns have been raised that its inclusion in the lede constitutes undue weight and that as such it compromises the NPOV nature of the article by seeking to over-emphasize the links between UKIP and a more extreme party. Those who support its inclusion dispute this viewpoint, deeming it to be due weight. A debate was held at Talk:UK Independence Party#Suggested removal of BNP comparison in the lede but it appears to have gone stale with no consensus so I was hoping that opening it up to other editors in an RfC would help bring us to a solution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Per previous discussion (which didn't go stale you just didn't get the result you wanted!), the comparison has been made and is significant given the relative demise of BNP and multiple sources which say the BNP vote (or at least the soft end) moved to UKIP. We report the comparison, we don't state that there are the same as the BNP. The sheer number of these requests and reopening of resolved issues is getting tedious ----Snowded ^TALK 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect, this situation was never resolved; myself and five other editors expressed the opinion that it was undue weight to include it in the lede. Yourself and one other editor stated the opposing view, claiming that it belonged in the lede. Beyond some minor alteration to the wording no consensus was achieved regarding what to do with it, hence the RFC. There was just deadlock. As it is I am definitely open to compromise, but that wasn't happening at the previous discussion, which hadn't seen any posts in three days, so I was hoping that that might happen here, with some fresh editors giving their input. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that several of those editors argued from UKIP policy statements I think you are misrepresenting the evidence a little. Call an RfC, more editors would be good.----Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I had always thought that someone would had eventually inserted a comparison of UKIP with the BNP, sooner or later. Inevitable. In terms of membership, UKIP does suffer from infiltration from present and former membership and former general supporters of the BNP (or at least the risk, or the fear, of it). If it must, well, I think that it would be acceptable in a single sentence in its own right (but not in the first paragraph), of 2 lines maximum, provided that the fact that Michael White and the Guardian (and the political background of any other reliable (and usable) sources which can be found) are of the Left to the Centre-Left in terms of political background or affiliation, is clearly highlighted, in the beginning of that sentence. This is an article about UKIP, not the BNP, and this is not really the place to introduce the BNP to those who have never heard of them before. Either "the British National Party", or "the BNP", but not "the British National Party (BNP)". Make your blooming mind up! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, a better (reliable, and acceptable) source (preferably excluding both the Daily Worker or Morning Star (Marxist-Leninist) and the Socialist Worker (Trotskyite)) needs to be found. The present citation ([1]) is not acceptable, because not once does it mention the BNP by name. It is a made-up source, the same as the supposed Guardian source ([2]; [3]), which supposed to have supported that Louise Bours was in fact Louise van de Bours (who obviously, except to her political opponents, has never used such a name in any other capacity other than professionally as a stagename). -- Urquhartnite (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While consensus for a comparison might've been obtained previously, relying on The Guardian as a source is without a doubt treading into non-neutral territory. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Do a google scholar search, you will find lots of comparisons, references to them polling from the same groups etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all up for editors finding new evidence to support the claim (and additionally that the comparisons are particularly relevant and important) but the claim should be speedily removed for now since it's falsely sourced and was introduced as part of the set of edits which provoked the edit war which got this page locked downDtellett (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I edit articles from all major parties but have given all but given up on this one as it appears to be wp:OWNED by UKIP supporters who haven’t read the rules. As Snowded has said they reject sources which they don't like. This useful Guardian article titled “What's the difference between BNP and Ukip voters?” was added it on 6th June 2014 and removed by User:RoverTheBendInSussex 17th with the comment. “I don't think a left wing tabloid newspaper can be referenced as a reasonable source!” Similarly the comment “While consensus for a comparison might've been obtained previously, relying on The Guardian as a source is without a doubt treading into non-neutral territory” by user:FoCuSandLeArN is clearly wp:POV Unlike the tabloids, The Guardian is one of the suggested wp:Suggested sources. The comparison should be included in the lead and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be applied. JRPG (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We probably have a meat farm .... ----Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted what I meant to say. Neither The Guardian, nor any other source for that matter, should be treated as a catch-all reliable source when UKIP is involved, when it is a left-leaning newspaper. All I'm saying is that these contentious statements need to be backed up by more than a single source. If you resort to egregious name-calling when a simple matter like referencing is pointed out to you, then it is you that is showing bias, not the others. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment summoned by bot … a) it would help if someone could 'point the way' (ie sources gathered in one place) to how widespread this comparison is and what the comparers concluded … … b) Even if widespread, the suggested comparison is a tad loaded and context-less, by which I mean should the wording be something like 'UKIP's immigration (and??) policies have led some to compare etc.'? I think we all recognise the difference between 'Person X has been compared to Ghengis Khan', … … 'Because of his moustache, person X has been compared to Ghengis Khan' … … and 'Person X has been compared to Ghengis Khan, concluding that no two persons could be less alike.' … … Initial thoughts, I shall return!Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

An administrator deemed consensus to have been reached on this issue, and removed the offending passage within the lede. Hence I have ended this RFC as its purpose now appears to be defunct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

another Palgrave source etc.

[4] Restructuring the policy space in England: The end of the Left–Right paradigm? Jonathan Wheatley, 13 July 2015:

Political scientists often talk about ‘ideological dimensions’ that aggregate related policy issues into a single latent construct. Applying factor analysis and Mokken Scale Analysis to opinion data generated from a Voting Advice Application deployed in England in the run-up to the European parliamentary elections, I show how individual issues may be aggregated into two principal dimensions: an economic dimension that separates Left and Right in terms of the economy and a cultural communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension. I also identify a third (libertarian–authoritarian) dimension, but this appears to aggregate very few issues. By positioning party supporters on a two-dimensional map defined by the two principal dimensions, I show that United Kingdom Independence Party supporters are situated very near the ‘communitarian’ pole of the cultural communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension. Finally, I show that overall, the communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension forms a rather more coherent scale than the Left–Right dimension and this tendency is even more marked among younger voters and voters with little interest in politics. Overall, this would appear to show that the notion of (economic) Left and Right is losing its salience in English politics.

If one looks at "Euroskepticism" as being "left v. right" one faces the daunting task of explain the Green Party opposition to the EU [5].

UKIP started off clearly to the "right" but the elections indicate that the supporters do not regard themselves as "far right" at all - thus if we did use "public perception" of supporters, we could no longer assert "far right" assuming that had been its historical position on the spectrum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No they do not consider themselves "far right", they consider themselves to be to the right of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour, whom they consider left-wing. We should convey that they are the most right-wing party in Parliament. Opposition to the EU of course is in itself neither left nor right and is not the reason UKIP is considered right-wing. TFD (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"We should convey that they are the most right-wing party in Parliament." Wouldn't that be the Democratic Unionist Party? Brustopher (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. I suppose it would be more accurate to say the most right-wing Great Britain party in Parliament. TFD (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For that claim you would need a specific strong reliable source - preferably recent and scholarly due to the rapidly changing nature of their support per the HoC report. The HoC report clarifies that the support for UKIP today is a lot different from when it was first established, indeed. Collect (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is already reliably sourced and uncontroversial to boot. TFD (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Basic housekeeping

First re: 'On the international stage, it is a member of the right-wing Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy groups. In May 2015' isn't 'On the international stage' needlessly verbose, especially as the referenced groups are European. Secondly, some of coverage of the 2015 election (Defence etc) is now in the wrong tense. I came to the article 'cos of the RfC, but noticed these while here.Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The concern here is that if we simply state "it is a member of the right-wing Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy groups" the reader might assume that these are UK-based domestic groups, rather than appreciating that these are pan-EU organisations. Perhaps a middle-way could be found here, by replacing "On the international stage" with "Internationally". That way the verbosity is reduced but it still makes it clear that these groups are active on the international scene rather than purely being domestic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not use the fact that the groups are already covered by separate Wikipedia articles? Thus:

UKIP has been represented in the Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy groups.

Using the "has been" as such memberships are not static. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not 'In Europe, UKIP is a member ...' though I don't think anything is needed, we have links to clarify who these groups are. I remind regulars of wrong tenses in relation to 2015 election.Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Has been" (present perfect continuous tense) does not require "no longer" - while "is" requires a continuing status as simple present tense here. Collect (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2015

More lead stuff. "In May 2015, UKIP reported a membership of over 47,000, with its support base consisting primarily of older, white, male, working-class, less formally educated voters." UKIP don't have that data. Sentence should read "In May 2015, UKIP reported a membership of over 47,000".--Flexdream (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Had I been an administrator reviewing this I would have turned it down, because the discussion below clearly shows that consensus was not reached first. It appears that any of you can make edits now. In future, if the page is fully protected again, make sure you come to an agreement on what exact edit needs to be made before invoking the {{edit protected}} template. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be open to dividing the sentence in two, so that the lede no longer implies that "UKIP reported" the information on the demographics (i.e. age, class etc) of its support base. However, that demographic information regarding the party's support base is solidly attested by academic sources which appear in the body of the article itself. Thus, the statement that "its support base consisting primarily of older, white, male, working-class, less formally educated voters" should certainly remain inside the lede, and has been consistently supported here on the talk page during previous attempts to have it removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternately of course, this entire problem could be dealt with simply by reversing the structure of the existing sentence to "With a support base consisting primarily of older, white, male, working-class, less formally educated voters, in May 2015 UKIP reported a membership of over 47,000." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only source actually given in this article is "Ford & Goodwin" which appears paywalled (and is quite overused in this article). Its abstract, however, makes no claim that UKIP supporters are "less formally educated." ("more economically marginal and politically disaffected ‘core loyalists’ who are attracted to UKIP by its anti-immigration rhetoric and populist anti-establishment strategy. UKIP also succeeds in attracting core support from groups such as women who have traditionally rejected extreme right parties such as the British National Party (BNP).") In fact the abstract specifies the appeal to women voters, and specifically states that UKIP is not "extreme right" I the sense of the BNP. Collect (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Another F&G abstract states (as noted above) "We then move to consider the political changes that have further marginalized these voters, as first Labour and then the Conservatives focused their energies on recruiting and retaining support from middle-class, moderate swing voters. Finally, we show how UKIP has developed into an effective electoral machine which looks to win and retain the loyalties of these voters." The mention of education is with reference to one single part of the study - that is those with less education have been pushed to the margins, but not that the UKIP specifically is primarily that group. Collect (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters that Ford and Goodwin's book is behind a paywall; after all, very few books are given away for free by the publisher, but rather have to be paid for by the reader (unless of course they are borrowed from a library). Certainly, it isn't Wikipedia policy that the sources used in our articles must be freely available to all, and if that were to be the case then we would be greatly restrained and the whole project rendered rather pointless. It is true that Ford and Goodwin are used fairly heavily in this article, although that is only to be expected at this stage given that theirs is the only book-length academic study yet published on the UKIP phenomenon. I would certainly advocate for the inclusion of information from a wider range of academic studies (many have been published in peer-reviewed journals over the past five years or so) but the ability to make significant contributions to this article with the use of such sources is currently hindered by its 'locked' status which prevents editors from being bold with their additions. As for the issue surrounding whether or not we should mention the educational attainment of UKIP's core support base, I would point to Ford and Goodwin's clear statement on page 159 of their book that "UKIP's support has a very clear social profile, more so than any of the mainstream parties. Their electoral base is old, male, working class, white and less educated." At present, we actually quote this statement of theirs in the "Voter base" section, and that is why we then paraphrase it within the lede. I hope that that clears some things up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That Ford & Goodwin is behind a paywall is totally irrelevant and to criticise its use smacks of bad faith. Buy it (it's not expensive). Or borrow it. Then read it. Alternatively, read any of a number of reviews of the book that highlight these issues. Better yet, do what Wikipedia demands and rely on the good faith of those who have read it and cited it. What should not happen is to take an abstract (where?) as the substantive work. Emeraude (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Horsefeathers - I read the abstracts and sources and pointed out Most Wikipedia users do not have unlimited funds to read $15 books (even on Kindle). I, in fact, cited the sentence where the authors make clear that they are not saying "UKIP is primarily less educated people" but, in fact, they clearly state it has substantial support from women ('core support is the term they use). I trust that the abstract is correct in making that affirmative statement, which is diametrically opposed to the claim which it is used to support. Page 95 does not support the claim for which it is cited. What the source does state is that the UKIP is not a matter of "right" or "left" but a split between the "financially secure and highly educated middle class, and as more insecure and precarious working class which feels its concerns have been written out of political debate." The proper claim for the source is "Ford & Goodwin state that the UKIP support is not a matter of "left" or "right" but of a matter of the financially well-off middle class and the less well off working class." As for assertions of "bad faith" that is about the least useful use of an article talk page one can do. Collect (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you appear to have confused two distinct sources here. The book that is being cited repeatedly in this article is Ford and Goodwin's 2014 work Revolt on the Right. It is that book which contains the explicit claim that "UKIP's support has a very clear social profile, more so than any of the mainstream parties. Their electoral base is old, male, working class, white and less educated." What you instead appear to be referring to (at least when discussing the abstract) is an earlier work, which isn't a book at all but an academic paper published in the peer-reviewed journal European Journal of Political Research back in 2011. This was authored not just by Ford and Goodwin but by Ford, Goodwin, and David Cutts. The paper looked explicitly at UKIP as it existed in the build-up to the 2009 European Parliament elections. The later book which they subsequently authored takes a much broader view, hence why it has been given primacy in this article. I hope that that clears up some of the misunderstanding that has arisen here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, you appear not to have read my precise quote from that exact book. What the source does state is that the UKIP is not a matter of "right" or "left" but a split between the "financially secure and highly educated middle class, and a more insecure and precarious working class which feels its concerns have been written out of political debate." Did you miss that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked up page 95 of Revolt on the Right (I have it open in front of me now), and nowhere does it use the words "left" or "right" or state that "financially secure and highly educated middle class, and a more insecure and precarious working class which feels its concerns have been written out of political debate." It's just not in there. Are you sure that you've got the text and page number right ? Anyway, I'm not really sure what precisely we are debating here. Ford and Goodwin's work (in general) makes it abundantly clear that you are perfectly right in pointing to the existence of a strong class dimension to UKIP's support base. The party's support base demonstrably consists of older working-class white folk who feel politically disenfranchised by 'mainstream' political parties which, since at least the 1990s, have focused their attention on the more prosperous emerging middle-classes. Furthermore, I think that this has been made very clear in the article, in particular in the "Voter base" section. So aside from disagreeing on whether or not the quotes that you have supplied appear on page 95, we seem to be on the same page here (no pun intended), no ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

[6] The salient discussion is on page 242 of the Google page numbering to be quite precise - [7] is page 95 and states that the three major parties all represent the "highly educated, socially liberal middle classes ... and celebrate a cosmopolitan and globally integrated Britain" and it is in reference to this preceding statement that they state the UKIP has "older" voters, etc. Not that UKIP has old, poorly educated males - but that their core is older than that of the three major parties, and is less "economically advantaged." As for "male" - it is not on page 95. The "old, male, working class" is based on Ashcroft's report - and mentioned as such. Ashcroft showed that in 2010, 57% of UKIP backers were male.

[8] (from the House of Commons) is likely of interest here. "Social surveys suggest members of the three main political parties are more likely to be male than the electorate in general, more likely to be retired, to hold either professional or managerial occupational status and to earn over £40,000 per annum." In other words, those not in the three major parties were less likely to be male (Figure 12). Figure 9 shows that the percentage identifying with any political party in the UK has waned very substantially since 1991 (from 87% down to 72%). Figure 13 shows that UKIP has 57% professional, managerial or routine non-manual supporters.

Only 42% of UKIP supporters are "working class" (manual workers or never worked). From Ford & Goodwin, by the way. The UKIP does have the lowest percentage of "under-35" supporters, by the way, but that does not make it "primarily" old or primarily working class. One factor may be systematic error - as lower percentages of people announced they supported a minor party than the percentage of people who actually voted for that party. (UKIP had 12.6% of the vote in 2015) Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see The Guardian [9] showing the percentage of "over 60" in UKIP went from 51% in Jan 2013 down to 41% by Oct 2014 -- meaning all the "new" voters were basically echoing the general percentages for the electorate. In fact, UKIP voters are more likely to be homeowners than the average. "The proportion of Ukip voters coming from the Labour party has trebled from 7% to 23%. Politically, “recent” Ukip converts look much more like the electorate as a whole than “early” converts." YouGov [10] states that UKIP voters are less right wing then Tories. Then we have Ipsos-MORI [11] which shows the major "age problem" is for Labour in the 65+ group - which shows an 18% swing to Conservative (who go from 37% for 55-64 to 47% for 65+, while Labour goes from 31% 55-64 down to 23% 65+) Ipsos basically shows that Labout appears more to have "turned off" the older voters than anything else in the 2015 election cycle. Collect (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Like to mention that very few Britons are members of major political parties and the demographics of membership does not represent that of supporters. TFD (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice - but the HoC report is about polling results of supporters - not about "registered members" and the demographics are specifically of supporters and not of "registered members." Ditto The Guardian article, and the Ipsos results. The fact is that while UKIP started off as pretty much "right", the demographics of its supporters are no longer reasonably so described, as a very large percentage of its newer supporters are from Labour (just as the SNP derives a large proportion of its current supports also from Labour). Collect (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The House of Commons report, including in your quote above, specifically uses the term "members" and says for example there are 149,800 members of the Conservative Party. While members of the three main parties are more likely to be male, the report says 51% of Tory and Labour supporters are female, while for Lib Dems it is 53%. For UKIP and BNP, it is 43% and 36%. Comparing UKIP supporters with members of the main parties is misleading. Figure 13 confirms that UKIP supporters are more likely to be less skilled, less educated, male, older and white. Incidentally, the report does not refer to "registered members." Only parties, not their members, are required to register with the Electoral Commission. TFD (talk)

As you noted - all of the demographics used by me from the HoC report are for "supporters" as self-identified - not for "members" and not making any distinctions between "major" and "minor" parties in the study. The polls covered all parties, thus saying the poll handled UKIP differently is simply incorrect here. The single biggest factor is that the major loss for Labor was to SNP and UKIP, and the major gain for UKIP was from Labour. And that as far as "right wing" is concerned, the Tories are now more "right wing" than the current UKIP median. And the Ipsos-MORI data are pretty clear on this. Collect (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the demographics in the Commons report "Membership of UK political parties" is about members rather than supporters, including the statement you quote above: "Social surveys suggest members of the three main political parties are more likely to be male than the electorate in general, more likely to be retired, to hold either professional or managerial occupational status and to earn over £40,000 per annum." (my emphasis) And since the total memberships is 1% of the electorate, you cannot conclude, "those not in the three major parties were less likely to be male." TFD (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? The HoC report ("Membership of UK political parties" from 30.01.2015 by Richard Keen states clearly: "The social characteristics of political party members and supporters are analysed in section 3." The sources include "British Social Attitudes Survey Politics report 2013", Paul Whitely's survey (which showed that for all the major parties, "members" were more likely to be retired and well-off). Figure 12 showed that "members" were also more likely to be male for the major parties, by a substantial margin. None of this relates to UKIP at all, however. Figure 13 is from Ford & Goodwin as I noted above ... and is about "supporters" and not about "members" at all. The salient data I cited, moreover, about UKIP is not about "members" but about "supporters." Note that you cite a sentence which is about "the three main political parties" and not about UKIP, as far as I can tell. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you Collect, but is part of your argument the claim that UKIP are not "right-wing" because they have gained much support from former Labour supporters ? As has been stated before on this talk page, there are problems with this argument. Throughout much of the twentieth century, Labour advocated a social-democratic platform that they aimed primarily at urban working-class voters. As a result of economic and thus class-based shifts in the nature of British society since the 1980s, Labour have instead pulled to the centre, emphasising a range of socially liberal policies, and focusing on attracting support from the rapidly growing proportion of young(er) middle-class voters. This left many working-class, socially conservative voters (particularly those who are older) feeling politically disenfranchised, and the radical right (both in the form of the BNP and the more moderate UKIP) exploited this to their electoral advantage. Very similar phenomena can be seen across Western Europe, as a large slice of working-class support has shifted from the centre-left to the radical right (in the form of France's Front National, or the Sweden Democrats, for instance). Of course, no one has seriously argued that UKIP are to the right of the Conservatives on every issue; it is clear for instance that many "radical right" parties advocate mixed economic policies that have more in common with those of social-democrats than those of "right-wing" conservatives or libertarians. Where they stand resolutely on the right however is in their attitude to 'race', culture, defense, social issues relating to women and minorities, as well as in their historical connections to the far right. This certainly isn't a new phenomenon - many fascist groups in the 1920s-40s advocated mixed economic policies that were "to the left" of the pro-free market views of many conservatives, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a source which states that the center of the Conservative party support is to the right of the UKIP now - making the point that UKIP started off as more clearly to the "right" than it is at this point in time. Definitions of the political spectrum are labile, and we well sought to apprise ourselves of the latest wording found in reliable sources. I certainly would point out that the UKIP is not viewed as "fascist" to say the least by the current reliable sources. The Labour Party may, in fact, choose a relatively "left wing" leader if Corbyn succeeds, showing that even the Labour Party's position on the political spectrum can and does shift. Collect (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the left-right issue the wrong way around. The relative position is based on public perception. UKIP supporters see their party to the right of the main traditional parties, and supporters of those parties agree with them. While Ukippers may not see themselves as right-wing, but centrists, and see the other parties as left-wing, they agree they are the more to the right than them. All successful parties of course try to broaden their appeal beyond their base. So Tories have since Disraeli made an appeal to the "working classes", while Labour has broadened its appeal to the middle classes. It does not mean the political poles have reversed. TFD (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources. Relying on "public perception" is not the same as relying on scholarly research - as you have argued many times. The HoC report is quite clear - and saying (more or less) "well now we can just use 'public perception'" is wrong by policy and by common sense here. This is not a "reversal of poles" it is a shift in the nature of the supporters of that party, something which can and does occur in many places and at many times. Right now, it looks as though a potential Labour leader is substantially not in the same area as Blair had been. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Scholars rely on public perception and the perception of opponents as well as self-placement within the political spectrum. The terms left and right are based on the fact that parties choose to seat themselves in chambers of deputies lineally from left to right. In the EU parliament for example, UK MEPs sit from left to right: Labour, Lib Dems, Tories, UKIP. It is not as if scholars invented the concepts of left and right, arbitrarily assigned them qualities, then sought to classify existing groups. TFD (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, you, yourself, have noted that "seating charts" are totally meaningless <g>. The current scholarly sources specifically do not call UKIP anything stronger than "right" at this point ... and I recall you strongly support relying primarily on current scholarly opinion ... Collect (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said they are totally meaningless. They give an indication of relative position in the political spectrum or at least where the parties involved see themselves and each other. And the sources agree that UKIP is to the right of the mainstream parties, including the Tories, the traditional UK right-wing party. TFD (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Leadership section, please remove the wikilink to UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015 as that page has been deleted because there is no election planned. Section currently reads (with wikilink in bold), A leadership election was due to take place after Nigel Farage briefly resigned... The deletion discussion is here. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  14:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We could perhaps go one further and delete that sentence in its entirety. I really don't see what it actually adds at this juncture of the article at all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done - I removed the wikilink. Protection has been reduced to semi-protection; if you would like to remove the sentence in its entirety, go ahead, and/or see WP:BRD. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 August 2015

Insert non-formatted text here

In the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Foundation and early years: 1991–2004" sub-section, "ensured" should be "ensued". A minor correction is all that needs to be made here.

Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Protection has been reduced to semi-protection, you should be able to make these changes yourself now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2015

The Spokespeople section is incorrect.

Suzanne Evans is the Deputy Chairman (not Deputy Chairwoman) as stated at http://www.ukip.org/people_key. Patrick O'Flynn is no longer a spokesman (as described in the Farage resignation and return section).

Membership Section The table of number of members has an asterisk next to 2015 without any reference as to what the asterisk is meant to signify. Pstaveley (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done:: I did change Chairwoman to Chairman per the page you provided, but the page is not apparently a list of spokespeople, so absent a reliable source I have declined to implement the rest of your request. Note that protection has been reduced to semi-protection, so you can make future edits yourself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The spokesmen list needs updating: Christopher Mills is now Business Spokesman, Mark Reckless Economics Spokesman (replacing O'Flynn MEP), Steven Woolfe MEP Financial Services Spokesman, Douglas Carswell MP Political Reform Spokesman and Suzanne Evans Welfare Spokesman. Everything else remains the same. () JackM1993 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Whitaker & Lynch

Under 'Voter Base' the article states 'The authors found that voter support for UKIP correlated with concerns about the value of immigration, hostility to immigrants and a lack of trust in the political system but the biggest explanatory factor for their support of UKIP was Euroscepticism.'. The link is to an abstract and I do not have access to the full paper. Do the authors really write about 'hostility to immigrants'? 'Hostility' is a strong word with which to characterise UKIP supporters.--Flexdream (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

They do not use that phrase. I changed the link to the full article at the University of Leicester website. You can read it and see if the phrasing in this article is accurate. TFD (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@TFD Thanks for that and the link. Much appreciated. You're a real asset on this article. I can't find 'hostility' anywhere in the source so I'll remove that phrase. --Flexdream (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the phrase 'hostility to immigrants' was introduced by Atshal in May 2013. Soon after Twilde removed it with the comment '(→‎Voter base: I see nothing about "hostility to immigrants" in Whtaker & Lynch's paper, so think it would be fair to delete that phrase. To avoid dispute I have replaced it with a direct quotation from the abstract of that paper.)'. Soon after that Emeraude reinstated it with the comment '(Undid revision by User:Twilde: quoting from the abstract is not valid. The whole article is the source, not the abstract.)'. So presumably Emeraude knows where in the source 'hostility to immigrants' is mentioned.--Flexdream (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No. My point (which I made on this page, above) is that Wikipedia assumes good faith on the part of editors. It is not sufficient to say that a word does not appear in the abstract of a journal article, and therefore we can't use it! The article itself must be the source, not the abstract, and we must assume that the editor cited the full article and was acting in good faith. To change, we need to go the full article, not the abstract, which, thanks to TFD, we have now been able to do and the Wikipedia article has been correctly amended. Incidentally, I cannot agree with Flexdream that "'Hostility' is a strong word with which to characterise UKIP supporters"; it seems prefectly reasonable to me, but to use this particular article would be a clear case of interpretation. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So your point of view is that considering 'hostility to immigrants' is a characteristic of UKIP supporters is reasonable, even though this source did not support it, and there's no suggestion any other reliable source does either? You do concede that I have correctly amended the Wikipedia article however.--Flexdream (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I was stating a personal opinion, which I would have thought was clear. Emeraude (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I made the original edit and have no problem with it being changed. The original context was me trying to make the whole article more NPOV, and the voter base section in particular was extremely pejorative, with comparisons to BNP etc. I had to include that sentence to placate the user Emeraude, who insists on inserting and trying to keep in the article anything that portrays UKIP in a bad light, in order to prevent him reinserting even worse statements. It has rightfully been removed two years later! Atshal (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atshal Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate the difficulties in this article with editors who are hostile to UKIP.--Flexdream (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding other use of sources which are not easy to check see my edit here.[12]. Is this dissection of UKIP referring to academic sources resulting in a lengthy article on UKIP quite unlike that on other parties?--Flexdream (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is clearly vastly excessive in my opinion, and inappropriate. I don't really understand why it is in the article. A brief paragraph would be enough in my opinion. Atshal (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If articles on other parties do not have similar sections of a similar length, that is reason to expand those other articles, not to remove cited content from here. Bondegezou (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

UK_Independence_Party#Voter_base The sub section is totally excessive and apparently opinionated as well, to create similar large sections in other political parties would be impossible and totally undue as this section is. A brief paragraph would be enough as Ashal said. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. This is valuable psephological work. I would be very happy to see similar sections for other political parties. I see no policy-based rationale for cutting here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Absurd length as well as general unreadability for "voter base" section

The "voter base" section is far too extensive and far too based on a very small number of sources - being extremely reliant on Goodwin and Ford, to be sure. Only 16% of all articles on Wikipedia are harder to read than that section :( meaning it is a tad less than comprehensible for the typical Wikipedia user. Would someone start an RfC on this issue? Collect (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is too extensive and disproportionate to the article, and goes into too much minute,detail and opinion. Others things are wrong too in the "support" section - why is there a detailed list and description of membership on a year by year basis? I suggest the whole "support" section gets moved to its own article, where such detailed analysis would be more appropriate, and a succinct paragraph is left in the UKIP article.

I too agree that the "Voter base" section is disproportionately long. However, I think that we need to be very careful in how we trim it down, making sure that everything is discussed here first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Current version is over 1400 words long. I would suggest as a start:

Initially, UKIP focused on voters opposed to full merging with the EU. Many of these voters had been male Conservatives who opposed the Maastrict Treaty. After 2009, it refocused on working-class voters, many of whom were traditionally Labour supporters. Its support does not correspond with any traditional definition of the left-right divide in British politics. Other parties in Europe, many considered "right wing", now follow a similar pattern.

In May 2013, Stephan Shakespeare, the CEO of YouGov, analysed the reasons for the strong support and performance of UKIP in the 2013 local elections. He noted that the research showed UKIP had "very loyal" followers, with a high proportion of ex-Conservative voters, and that the primary reason for support was a sense by voters that UKIP "seemed to be on the same wavelength" as the population, was perceived as "genuine", "simply different", and that, by tapping into the "anti-politics mood", became contrasted strongly with "the others [who] haven't got a clue about the real world". He concluded that "you just don't get this [perception] with other party leaders, not even from their supporters". Surveys in 2014 showed UKIP was making substantial inroads with former Labour and Liberal Democrat voters.

200 words, and readability of 45 making it actually usable for more readers. Breaking down by religion etc. is pretty meaningless, alas, as is the material which gets iterated in the longer version. I am sure more flesh could be added - but please - we should keep to the most important points and not get bogged down in percentages of Anglicans and stuff like that. Collect (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The current section is too long. I think one of the ways to shorten it is to remove in-line citations for factual information, such as [Goodwin and Ford] "found that 57% of professed UKIP supporters were over the age of 54." And a lot of the facts can be trimmed down, for example, "parts of the UK where UKIP has strong support were historically Puritan." The source explains what the reasons might be, but this article does not. TFD (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that we could get rid of the information on the religious adherence of supporters. However, I'm not hugely favourable to the proposed wording as it currently exists because it does not seem to explicitly reflect the academic sources, such as that provided by Ford and Godwin. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What if we were to create a split-off article, titled Voting base of the UK Independence Party or something like that ? That way we wouldn't have to permanently lose all the information that has been collated, but rather syphen it off into a separate article ? At that point we could therefore dramatically reduce this particular section in the main UKIP article, perhaps without falling over each other arguing what specific pieces of information were valid for inclusion or not. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

1,400 words is not particularly long. 200 is ridiculously short, and rhe suggested text relies almost entirely on the CEO of an organisation that did a single survey into local elections - not of major import. A split-off article will get lost, be harder to track and removes detaill that rightly belongs here. A precis is one thing, what seems to be the suggestion is arbitrary trimming of academically sourced detail that is crucial to an understanding of the growth and appeal of UKIP. Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The proposal by Collect reads more like a UKIP policy statement than a reflection of the sources. TFD's suggestions for cutting the length seem sensible. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is to follow an editing guideline! I would recommend all read WP:TOOLONG. It is very useful. The current article is, by the rule of thumb there, too long. However, note that it says that "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length" and WP:SPINOUT warns against breaking out trivial or "unwanted" sections.

I would suggest that the article be shortened, but not by cutting this section. The History section could be abbreviated given we have History of the UK Independence Party. Likewise, Representatives does not need so much detail when we have UK Independence Party representation and election results. When we already have spun-out articles, we should make use of those.

I think the Support and Reception sections could be re-jigged. The voter base section is exactly what an encyclopaedia should have: the problem is that other sections (e.g. Reception) are rather cursory in comparison. If people want content removed, they need to explain why with respect to WP:REMOVAL. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Direct Democracy

Would like to broach the possibility of Direct democracy being a potential 'Ideology' to be added. With Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless's attempts to introduce Right to Recall into the House of Commons last year. I would have thought it right and proper to add this as a registered ideology. Especially when you take into consideration the ideology of the EFDD (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy). Have linked in relvevant references to debate the 'Ideology'. BBC - UKIP backs direct democracy and use of referendums
Daily Telegraph - Nigel Farage: Ukip backing 'Direct Democracy'
The Guardian - Nigel Farage wants to give voters a greater voice by extending referendums. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2015 (GMT)

It's a policy not an ideology ----Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. TFD (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Emeraude (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As do I. That's not to say that UKIP's claims regarding 'direct democracy' do not belong in the main body of the article, but I certainly don't feel that they have a place in the "Ideology" section of the lede infobox, which makes them appear more substantial than they actually are. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. UKIP has proposed policies purporting to improve the accountability of representative democracy as opposed to being ideologically committed to government by the masses instead of elected representatives. These policies do warrant discussion in the article, and especially the Douglas Carswell article but not a listing in the ideology section (which I would also trim by removing "social conservatism", since UKIP hasn't really campaigned significantly on socially conservative issues) Dtellett (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely if the policy is inbuilt as a condition of the parties election to power. It is by definition an ideology?RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (GMT)

A policy is not an ideology - check any dictionary ----Snowded ^TALK 21:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

While I think that the boundaries between policies and ideologies are a lot more blurred and inter-connected than Snowded's comment might suggest (after all, ideologies inform policies, and policies in turn affect ideologies), I certainly would second Dtellett's point that simply having a few policies that encourage additional referendums does not constitute a significant ideological trend for direct democracy within UKIP. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OK show me a third party academic reference which lists it as an ideology ----Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that there is one, to be honest. Certainly, I haven't come across one during my reading. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Q.E.D. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ideology revisions

UKIP are NOT anti-immigration. They do not want to terminate immigration and to have the vague ideology of "Anti-Immigrationaism" is misleading. Leaving "anti-immigrationism" merges the likes of the BNP who propose ending immigration altogether, with UKIP who want unskilled immigration reduced, with a balance being found between EU migration and the rest of the world. Emphasis being put on people who have skills of trades, regardless of where they come from. The term "Controlled-immigration" is far more accurate whilst I have revised that page and its "United Kingdom" section to reflect the immigration policies of the Conservative Party and UKIP.

I have also added "British Unionist" as during the Scottish Referendum campaign, UKIP campaigned fully against the break-up of the Union, and have been vocal opponents to the SNP, and Nicola Sturgeon.

As for "Social conservatism". UKIP have no objection to "social progressivism" or "globalisation", I would propose "Civic Nationalism" as a far more accurate description and ideology. I did provide references for my revisions which have been discussed. However as per previously, someone with a recognised opposition to UKIP, described as "socialist" and a proponent of Welsh Independence has taken it upon himself to undo fully referenced edits.

I reiterate:

- Controlled-immigration - British Unionism - Civic Nationalism

Please note. This subject was discussed at length before the alteration of this talk page. Civic Nationalism was agreed on and Anti-immigrationism was debated as being non-specific.RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (GMT)

You are removing referenced third party material in favour of material which happens to contain the words you like from more general newspaper reports. We've also discussed all of this before and you are not bringing new material to the discussion ----Snowded ^TALK 21:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly we have discussed both the issues of "civic nationalism" versus "nationalism" and "Anti-Immigration" versus "Controlled Immigration" in the past, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any strong discussion on the question of "British Unionism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It may have been on another right wing article. There seems to be a general tendency to use British Unionism as a euphemism of sorts. In the context of Scottish Independent nearly all the parties were pro-union, the references are context specific and cannot be generalised ----Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So does anyone object to "Controlled immigration" or "Civic Nationalism". I am waiting for an argument against. As for Right Wing articles, one of the references included was from the Guardian, and one was from the BBC. Hardly "right wing". The New York Post shouldn't be used as a reference for British Politics as they have wrongly referred to UKIP as a Far Right party on a number of times and so cannot be considered to be impartial. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2015 (GMT)

Regarding "civic nationalism", the problem identified in the previous discussion was that all the academic sources that I found basically said "UKIP describe themselves as 'civic nationalists' " rather than "UKIP are civic nationalists". While I've yet to come across anyone seriously questioning UKIP's identity as a nationalist party, there seems to therefore be some question as to whether they really are civic nationalists or whether its just a rhetorical claim of theirs to distinguish themselves from the explicitly ethnic nationalist BNP, particularly given their vocal criticism of multi-culturalism and professed support for a uni-cultural British identity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be good if each of these three issues be dealt with independently, and one at a time, through an RFC (Request for Comment), thus encouraging un-involved editors to weigh in on these particular debates rather than just being hashed out between the usual suspects ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-Immigationism" as an Ideology in the Infobox ?

Okay well let's tackle anti-immigrationist first. For anyone reading the ideology, how would they distinguish a difference between the BNP's stance on immigration, and UKIP's very different stance on immigration. The BNP description of anti-Immigrationism is fair because they want an end to immigration. UKIP do not wish an end to immigration, yet have been given the same ideology. Surely this is insufficient? RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2015 (GMT)

I suppose it depends how you define "anti-immigration". UKIP do not wish to end immigration (which would be impossible anyway), but they do wish to greatly reduce it, by (from their 2015 manifesto) barring immigration by unskilled workers for five years and creating an Australian points system. Whether that defines them as "anti-immigration" is the relevant point. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy stances such as anti-immigration are positions not ideologies and should not be in the info-box. Also, the field should describe the party's ideology not every possible ideology whose adherents would find the party appealing. UKIP is not a social conservative party or economic liberal (which is not an ideology) party, even if some of its members are one or both. I would suggest just putting down right-wing populist. While these parties are usually nativist, they can alter their positions on a range of issues, just as the established parties can, while maintaining the same underlying ideology. TFD (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with that if we include anti-immegration in the lede and body ----Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I maintain the lack of definition over "anti-immigration" is misleading. As for the concept of a 5 year moratorium on unskilled immigration. That doesn't indicate and anti-immigration stance, more so a desire for more sustainable numbers, and a period in time where by the country can re-balance the unskilled wage pool. As I previously said, their is no distinction between a complete halt to all immigration, reducing mass migration and merely limiting to skilled migration.

I would stick on fact that a better description is "controlled immigration", even if it is taken off of ideology and put in the main body of the article.

It is further worth mentioning that immigration is not mentioned in terms of ideology in any of the major Australian Parties ideologies on Wikipedia even with the preferred UKIP method of immigration control.

It is worth noting the description of "Civic Nationalist has been used for the SNP on their page on Wikipedia. "Civic nationalism" Personally, following the discussion previous and references added, it makes sense as an ideology.

As for being "Economically Liberal", I believe this should remain due to UKIP's continuing aspiration to take decision making for regions down to regional care operatives etc...

RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (GMT)

I'm leaning toward the removal of "anti-immigrationism" as a listed ideology in the infobox because a) the term "anti-immigrationism" is problematic when describing UKIP, because they are not opposed to all immigration, even if they make rhetoric against much current immigration a significant part of their campaign strategy, and b) I am unsure that it constitutes an ideology per se. What I think is important here however revolves around the usage of reliable sources. Do we have reliable sources – ideally academic, peer-reviewed ones – that say "anti-immigrationism is part of UKIP's ideology"? If there aren't any sources stating this then I think that that certainly strengthens the case for removing this category from within the infobox. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. (i) is UKIP anti-immigration? (ii) is anti-immigation an ideology? We have discussed the first before and they are; trying to sugar coat it using their own spin of 'controlled immigration' is not what wikipedia is about. In respect of the ideology then I tend (as I said above) to think that it isn't an ideology, but it is a defining policy, like being anti-Europe. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowded this is a debate about fact, not about your personal opinion and dislike for UKIP.

As I have previously highlighted. UKIP aren't against 'all' immigration, they aren't even against low-skilled immigration. They just happen to believe, as is reflected on unemployment and wage constriction that low-skilled immigration has both a positive and negative impact on this country. This is fact. Are UKIP anti-Immigration. No. Are UKIP in favour of a controlled, sustainable immigration system which would reduce the strain on public services, not to mention continue skilled global migration. Yes. You can't be "anti-immigration". But continue with immigration. You can however believe in a reduced flow of immigration to bring public services up to spec for all within the UK.

I think, to be fair we have drawn a conclusion here, that whilst UKIP might be in favour of reducing immigration numbers annually, they are not against all immigration. So as I previously said. UKIP are either ideologically in favour of "controlled immigration", or the subject and tone of their immigration policy can be discussed in the main body of the article.

As for what you followed up with, again I think you are allowing your biased attitude toward UKIP effect what you are saying. "but it is a defining policy, like being anti-Europe"; UKIP are not anti "Europe", the continental and island grouping of 50 nations, they are against political Union with the EU.

UKIP want to continue relations and trade with the European Nations. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (GMT)

A few things Rover, (i) stop making personal attacks (ii) you can't use UKIP statements about controlled immigration to cover up the fact that they are (per third party sources) anti-immigration, this was discussed before. Overall you need to start working with sources and not your party's opinion or spin. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack. I pointed out (i) you made a statement as fact, when in reality it was your own opinion (ii) Your perception of UKIP does not necessarily reflect what has been stated as fact by political scholars (iii) You have just done it again. You have disregarded UKIP policy and taken a left wing interpretation and tried to reinforce it as fact. UKIP policy on immigration is as follows: (1) "Put a five-year moratorium on immigration for unskilled workers, which will enable the unemployed already living here to find work and those already working to see wage growth". (2) "Introduce an Australian-style points based system to manage the number and skills of people coming into the country, treating all citizens of the world on a fair and equal basis as a welcoming, outward-looking country". Unless you want to disregard written policy and accuse the party of lying. This is the information you have to go on. I see no other party Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems etc being subjected to the same kind of second-guessing that you have subjected UKIP to. Yet allow it to go on. You are taking an attitude that UKIP's stated policy should not be written as policy because the likes of the New York Times, Guardian or Times newspaper has sumarised it differently than the UKIP 2015 Manifesto has. When 'you' refer to "party spin" (which you have done several times), UKIP "being anti-Europe", which they do not, and this being a regular slur against the party to mislead, and ignore other opinion such as Midnightblueowl who said "the term "anti-immigrationism" is problematic when describing UKIP, because they are not opposed to all immigration" and continue to press for an "anti-immigration" status to be added to the page. You give very clear evidence that you are allowing your own opinion to replace fact. For the record, I have added other references to edits I have done to the page, and you have undone those referenced edits. Your activity on this website is what resulted in the UKIP page being given protected status in the first place. You repeatedly undid edits listing UKIP as "far-right" regardless of talk-page consensus that UKIP were not, and you continued trying to link articles comparing UKIP to the BNP. With all due respect, looking at your biography and political attitudes, and looking at some of the more biased in tone comments you have made above. You cannot blame me for wondering if a political bias is in play here. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (GMT)

Let's not let this personal argument get too heated. Personally, I do think that Rover (and a few others) have pushed a pro-UKIP bias with their proposed edits over the pasy summer, while Snowded has pushed an anti-UKIP bias with his. I apologise if I've offended anyone with those statements, but that is how I see it. That doesn't mean we can't all work together, so let's not get too hung up on our respective political persuasions and focus on what the most reliable sources available (and that means peer-reviewed sources, not press sources) actually say about the movement. Where possible, we should seek to bring in the opinions of un-invovled editors through the process of RFC. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Midnight I don't think your edits really steer a neutral ground. After the article was opened you immediately reinserted a series of edits which had been disputed by other editors, most of which tried to show UKIP in the best of possible lights. Net result a total close down of the article. So please don't try and play the innocent. Very simply regardless of one's political beliefs here we use sources and that has been the basis of mine and other editors. Rover on the other hand (as evidenced above) is arguing a political case not dealing with sources and making multiple accusations. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not claiming to be neutral or trying to "play the innocent", nor did I ever claim that I was (so please don't launch a personal attack on me). On a personal level I am actually highly critical of UKIP and am far closer to your own political affiliations than those of Rover. But I'm conscious of this bias and consistently try to ensure that I do not selectively choose information for inclusion based on that opinion; I for instance thought that emphasising potential links between UKIP and the BNP within the lede was pushing the article into a blatant and unnecessary anti-UKIP dimension, hence why I argued against it (although that issue is in the past now). I hope that that better explains my own perspective on this particular issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the defining characteristics of UKIP according to academic sources is the party's strongly anti-immigration and anti-immigrant stance (along with its core anti-EU Eurosceptic position of course), so it should be mentioned in the article prominently, in the lead-in preferably, for informative purposes. I wouldn't place anti-immigration in the info box though, as right-wing populism covers that, and IMO en.wiki political party articles have too many ideologies crammed the Infobox when it is unnecessary.--Autospark (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Claims that UKIP is 'anti immigrant' or (made up word)'anti immigrationism' are merely smears to try and portray UKIP as racist and nasty. UKIP wants to control immigration, as do Labour, Lib-Dem, Conservative and SNP. UKIP unlike those has a non-racist policy which would not favour the ovewhelmingly white EU over the ovewhelmingly non-white rest of the world.--Flexdream (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it fair to say that the use of "anti-immigrant" to describe UKIP is fundamentally and always based on a desire to smear the party (although at times that may be the case). After all, in 2013 Farage did say that immigration was the biggest issue facing the party, and their campaigns do place a very heavy emphasis on the issue, demanding that it be heavily reduced. The question of immigration into Britain – and the belief that it needs to be curbed – play a far, far greater role in UKIP than in any of the other large parties currently operating in the United Kingdom. Basically if a party goes on and on and on about reducing immigration, and then complains about the British multi-culturalism that has resulted from past migration, then it's only be be expected that some might label it "anti-immigration". That is partly why the use of "anti-immigration" is sometimes applied to UKIP in press sources, even if (as I do believe) the term is actually a little misleading. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we all agree that "anti-immigration" does not belong in the info-box. Beyond that the discussion has no purpose. We can discuss how we phrase explanation of their views on immigration, but is anyone recommending any changes to the existing wording in the article? If so they should begin a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@TFD I hope we all agree that "anti-immigration" does not belong in the info-box. @Midnightblueowl I'm not convinced by your argument, but you do make it reasonably :) I think both of you are helping make the active anti-UKIP editors here adopt a low profile, but I expect they are just biding their time. --Flexdream (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no conspiracy here, that is your own paranoia. Secondly, this is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Wikipedia is not here for partisan individuals to write promotional or advocative material about the political organisation of their preference. Encyclopaedias are based around neutrality and use of third-party sources and academic material. There is a wealth of it describing Ukip as objectively being an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant political party, and a key aspect of right-wing populist political parties is nativism and dislike of the cultural 'other'. Your own personal opinions as an editor mean nothing here for the purposes of categorising political parties in a suitably objectively manner--Autospark (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The rationale for retaining "anti-immigration" is that the party is widely classified as such by political scientists' studies of European political parties. UKIP has policies on other issues too, but is seldom, if ever, described as a "pro-increased defence spending" or "anti-inheritance tax" party in the way it is described by non-partisan sources as a "Eurosceptic, anti-immigration party". Also, it is beyond dispute that immigration is a "defining issue" for UKIP and it's voter base, and that it takes the stance that it needs to be radically reduced, rather than simply tweaked at the edges. All parties advocate some degree of control over immigration; only UKIP argue that it is "far too high" and makes measures to reduce it "central" to their campaign Dtellett (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Dtellett: Objectively speaking, Ukip is an anti-immigration party.--Autospark (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Autospark: there is no need to expand the infobox, which is meant to be a brief summary. What we should do is focus on the article text, where we can discuss the subtleties that are expressed above of what UKIP's position exactly is and how different sources see it. We don't have to decide between saying UKIP are or are not "anti-immigration": we can describe what sources say about the party, what the party says about itself and go into the details of different sorts of immigration. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Will state again for the record. UKIP are not "anti-immigration", they are pro-controlled immigration. Farage has, on multiple occasions spoken about the beneficial and sustainable immigration that the UK had in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and has also said that immigration can play an important role in the future development of the country. Yet current numbers place a negative strain on many public services. As has been said above, the UK currently sides with the EU on putting an emphasis on EU migration whether skilled or unskilled, over that of the rest of the world. Regardless of however-much you are left wing, that has to be recognised as a highly unfair system. Surely? Wanting controlled numbers with an emphasis on the "fit and healthy" and skilled, is employed by numerous countries across the Globe. One of which is Canada, a country I couldn't personally reside in due to health issues. This doesn't make Canada anti-immigration. It just means they have a controlled and sustainable immigration system. I resent the above trying to hammer home the same "UKIP are anti-immigrant" claim, when you consider as has been said above, that all parties have talked about reducing numbers. Hell even before the General Election the Conservatives were talking about reducing immigration to the "tens of thousands", and Ed Miliband whilst leader of the Labour Party, and Andy Burnham just a few weeks ago, said that UKIP supporters have a legitimate concern. Both Burnham and Liz Kendell have talked about implementing an "Australian points based system should they become Prime Minister as leader of the Labour Party as well. Would that make the Labour Party "anti-immigration". Just to wrap up this post, UKIP may talk about immigration a lot. But it is worth remembering that it is the primary concern of British people according to recent polling. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2015 (GMT)

Although this issue has already been addressed, UKIP are evidently in no way "anti-immigration." They believe in controlled immigration from within and outside the European union based on reasonable attributes such as skills etcetera; that means they don't want limitless low skilled immigration as an example. Attractel (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Social conservatism" as an Ideology in the Infobox ?

What does this even mean? I am not even aware of any 'social conservative' policies held by UKIP.--Flexdream (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree this should be removed, as I have suggested earlier. UKIP undoubtedly has many members that consider themselves social conservatives, and is sometimes classed as such (usually by staunchly socially liberal newspaper columnists) but as a party they've not really campaigned on socially conservative issues at all, their last manifesto made no commitments to socially conservative causes and various surveys have even suggested a majority of their voter base supports gay marriage. Should be excluded for the same reason as "libertarian"; whilst it might accurately describe the views of a certain proportion of the membership it doesn't accurately describe the party's focus or the foundations of its campaign platform Dtellett (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on this one, and believe that "social conservatism" should remain in the Infobox. UKIP have a plethora of socially conservative attitudes that they regularly exhibit; they criticise multiculturalism and seek to establish a unicultural state, they were the only (major) party in England and Wales to officially oppose the introduction of same-sex marriage, they endorse the use of grammar schools and selective secondary education, support the constitutional place of the monarchy, oppose the disestablishment of the Church of England, engage in climate change denial, publicly denigrate the impact of "the cultural left" (their words, not mine) on British society, seek to dramatically curb immigration, criticise the "Islamification" of Britain, and want to repeal the Human Rights Act. All of these are, in the modern British context, strong socially conservative perspectives, and frankly I've yet to see a single policy articulated by the group that could be interpreted as being socially liberal within a modern British context. (I appreciate that not every member of UKIP, and not every UKIP voter, necessarily supports each and every one of these policies, but they are the official policy of the party nonetheless, and are reflected very clearly in much of its campaign rhetoric). Moreover, I think that we do have sufficient secondary, reliable sources – both academic and press-based – to back up the claim that UKIP are socially conservative. I backed the initial request to remove "anti-immigrationism" from the infobox, but I can't back the removal of this one. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Human Rights Act repeal is the significant policy stance adopted by UKIP (other than on immigration) which might be classed as socially conservative and that's obviously more to do with antipathy towards the EU than anything else (with their proposed "British Bill of Rights" reasonably assumed cover the same scope). UKIP were remarkably quiet on same sex marriage (and explicitly ruled out withdrawing it in their last manifesto. Not to mention Farage making oddly radical suggestions to reform traditional Christian marriage like this [13]). Opposition to republicanism and antidistestablishmentarianism are mainstream status quo positions I've barely heard UKIP comment on and I don't really see climate change denial as being a social issue. Above all, they *haven't* campaigned on mainstream British social conservative issues like abolishing concepts of "hate crime", increasing prison sentences, removing bars to discrimination against selected minorities, restricting access to pornography, promoting Christianity and barring "promotion of homosexuality" in schools etc. I'd say their position exemplifies the difference between right wing populism and social conservatism; they have the former's very loud but largely rhetorical objections to the "cultural left" on the one hand and "Islamification" on the other, but lack social conservatism's emphasis on enforcing particular behavioural standards or even reversing enforcement of liberal behavioural standards. UKIP supporters as opposed to their platform are widely considered as being socially conservative by reliable non-press sources, but even that's starting to be challenged with their surprisingly mainstream spread of views on gay marriage Dtellett (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We should be wary of trying to interpret UKIP's position ourselves: that way lies WP:OR. What matters is what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Concur, my impression is that it is a name they want to apply to themselves rather than one assigned by the sources so we should remove unless someone has references to the contrary ----Snowded ^TALK 12:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Driver (2011, p.147) is cited in the "Ideology and policies" section as stating that UKIP utilise "conservative appeals to national sovereignty and traditional social values", while we also refer to a 2012 article in The Guardian by Ed Rooksby which states that UKIP are "traditionalist and socially conservative". I haven't looked further for any other sources just yet, but these are those that we already have within the article itself. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove, it is not an ideology. TFD (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the tag of "socially Conservative" is being predominantly applied to UKIP by traditionally left wing media. the Guardian, the Times, and the Independent etc... I feel I should raise the impartiality of the sources, which have been extremely hostile to UKIP the last few years as being a problem when listing UKIP ideology. I feel I should also add that whole policy sections concerning UKIP have both left and right wing attitudes. Taking Housing, Education and Health-care for instance. All of which are prominently left wing in policies. This should be taken into consideration. On a side-note, I am a former Liberal Democrat, who come from a family and area which were traditionally Liberal supporters, and are now UKIP. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2015 (GMT)

The Times as traditionally left-wing media ??? Fair enough with The Guardian and The Independent but The Times? It's been a Conservative backer for decades and only switched to backing Labour after Blair's New Labour project pulled the party well into the political centre. Nevertheless, it should also be pointed out that all three would count as Reliable Sources under Wikipedia policy, regardless of their respective political biases. All sources have some sort of bias so it's unrealistic to expect that there are wholly objective sources out there that we can drawn upon. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be the last person to class the Times as left wing(!) or suggest totally unbiased coverage of UK politics existed, but I'd still see the current Guardian article reference as relatively weak evidence of UKIP's ideology, on the basis that the specific article is full of simplifying generalisations made to support analogies to North American political movements; it categorises UKIP as "disruptive Tea Party Republicanism" in the next paragraph, which I doubt anyone would clamour to add to the infobox! Whilst broadsheet newspapers are considered usually reliable on statements of fact and also appropriate sources for attributed commentary, they're not unimpeachable, especially not when it comes to applying contested labels using Wikipedia's voice. Dtellett (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper reports during an election period tend to be commentary pieces. For ideology you would expect academic articles ----Snowded ^TALK 23:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl whilst The Times are classed as a "center-right" newspaper, they do tend to appeal these days to those on the center, center-left and even left-wing in terms of Conservative support. I think the left and right wing divide has these days been 'slightly lost in the fog' as it were. With parties being labeled as left and right wing, people have lost the ability to recognise that those parties have left and right wing policies and ideals that run completely contrary to public perception. This has resulted in support switching across the left/right divide. If you look at The Times response to UKIP's 2015 manifesto just prior to the General Election (2015) you will notice they tried to tackle UKIP's more left wing policies as opposed to attempting to dredge up random members who might have made innapropriate comments as the wider spread media had tried to do. Particularly focusing on Health Care and Housing. So I repeat, whilst The Times may be traditionally center-right and conservative supporting, I tend to recognise it for how it addresses left wing ideology as a reinforcement, which inadvertantly tends to assist those left-wing parties being threatened by UKIP policy. Such as UKIP's Brownfield sight redevelopment and protection of the Green Belt (Greens) and UKIP's protecting of the NHS and Social Housing (Labour). In my humble opinion a line has to be drawn with the media in certain instances, with journalists and bloggers who write for the national papers who have stated their intention to oppose UKIP. Dan Hodges for example. Rather unusually I find myself in complete agreement with User:Snowded in terms of using academic research when referenced tabloid articles are so weak in content. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2015 (GMT)

I think that there seems to be clear majority support here for the removal of "social conservatism" as an ideology from the lede and infobox. Personally I still do think that it is a valid term to describe UKIP, but I've not found good academic sources to back my opinion up here, and I am most certainly in the minority. Thus, I would not object if it were decided that this categorisation be removed. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a term more relevant to U.S. politics, and that may be why sources on the UK do not use it much. While U.S. social conservatives defend traditional puritan values, what values to British ones defend? Is it high Anglican or chapel? The problem gets worse if we describe earlier eras. TFD (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

UKIP summary source

There is space in Britain’s emerging multi-party system for a centre-right, populist Eurosceptic party such as UKIP. But in developing its policy platform beyond withdrawal from the EU, UKIP has to respond to the positions adopted by its rivals on the centre-right and the far-right. Under Nigel Farage, UKIP has adopted a number of policies discarded or rejected by the Conservatives in order to attract centre-right voters, but affording these a high profile may limit the party’s appeal to those ex-Labour voters it attracted during Labour’s years in office. In his brief spell as leader (2009-10), Lord Pearson of Rannoch, added a populist radical right element to UKIP’s narrative by warning of Islamic extremism and proposing a ban on wearing the burqa in some public places. This may have appealed to those who feel strongly about immigration yet regard the BNP as political pariahs, but it risks contaminating the UKIP brand by associating it with far-right extremism, undermining the party’s efforts to improve its image, and repelling those attracted to UKIP by its libertarianism. The extent to which UKIP is able to build on its current position and to take advantage of Eurosceptic voters unhappy with the coalition government’s approach to the EU, must be the subject of further research.

- Whitaker, R., & Lynch, P. (2011). Explaining support for the UK Independence Party at the 2009 European Parliament elections. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 21(3), 359-379.

Can be added?EnglishAxe (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a valid source but we don't add mass quotes. You need to propose what amendment to the article you think would be supported by this. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote appears to be offering advice to UKIP more than it's describing the current situation, so I'm not certain how useful it is. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)