Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Anti-Islam

The source used to "back this up" is a dead link from some "academic". At the end of the day that is one source (which has to include that buzz word "xenophobia", nothing like "intellectuals" name calling!). More sources need uncovering to back this up, otherwise it would be like finding one source that claims Dominic Cork is the best English all-rounder of all time and using that source to paint it as fact. [1][2][3] sources would be nice! And perhaps from less emotive sources as well, which don't have bias one way or another; our external sourcing should reflect WP:NPOV to some extent. As it stands the article in its current form is a trainwreck and needs a major cleanup, as well as needing less edits with a perceived agenda which I have seen through the page history. Whatever our political views, we should always reflect WP:NPOV all the time when editing, our role is to inform people of a subject, not say how "amazing" or "crap" something is, but to simply explain it without personal bias or what not. May be this article will improve over the coming months, perhaps someone with the time and interest could try and transform this to a GA! Certainly in its current form if I were someone coming here to look up the subject, I'd quickly look elsewhere. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The again, perhaps GA is impossible with these types of articles due to the clowns that often vandalise them, just like we find with prominent subcontinent cricketers at WP:CRIC which are subject to fan worship. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything on a party being wary of Sharia law is neccessary for inclusion. None of the political pages have a section on party opposition to Christian or Sikh or Hindu fundamentalism, Sharia effectively is that, so really unless there is an actual notable event on which the mainstream media have picked up on there shouldn't be any of this nonsense. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This link is working. You will see that it pretty much looks like a reliable, academic study, neither emotive, nor biased. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits suggest you have a POV of exposing what you see as anti islamic parties. YOu'll need more than a passing comment from a socialist at nottingham uni to prove that UKIP are fundamentally anti islam. Sorry. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is a socialist? --RJFF (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8, please do not remove content with reference to a relevant scholarly source. If you doubt the reliability of this source, please adress this here. If you have the impression that I have misinterpreted the source, you can discuss this here, as well. But just dismissing a first-class source, published in the European Journal of Political Research by scholars of the Universities of Manchester and Nottingham as rubbish is absolutely not acceptable. Regards --RJFF (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot write material which has somewhat controversial claims and only back it up with one source. We need more than one. Is this the only academic saying this? Or are there hundreds (probably are because most academics do have a fairly bias agenda against anything anti-establishment these days)? I hope you see what I mean, multiple sources are required to back up such information in articles, otherwise its overall sourced reliability has to be questioned. User:Alexandre8 is fundamentally right, a passing reference won't do to substante the passage of writing. Another concern I have with this article, it's probably widespread across the political spectrum of articles, is the article tone and some editors seeming to think they own it. Some of the users editing the article have an agenda, if hidden, which dooms this article from the very start. One editor (economically lacking) wants the UK to join the euro, is a socialist and is wildly in love with the EU. Now while these views are not crimes on here (I'm a Libertarian, don't bother me), I can't help but think such people will have a biased editing agenda on articles like this. Yes, I have little confidence in 6/10 editors on here when it comes to be neutral when editing articles. You can all write my concerns off and do nothing about them, but at the end of the day we're meant to provide articles which accurately inform people, on any subject; evidently this article falls well short of the quality expected. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking up one of the reports creators, Matthew Goodwin, casts doubt on the neutrality of the source in question. I don't know how WP:POLITICS works with sources, but having read his fields, if it were a cricket article and the source creator showed bias toward the subject, (in Mr. Goodwin's case a left-wing agenda, nice to see he's also a member of the Council for European Studies, a Bilderberg Group affiliate) then we wouldn't use that source, for obvious reasons. What I'm saying is if the creator of the source has a bias, then the source is biased, as such its use in the article makes it bias. When someone also writes in this report "UKIP looks set to become a successful radical right party" one has to question the intention of the source creator, given there's far more political commentators I have heard refer to UKIP as centre-right. Unfortunately it appears, just as cricket articles like Sachin Tendulkar, Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne are subject to biased fan worship edits, it seems this article (and probably many others in the politics field) are edited by people who trump all over WP:NPOV and install their own worldview. Such editors should resist editing articles they can't be trusted to be absolutely neutral on. The state the article finds itself in, is I think, evidence that there has not been, and will not be, any effort to make a good article: instead only one which awful and full of sniping sentences aimed at the subject. Shame on those who "maintain" this article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Goodwin's blog and Twitter page, plus regular postings to Left Foot Forward, shows that he does indeed have a bias. The man seems obsessed with anything that is not left-wing being labelled as radical right-wing, racist, xenophobic extremism. Can you seriously call him an agenda-less source? A political scientist... seriously... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bothering to take the time to research all this. I had more than a suspicion that he was one of these POV writers, but these sources just prove that. One left wing academic is not enough to damage the integrity of the fourth largest party in Britian. I understand my tone is dismissive, but I've dealt with so many of these in the past I'm rather sick to death of them. Same story every single time and it takes a lifetime to get the offending content removed. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Who damages the integrity of anyone? Please do not claim such a thing. As Mr. Goodwin is an expert on extremism, most of his publications are about... surprise! ...extremism. This is just natural. You can call that his "agenda". I would call it his job. If Mr. Goodwin is left, right, or centre in his private life does not have to bother you, as long as he is an established and respected political scientist. You don't have to agree with this view, but you have to accept it, if it is published in a reliable source. And this is not a "passing comment" but a thorough 31-page study, published in a renowned journal. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself, who undertakes the job of being a specialist of "right wing extremism" without already despising the right wing? I've never heard of a "political scientist who specialises in rightwingism" without being a self proclaimed socialist. Getting paid to expose those you despise? sounds like a great job to me lol. Anyway that aside as its my opinion, I will work with what we've got. one source. The claim is controversial as not one ukip member would confess openly that they hate muslims, sure theyll be a few, but you'll need a handful of substancial sources to make the claim that anti islam is a defining feature of their party? I don't see one political left wing scientists publication as enough for that. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Eckhard Jesse is a German extremism pundit and an outspoken conservative. There is no compelling correlation between a political scientist's own, personal political views and their fields of study. --RJFF (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the Germans had the Nazi's. They had to content with real fascists. No one in this country has any idea about what true fascism is as they've never experienced it. That is why in Germany you are able to have people from all sides of the political spectrum talking about extremism. Here the left wingers just take the parties they perceive to be the most right wing. He'd have no job mr goodwin if he didn't write something and there's no point writing about german nationalists when we're in england. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't go trying to tell the folks in the Channel Islands that they've never experienced true fascism. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Goodwin, like most politicians in this country, has ever had a proper job in his life. He's most likely stuck in his Ivory Tower just like they are. The type of person you wouldn't buy a used car from. This article is DOOMED. Now back to cricket... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on allegations of racism

Please use this sub forum for discussing the recent edits to do with Race. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by user:Xijky for inclusion

"In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being gradually more moderate.[56][citation needed]"

"In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being slightly more moderate.[46] While UKIP is generally not considered a fascist organisation, some political commentators, such as Professor Stuart Sim, consider UKIP to have a right wing extremist agenda. Sim described UKIP as "virulently racist".[47] The political scientist Masoud Kamali describes UKIP as a "xenophobic political party".[48]

"British National Party UKIP's NEC voted to forbid membership of UKIP from any BNP or ex-BNP member.[90] While UKIP officially distances itself from the BNP, a survey of voters in the 2004 European Parliament election indicated that UKIP supporters were more likely than other voters to sympathise with the BNP's cause.[91] According to Christina Liang, UKIP has an "ambiguous relationship with the extreme right".[92]"

What exactly does 1st article say? YOu've changed this citation a few times with different wording. I can't access it as I'm not a member of the library where its published. I'm very dubious. As for the rest let's hear your views on the sources and where to include this information if at all. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read the first article (it confirms what's written) but I didn't add it to the article.

Sim directly states UKIP to be "virulently racist". As Sim is a professor of political science at the University of Sunderland, I'd suggest that his book can be considered a reliable source. Masoud Kamali is a highly notable political scientist at Uppsala University. Christina Schori Liang is a lecturer at the Geneva Center for Security Policy. These are all reliable sources.

I would suggest that as racism constitutes a policy, any claim that UKIP is racist belong either in the lead or in the policies subsection, as should the claim that the party is xenophobic. As there are several reliable sources suggesting that UKIP is a xenophobic organisation, it probably doesn't need quotes - "UKIP has been identified as an islamophobic and xenophobic organsiation" or something along that lines with the Kamali cite and the Goodwin Ford and Cutts cite . We can put the statement that UKIP voters at the 2004 election were more likely to sympathise with the BNP in the relationship with other parties under the BNP. Would that be alright ? If you doubt the quality of the sources, I'd suggest we get this mediated. --Xijky (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your original version of this in the policy section. Its very clear who is making the claims and its well sourced. Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I restore the content or do I need to wait for further input ? --Xijky (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it for a few hours to see if there are comments. There seem to be some attempts by AssociateAffiliate to dispute some academic sources on the basis that s/he does not like their politics which is not valid. I can't see any legitimate objections to the content. Alexandre8 raises a question about the location of the material but wikipedia generally frowns on "controversy" sections if the material can be put in the main text. --Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The only things which might belong in a controversy section are Cameron's calling UKIP racist etc, where the claim is obviously politically motivated. Statements by neutral academics who are experts in their field belong in the main text. --Xijky (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I've restored the category "Anti-Islam political parties in Europe" and re-added anti-Islam to the infobox with a cite, because there was no explanation of removal. --Xijky (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem very well stocked with sources of minor academics, is right wing extremism your profession or something? Islamophobia is a major claim and needs a lot of proper sourcing in order to allow it to influence the views of millions of wikipedia readers of this page. Don't forget this is not a political forum, it's an encyclopaedic, you have to cite mainstream theories above WP:FRINGE. One professor at sunderland is not enough to add an inflammatory tag like that. This is an ideologies box remember, and UKIP hardly ever talk about islam. Also, you removed LARGE amounts of content in the form of councils for UKIP. WHY? YOu've been told not to make big changes without consensus and you've just done it on a whim. This is the kind of stuff that get's blocks ok. Don't do it. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

These aren't "minor academics." --Xijky (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

For a guide, see the BNP page and see how well sourced the ideologies are on that page. You can also see how the controversial material is included in the article. Whilst the BNP page is not perfect in my opinion, it has undergone rigerous debate since its initiation and reached a majority consensus about tags such as "fascism" and is well sourced. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• In my view the sources are clearly apt for inclusion - but in the body of the article with clear attribution as views of the named academic, and not as categories or in the infobox.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This is exactly my view. --RJFF (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I wuld agree with this.:Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the "academics" Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford have clear issues with UKIP as anyone who sees their Twitter pages can see. Therefore they don't really warrant inclusion as unbiased references. --Dunenewt (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Article name/lead inconsistency

In a discussion with me, RJFF (talk · contribs) asserted:

I cannot see what your problem seems to be: UKIP itself uses "UK Independence Party" [1], the Guardian uses "UK Independence Party" [2], Abedi and Lundberg use "UK Independence Party" in their article in Parliamentary Affairs [3], BBC uses "UK Independence Party" [4], [5], [6]... Do I have to go on? Please just accept it: it is their official name. And it would be OR to invent a full name which is not official. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being imprecise: "United Kingdom Independence Party" might be official, but "UK Independence Party" is by far the most common name (which the sources demonstrate), that should be used as the article's title per WP:UCN. If you still disagree, you might want to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Regards --RJFF (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I am not committed to either "United Kingdom Independence Party" or "UK Independence Party" as the proper article name; that is beyond my scope of expertise. But the article name and the lead have to be consistent, and they currently are not. Moreover, there is no explanation of the inconsistency. Either the article should be moved, or the lead needs to be fixed. Someone else will have to undertake that task. --Nlu (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As of right now, the name in the lead and article title are in sync. —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And they shouldn't necessarily be consistent. There are many articles where the common name is used as the title of the article, and the full legal name is used in the introduction. Consider the United Kingdom article's lead: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is…"

Based on that, the best course for this article is probably to leave the title as is and give the full legal name and common short forms in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Party upon choosing the name decided to name it UK Independence Party, not United Kingdom Independence Party. Quote from UKIP History Book by Mark Daniels: "...We agreed there and then that the UK in the name should not be rendered as 'United Kingdom'..." IndependentThinkerUK (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

I added a perfectly valid reference to classical liberalism in reference to UKIP yet it keeps getting removed. Anyone care to explain why? Far more evidence for UKIP being a classical liberal party than a "national conservative" or "right-wing populist" (not terms used in UK politics). Why is it that the Telegraph does not constitute a good reference yet left-leaning papers like Guardian/Independent are? --Dunenewt (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not an article by the Telegraph, it is an opinion piece by Ed West posted on The Telegraph BLOGS (!) Anyhow, a newspaper or a journalist is not in the position to assess ideologies of political parties. Political scientists are. Right-wing populism refers to a study by political scientists. --RJFF (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when I reverted Dunenwt, the Telegraph article only says they "come from the classical liberal tradition", not that they actually are classic liberals. Mo ainm~Talk 22:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense - Ed West has written an opinion piece on the Telegraph website who employ him because he is considered to be knowledgeable in the field. If it was an article written by Billy Bragg or Joey Barton I'd understand, but you fail to understand the importance of journalism in shaping the narrative of these terms. Perhaps rather than idolise "academics", you should do a bit of research, for example Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford, mentioned above in the talk page have clearly demonstrated a dislike of UKIP, as is quite clearly shown on their personal Twitter pages. To imply that UKIP are a solely "national conservative" and "right-wing populist" party as you repeatedly try to do are quite clearly misleading. As I mentioned before, neither terms are used in political parlance in the UK, and you continually do you best to remove any reference to UKIP and liberalism, despite this being clear in many previous edits of this page which referenced several sources in relation to UKIP and economic liberalism or UKIP and libertarianism. May I suggest that we come to compromise and agree on a rewrite several sections of this article, which distinguish between misleading academic sources which are evaluating the party in the past, and recent relevant references which show that economic liberalism is a core tenant of UKIP, as well as the classical liberal tradition from which UKIP comes from. You stated yourself that the article acknowledges that UKIP comes from a classical liberal tradition, yet rather than edit it to reflect that, you simply remove any reference? --Dunenewt (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What something comes from is not the same as what it is, and that's true in a vast number of fields. Steel comes from iron ore; it's not iron ore. Butter comes from cream; it's not cream. There's a direct relationship, but that's all. When discussing people or political parties, the differences can be vast. So, that UKIP comes from the "classical liberal tradition" is most definitely not the same as UKIP being classical liberal now, or at any time in its short and recent history. Other editors have commented on the lack of reliability of your source and they are correct. Your disparaging remarks about the professional integrity of the academic writers cited as sources are very worrying. Emeraude (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Political scientists define political ideologies better than journalists. If we have a choice between academic sources and journalistic opinion pieces, we prefer academic sources. If you like the scholars or not. Parliamentary Affairs is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Oxford Journals. If this is not the perfect exemple of a reliable source, I don't know of any. If you doubt the reliability of any source used for this article, please take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I rather see a problem in this article extensively using UKIP's party programme and website as sources. --RJFF (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the qualifier added in this edit. He stood as a Liberal candidate in the 1970 general election as far as I've been able to ascertain. Strange how the source says he was also a member of the Bruges Group a long time after that (and by definition, closer to when he formed UKIP) the addition made absolutely no mention of his "swing to the right" yet seemed intent on stressing his "liberal" credentials. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including that he was ex-Liberal as the opening paragraph states Farage was ex-Tory. There is no reason to remove it. --Dunenewt (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except Farage was Tory right up until Maastricht, an event which led to the formation of UKIP. Sked was a Liberal candidate almost 25 years earlier, not the same thing at all. And please don't make disputed changes with deceptive edit summaries. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should also be remembered that the Liberal Party of the late 20th century was most definitely not the same as "classical liberalism" (it could even be argued that Thatcherite Toryism embraced more of the classical liberal philosophy!) so the involvement of Sked or any other former Liberal/Lib-Dem members is no justification for the use of the phrase for Ukip. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If he'd gone from Lib Dems (or Liberal or Alliance or whatever they were called in 1992) to UKIP I could see the point in mentioning it. But as I've already said he stood as a Liberal candidate in 1970, almost 25 years ago. After that he was far more involved in right-wing causes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

12 MEPs

UKIP now has 12 MEPs given the defection of Roger Helmer from the Conservatives to UKIP. I had edited this information into the page, however, it has since been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article currently. It's also flagged as needing a citation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignore the comment - For some reason, the old article was loading rather than the one I edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantmitch1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing populism ???

So now Wikipedia has become politically active? This isn't a neutral term, it's nothing but slander against the real ideology of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.221.100 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved from article

None of this belongs in the format it was in, as it definitely isn't relationship with other parties. Some of the information may need to be included in other sections on a person-by-person basis, some already is in there, some probably doesn't belong in the article at all. Listing it here for the sake of convenience. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For example how is Timothy Brinton anything do with a relationship with another party? I can't even source him "defecting" to UKIP at present, and the alleged "defection" occurred 16 years after he stood down as an MP. That's not an isolated example either, the whole section is full of people like that. There's nothing there that can't be covered in a short paragraph detailing how people have defected from the mainstream parties, ideally citing examples of people who defected while they were in office not some vague "I now support UKIP" said years after they left politics. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. As you say, the heading is totally spurious and it basically amounts to a very selective list which is of little value. UKIP has accepted defecting members form other parties - so what? (And I notice it doesn't include defectors from the BNP and far right.) Emeraude (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with other parties

Party		Name	Office held	Year elected/took seat	Year retired/defeated etc	Defection	Other
	Conservative
		Jonathan Aitken	MP for South Thanet - Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1994–1995)	1983	1997 - Defeated	2004
		Sir Richard Body	MP for Boston and Skegness	1966	2001 - Retired	2005
		Sir Nicholas Bonsor, 4th Baronet	MP for Upminster - Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (1995-1997)	1979	1997 - Defeated	2010	During the 2010 pledged his support for Nigel Farage.
		Timothy Brinton	MP for Gravesham	1979	1987 - Retired	2003
		Michael Brotherton	MP for Louth	October 1974	1983 - Retired	2007
		John Browne	MP for Winchester	1979	1992 - Defeated	2000
		Christopher Gill	MP for Ludlow	1987	2001 - Retired	2006
		Neil Hamilton	MP for Tatton	1983	1997 - Defeated	2011
		Roger Knapman	MP for Stroud - Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury (1995-1997)	1987	1997 - Defeated	1999	Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (2002-2006) and Member of the European Parliament for the South West England (2004-2009) - Retired
		Piers Merchant	MP for Beckenham	1992	1997 - Resigned	2003
		Dr Bob Spink	MP for Castle Point	2001	2010 - Defeated	2008	First UKIP MP in the House of Commons, joined after being expelled from the Conservatives.
		Walter Sweeney	MP for Vale of Glamorgan	1992	1997 - Defeated	2004
		Charles Wardle	MP for Bexhill and Battle	1983	2001 - Retired	2001	Didn't "join" but announced that he would be supporting Nigel Farage's attempt to succeed him as MP at the 2001 General Election
		Sir John Wells	MP for Maidstone	1959	1983 - Retired	2010	During the 2010 General Election walked unannounced into Farage's campaign office saying to UKIP staff "Not sure what I can do for you, but I am all yours for the day."
		Lord Grantley	Member of the House of Lords	1995	1999	1993	Leader of UKIP in the House of Lords
		The 10th Viscount Exmouth	Member of the House of Lords	1970	1999	2000
		The Earl of Bradford	Member of the House of Lords	1981	1999	1999
		The Duke of Rutland	Member of the House of Lords	1999	1999	1999
		The Duke of Somerset	Member of the House of Lords	1984	1999	2004
		The Duke of Devonshire	Member of the House of Lords	1950	1999	2001
		The Earl of Wemyss and March				2003
		The Earl of Dartmouth	Member of the House of Lords	1997	1999	2007	MEP for South West England (2009 - )
		The Lord Pearson	Member of the House of Lords	1990		2007	Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (2009-2010)
		The Lord Willoughby de Broke	Member of the House of Lords	1986		2007
		The Viscount Monckton				2009	Head of the Policy Unit United Kingdom Independence Party
		The Lord Hesketh	Member of the House of Lords - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms	1955	1999	2011
		Damian Hockney	Member of the London Assembly	2004	2008 - Defeated	1999	Defected to Veritas in 2005
		Peter Hulme-Cross	Member of the London Assembly	2004	2008 - Defeated	1994	Defected to Veritas in 2005
		Stuart Wheeler				2011	2011 created UKIP Party Treasurer
	Labour Party
		The Lord Stoddart of Swindon	MP for Swindon and Member of the House of Lords	1970 & 1983	1983 - Defeated	2009	Created a life peer in 1983 and 2009 told voters to vote UKIP as he would be
		John Bufton	Councillor for Rhayader Town Council and Powys County Council	1987	2000 - Defeated	2000	MEP for Wales (2009 - )
		Robert Kilroy-Silk	MP for Knowsley North	Feb 1974	1986 - Resigned	2004	Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands (2004-2009) - Retired and created Veritas in 2005

• A 2006 ConservativeHome survey revealed that 43% of surveyed members of the Conservative Party felt that UKIP was the closest party to their views (apart from the Conservative Party itself), with 66% either supporting or sympathising with the Better Off Out campaign. 12 Conservative, 8 DUP and 1 Labour MPs have signed the Better Off Out petition.

Ideologies

I was suprised when I saw there was not Conservatism down as one of the UK Independence Party's Ideologies. UKIP has taken Conservative stances on immigration and the economy, as UKIP would freeze immigration for five years and then after that limit immigration to 50,000 per year, also UKIP would reduce the Public Sector down to the size it was in 1997 and UKIP is also opposed to Heavy Taxation. All I would like to be added to this article is Conservatism. (E.Davies100 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC))

Your surprise is, itself, surprising. It all rather depends how you spell it: capital "C" or lower case "c". This is UK politics, and capital "C" would mean the Conservative Party; it is not the same as the use of "conservatism" in, for example, the US. If you are suggesting that UKIP has stolen some Conservative Party policies that's probably true, but it doesn't make them Conservative. They've also got some policies that would appeal to the fascist BNP, but it doen't make them BNP either! Emeraude (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Typo: Statue instead of statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Immigration_and_asylum

94.171.145.242 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Councillor List

I recently added a list of UKIP councillors at County and District level. The list was not long and did not take up much space, and I feel it allowed people to see what areas of the country the party has support in. I see no real reason for the deletion of it, just because we don't do it for every other party. We don't have a list of famous Conservative or Green Party supporters, so if we use that principle we could delete large parts of many pages! 07bargem (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A very misleading map

You also included the map on the right, which is as misleading as it gets considering UKIP generally has one solitary councillor in most of the areas concerned. We give the total number of councillors in the article and detail some where appropriate, I don't see any benefit in that full list. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Political Alignment

This debate should finally solved. This article is bias currently and the views of different research aren't being expressed. I referenced myself recently as to why they're centre right and it was just reverted. How can this situation be resolved where these different, respected, views are listed? 78.146.107.168 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The webpage you linked to didn't say they were centre-right, but a party of the centre-right. This is particularly important when actually looking at the research referred to by the webpage, which reads "Using surveys of UKIP candidates at the 2009 European and 2010 general elections, we assess the political attitudes and views on party strategy of UKIP candidates and compare them with the views of UKIP supporters using opinion poll data. We demonstrate that UKIP’s candidates and supporters are closely aligned, with both groups placing themselves largely on the centre right", then crucially "Firstly, although UKIP is generally recognised as being on the political right, Euroscepticism has a broader appeal". So UKIP view themselves as centre-right, but the general consensus is that they are right-wing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also referencing yourself as an IP (and a single purpose account at that) is generally frowned on, you should acknowledge such situations. As said, your research focused on UKIP candidates and voters so it is a report on self-perception. I doubt the BNP consider themselves fascists and racists either, but its not self-perception, even if academically researched, that counts here. I am surprised you made the assertion of bias above if you are the academic in question as I would have thought you would know the limits of your own research----Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing

What consensus is there for UKIP being a right-wing political party? Surely, referring to them as a conservative party ideologically defines them far more distinctly. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and make the change. RicoRichmond (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why 'Right wing' is still there - saw justification that UKIP is identified as 'conservative' so defacto right of centre/right wing -- but right wing implies a distance to the right (which would need to be justified), whereas right of centre does not. Pperrin uk (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because a source says they are right wing. Never mind referring back to old discussions for dodgy edits. Keep up to date or do NOT edit. Thanks.Wembwandt (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This University of Leicester source describes them as 'Centre-Right' - http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html Do I have permission using this source to make the change as this is a more up to date source than the one being currently used. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the "centre-right" part is the hypothesis they are proposing to study; this is not a peer-reviewed paper, but more like a grant proposal, and thus not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in another section below. The term "right wing" is generally used to describe parties to the right of traditional conservative, chrisian democratic and conservative liberal parties, who are usually called "center-right". TFD (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but, in this BBC Radio 4's 'Westminster Hour' radio talk show ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vw0w3/Westminster_Hour_31_10_2010/ ) claims that most UKIP members and MEPs consider themselves and their policies 'moderate' and 'Centre-Right'. The report starts at 0:34:36. Now I understand the general concensious is that they are 'Right-wing' and I can see why, but to me and it seems members of the party itself and the BBC (which is part of the mainstream media) seems to be dubbing them 'Centre-right' which I personally think is a better way to describe them as a whole. Now I realise I could be wrong and I won't change it unless I'm given authority to, but please consider it as this is a lot more up to date than the old reference. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is calling them "center-right". TFD (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

UKIP advertise themselves as "Libertarian, non racist.." in their google advert, google.co.uk UKIP. Conservative or Right Wing seems to be other peoples opinion of what UKIP is, not what UKIP say they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.121.249 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We report how parties are described in reliable sources. The article does not call them racist. TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me finding a new and up to date source to describe the terminology for UKIP? It seems that a fair amount of bias is going on here from a few militant editors to try and keep the sources as "right wing" suggestive as possible. I believe, and having read the opinions of many other readers here, that the party is more "Right of Centre" based on their policies and various media sources. If you agree with me please make yourself known or nothing will get changed. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's another section below about whether UKIP is "right wing". Several reliable sources, including scholarly sources, label them as right wing. Please read that section before making any changes, and remember that a single "new and up to date source" will not override what all the other independent sources say. Fences&Windows 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 shows UKIP only as right as the Conservative party which is stated as centre right on their Wikipedia page Revonev (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. If it was then we could also call the UKIP a "BNP lite". --Snowded ^TALK 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

then you would have to call conservatives BNP lite as well, most sources labelling it right wing are much more biased than this, I still don't see any evidence for UKIP being right wing to me, especially as they seem to be made up of both ex tories and ex labour party members Revonev (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ukip is a centre right party acknowledged by the times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article664284.ece

I have found futher internet articles indicating centre right http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013374.html http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/UKIP-PIP-TORIES-CITY-EURO-BATTLE/article-1057522-detail/article.html academically recognised as centre right http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html Revonev (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such claims there... please state where it states that the party is Centre Right. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study States UKIP are Centre right, and this is the first proper research done into UKIP which has been done by Uiversity Of Leicster, thus surely Centre right is applicable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.189.59 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC) They are centralist not right wing, they have centre left and centre right policies, so they can not be right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandstruth (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/documents/centre-right/UKIPCandidatesandSupportersworkingpaper-1.pdf Showing Ukip are not right wing

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study Synopsis of the study

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/research/centre-right/competing-on-the-centre-right-an-examination-of-party-strategy-in-britain?searchterm=ukip Further links

http://www2.le.ac.uk/search?gsasearch=on&SearchableText=ukip Lots more too.

Now can I change it to centre right/ Libertarian and civic nationalist. please. (Englandstruth (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

The source your using is a survey of UKIP members and supporters which says "Using surveys of UKIP candidates at the 2009 European and 2010 general elections, we assess the political attitudes and views on party strategy of UKIP candidates and compare them with the views of UKIP supporters using opinion poll data. We demonstrate that UKIP’s candidates and supporters are closely aligned, with both groups placing themselves largely on the centre right", (so the centre-right is how the people surveyed view the party), whereas it later confirms right wing is correct by saying "Firstly, although UKIP is generally recognised as being on the political right, Euroscepticism has a broader appeal". So in fact the source confirms that they are right wing. Mo ainm~Talk 22:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"although Ukip is generally recognised as being on the political right" Is the perception people are given. Have you read the policies at all? All this is proving is that Wiki does not give a true representation of a subject. Ukip are not right wing, not racist. You can not use just left wing sources to prove this as they are BIASED. Libertarianism and civic nationalism can not be right wing as they are all inclusive. Ukip has ex labour and Lib dem members, Left wing ideologies would not work with a right wing one. They like the centre left policy though. (Englandstruth (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

To add there are more links in this section saying that Ukip are centre right and not right wing than there is saying otherwise. The general consensus is leaning towards the centre right theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandstruth (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Said like a true UKIP party member. Mo ainm~Talk 09:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered like some one who is anti Ukip.

From the webpage:

THE ONLY PARTY STANDING UP FOR BRITAIN AND (ALL) THE BRITISH PEOPLE

The UK Independence Party is the UK’s fourth political party – and the only one now offering a radical alternative.

On 3 March 2011, our candidate Jane Collins (right) beat the Conservatives and Lib-Dems to finish a clear second in the Barnsley Central by-election.

In 2004, we came third in the European Parliament elections, ahead of the Lib-Dems; in 2009 we went one better and came second, beating Labour.

THE EU – A SYMPTOM, NOT THE CAUSE

UKIP was founded in 1993 to campaign for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Not because we hate Europe, or foreigners, or anyone at all; but because it is undemocratic, expensive, bossy – and we still haven’t been asked whether we want to be in it.

But the EU is only the biggest symptom of the real problem – the theft of our democracy by a powerful, remote political ‘elite’ which has forgotten that it’s here to serve the people.

WHAT WE BELIEVE IN

We believe in the right of the people of the UK to govern ourselves, rather than be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels (and, increasingly, in London and even your local town hall).

We believe in the minimum necessary government which defends individual freedom, supports those in real need, takes as little of our money as possible and doesn’t interfere in our lives.

We believe in democracy devolved to the people, through national and local referendums on key issues, so that laws are made by the people’s will, not the fads of the political class.

We believe that the government of Britain should be for the people, by the people – all the people, regardless or their creed or colour – of Britain.

UKIP says… Listen to the people. What do you say?

Does that sound Right wing to you? (Englandstruth (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Well, since you asked, and adding it to everything else UKIP says, yep. Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you said it should be pointed out that your politics are:Politics - particularly anti-fascism. Thus making any thing to the right of you actually right wing;). Try not to be biased? (Englandstruth (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Please do try to read correctly before making personal attacks on people and what you suppose to be their motives. My profile page says that one of my Interests is "Politics - particularly anti-fascism". If you choose to read into that something that is not there and then to accuse me of being biased, you really do need to learn more about politics. I await your apology, but won't be holding my breath. Emeraude (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do. :) In your mind it is ok to call my party Right wing, therefore you are calling me right wing, but if I call you left wing you expect an apology? I am a civic nationalist libertarian, just like my party, so can not be right wing. I am a centralist. Not nice being misrepresented is it? (Englandstruth (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

What are you talking about? You outlined a set of statements and asked another editor for a personal opinion which she s/he provided. As it happens I agree with that judgement and I fail to see why being a "civic nationalist libertarian" makes you centrist. I can think of various labels but that is not one of them. Whatever the whole point about the article is that your views, my views or those of other editors matter naught, what matters is what the third part sources say. Todate they use right-wing, end of argument --Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Englandstruth was a member of UKIP. But all reliable sources say that UKIP is to the right, so if that is a typical UKIP member/supporter then I and everyone else must assume that they are also to the right. That they are in UKIP is their own public admission and we are entitled to draw inferences from that; what Englandstruth has done is to make a totally unfounded assumption of my political position and then from that made accusations about my motives and integrity as an editor. I am still owed an apology. Emeraude (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So all the sources on here saying that Ukip are centre right are wrong then. Your assumption that Ukip are right wing automatically means you are calling me right wing. I am not, my political spectrum is centralist, I do not agree with right wing party ideologies. Why would I join one? You are calling me right wing, so you will be waiting a while for your apology, when Ukip are represented in a true light and not by left leaning sources. You will get one. Next you will be telling me all the ex Labour , lib dems etc are right wing, even Reuters call us centre right: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2011/03/08/ukip-replacing-the-lib-dems-or-taking-on-the-tories/

Or that Lord Stodart was once Labour and former councillors that were formerly Labour such as Derrick Huckfield (Staffordshire CC).

Ukip are centre right.

Once again I will apologise when you with draw the remark that I am right wing, this is asserted by calling my party right wing. (Englandstruth (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

(Yawn) Once again, I made no comment on your position - you did. I commented on some statements you provided about UKIP's position. Taken in their entirety, and with everything else we know about UKIP, I said it sounded right wing. Now, you may regard yourself as centrist, but your party is right wing. As for centre right, well "centre right", is right wing - the clue is in the second word. Not far right, nor extreme right, nor ultra right, granted, but right. As to your irrelevant potted histories of selected UKIP members: that is nonsense. (Interesting though, that you did not list any ex-Tories.) You are implying that not one of them changed their views BEFORE joining UKIP, otherwise they would have stayed where they were. People do change their political views and parties (Churchill did, Mosley did, Mussolini did) which is why there are ex-Labour and ex-Conservative members in the BNP; they don't make the BNP left/right/centre because of their previous leanings; the BNP is what it is. But there are also ex-BNP members in UKIP so, by your logic, UKIP ought to be fascist. It isn't, though, is it, so we have to conclude that previous political affiliations of a party's members, though interesting, are not a reliable pointer to the party's own position! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The party is "right-wing" on some issues and "left-wing" on some issues. It would also not be completely accurate to call the party centrist. I suggest avoiding "right-wing" and "left-wing" labels where they don't fit and avoid trying to shoehorn a round peg into a square hole. Mcarling (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

The paragraph "In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being gradually more moderate." They have not "revealed" nor "showed" anything.
They have "claimed". Changed it to claimed. What is the reasoning of whoever thinks it should be "revealed" and "showed"? Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems blatantly POV to write "showed" and "revealed", especially in a study dealing with such subjective concepts as xenophobia and Islamophobia. The person who keeps writing it quite clearly has political agenda, for which Wikipedia is not the place. Jordi22 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The findings of an academic study by established political scientists, published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot be dismissed as "subjective interpretations". Xenophobia and Islamophobia are not "subjective concepts", but established social science and political science terminology. That the academic study of independent scholars were pursuing a "political agenda" is a severe imputation, for which you do not provide any evidence at all. --RJFF (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The findings were by Matthew Goodwin, who has been anti-ukip for as long as I can remember. Regardless of that fact, that is not why I dispute the use of "shown and "revealed" but because it is blatantly POV. They have not Shown nor Revealed anything, they have Claimed. No editor would seek to pass such POV language in the labour/conservative/lib dem pages and yet you feel it is appropriate here. If you want "revealed" and "shown" then show me another source that proves it is has indeed been "revealed", rather than being an unsubstantiated claim. Claimed is the only possible wording to be used here. If editors insist on reverting back to POV language then lets take this to a higher powerGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

in general we do not qualify properly referenced material. Arguing that an academi. Is anti-ukip isn't the way things work. We use the sources as they are, not as we would like them to be. The use of 'claim' indicates a thought piece not a researched paper so it is equally POV. If there is a counter source then we need to balance, but I don't see any. Another phrasing would be "a 2011 study demonstrated ..." similar but possible better language. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's more than enough that it's attributed already. The wording doesn't say whether the report is correct or not, merely what it revealed. The idea that increasing Islamaphobia can't be quantified is a ludicrous one. If, say for example in 2010 an organisation published one article criticising Islam yet in 2011 they published twenty that's increasing Islamaphobia. I note it's only material UKIP supporters don't like that requires labels such as "claimed". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed this to better reflect the article itself - the previous wording showed a misunderstanding of its meaning (either that or perhaps it hadn't been thoroughly read). Either way, it's an analysis of support for UKIP, more than the party's strategy. It says some policies are similar to those of the BNP, but doesn't equate them and makes the distinction between UKIP and the "extreme right" BNP (and that comparison forms a much smaller part of the report than the voting analysis). The sample size of the report (a population extrapolation of the YouGov online panel before the last European elections) doesn't damage the credibility of the research itself, but does mean that it can be seen in the context of "revealing" something, rather "suggesting" it, similar to the way opinion polls etc "suggest" something, rather than reveal it. Happy to discuss it. Pjbeef (Talk) 02:22, 05 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this. My reading of the article does not agree with yours, which is not to say that either of us is right or wrong, but it would be better to obtain consensus here before editing what is possibly a very contentious issue. You can see that from the above comments that the reporting of Goodwin et al has been discussed and some sort of consensus arrived at. Emeraude (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The section now reads "...claiming significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy." I note this wasn't the edit made by Emeraude, but this has now gone from one extreme to another. Arguing the report 'claims' something implies it isn't properly researched - it is. But saying the report 'reveals' something is a naive interpretation of data gathered through opinion polls. That is not to deny them any credibility, but anything gathered through them needs to be set in the context of what they are; an extrapolation of the thoughts of a small sample of the population, onto the population at large. You would never hear references to polls "revealing" most of a country wants a change in government, for example. they would "suggest it", or words to that effect. I'm afraid I don't think four people can reach a consensus, and this issue clearly needs further discussion. I'm not making a comment on whether the research is somehow anti-UKIP, that's (mostly) irrelevant to its inclusion in this article. Pjbeef (Talk) 17:18, 06 May 2012 (UTC)

I merely reverted to the status quo ante, but I agree that neither "reveal" nor "claim" are quite adequate. Perhaps "show" or "identify" would be better verbs. (....Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study identifying significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy.) Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree those words would be better (even though the authors themselves describe their research as "suggesting" its conclusions). Now to the representation of the report - the description in the article suggests the report is primarily about UKIP's strategy - when in fact it's nearly all an analysis of UKIP's voters, far far less about the strategy, and indeed where strategy is mentioned, it's most often cited from other research. This includes the line at the end about the BNP - which, when read in full, says "As John and Margetts (2009: 501; also Borisyuk et al. 2007) observe, the BNP and UKIP adopt similar discourses on issues of immigration and national identity" - this is not original research. It'd be far better to cite John and Margetts (2009: 501; also Borisyuk et al. 2007) here than to give others credit for their work. The main problem with the BNP line from my point of view is that it seems a strange line to pick out of the report, as most of it differentiates the two parties by describing the BNP as "far right". Perhaps a better line to use might be "UKIP’s credentials as a legitimate party of right-wing protest over Europe may make it a ‘polite alternative’ for voters angry about rising immigration levels or elite corruption but who are repelled by the stigmatized image of the more extreme BNP". Or the abstract could be used - "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain." I am not an apologist for UKIP and am not making these suggestions for political reasons - they represent the content of the report much better than to suggest it is an analysis of the party's strategy, rather than an analysis of its supporters. Pjbeef (Talk) 10:29, 09 May 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the reference to this study in the first place, I find your argumentation reasonable and convincing. I agree with proceeding as you suggested. --RJFF (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone be a bit more specific on what the actual change to the text will be, since it seems to have changed in substance since the original edit? Right now the conversation seems to be dealing with discussion about the sources which is all well and good, but I'd prefer to move it on to a proposal to change the text based on them? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain." " Pjbeef (Talk) 23:16, 09 May 2012 (UTC)

Selective (pro UKIP?) use of sources

Editor JackPD added details supposedly sourced from a mailonline report "Labour opens up largest poll lead over Tories since the election as Lib Dems are overtaken by UKIP". What he wrote was: "a YouGov poll placed UKIP's popular support nationwide at 9%, 1% higher than the Liberal Democrats". However, JackPD's use of the source article is highly selective, and even the Mail's headline is not fully supported by its own article. What the source says is that two surveys have been conducted into "Voting intention" or "Voter intention", asking how people would vote if there were an election tomorrow. (Of course, this is much more precise than JackPD's "UKIP's popular support nationwide".) The YouGov poll, indeed, gives UKIP 9%, one point ahead of the Lib Dems (but, on the whole, rather trivial compared with Labour's 43% and the Conservatives 32%). But the second poll, by Populus, gives UKIP only 5% (with Lib Dems 12%, Labour 42% and Conservative 33%). Clearly, JackPD has been very partial in his use of the source by totally ignoring the second poll and this needs to be addressed, but given that the source itself has no clear position one must conclude that, although the Mail is for all intents and purposes a reliable source, the assertion that UKIP has overtaken the Lib Dems in "popular support nationwide" is far from proven. I have accordingly, removed the sentence referring to this. Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been several attempts to add this. It might be slightly more convincing if there'd been a similar effort to add previous opinion polls throughout UKIP's history showing them to be a fringe party with a tiny level of support, instead of just focusing on one single opinion poll (and as you point out ignoring another opinion poll detailed in the same source). My opinion is it's recentism at its worst, if it became a regular thing it would probably merit inclusion in the article but a single opinion poll means very little big picture wise. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What's worse is that the most recent attempt to use the YouGov poll said "opinion polls were now showing..." - note the plural when there is just one poll suggesting this. Recentism, yes. Dishonesty, definitely. (And given the margin of error that pollsters always admit to in their results, plus rounding of decimal points,9% v. 8% is immaterial.) Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank god you two crusaders of neutrality and balance are always on hand. You should be commended for your unflagging watch over this UKIP article. Even though you are directly opposed to UKIP you do not let this stop your nightly vigil, never ever letting personal agendas colour your edits or removal of edits. You are an inspiration to children everywhere. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a personal attack on the integrity of editors and an insult which demand an immediate apology. Gaius Octavius Princeps is making assumptions about the position of editors for which he has no evidence: my edits and comments can in no way be interepreted as showing I am "directly opposed to UKIP" and his assumption that I am smacks of incredibly flawed original research which must call into question his own neutrality regarding this article. Emeraude (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll take that as an admission of guilt then, shall we?Emeraude (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-sectarian?

Firstly I'm not too sure why the IP claims they used an independent source, since the source says "Mr Farage said Ukip was a unionist non-sectarian party". Secondly, does this even belong as an ideology? Northern Ireland does have a sectarian divide (although the extent of it depends on perspective), and the news article is about UKIP standing in the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Other than certain parts of Glasgow (and possibly a couple of other places in Scotland) I'm unaware of anywhere else in the UK that have a sectarian divide according to reliable source. So does it make sense to have "Non-Sectarianism" as an ideology, particularly in light of their increasing Islamaphobic elements? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The publication used (Belfast Telegraph) is as reliable as any other newspaper, but it it not the paper that says that UKIP is "non-sectarian": it merely reports Farage's comments which, by defintion, cannot to be regarded as as an independent, reliable source! The paper does not agree or disagree with Farage's statement; indeed, it makes no comment on it. As for "non-sectarianism" as an ideology - I've never heard such nonsense. It may well be that UKIP, like the vast majority of UK political parties, is non-sectarian. That's fine; within the context of Irish politics that may be worth a mention, but as a statement in the infobox it is pointless. I've removed it. Emeraude (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been reinserted with the comment "Undid revision 489128827 by Emeraude, info accurate and true. Emeraude check dictionary please, assuming UKIP is Sectarian is ignorance, they anti-EU not anti-European, this has been stated this on many occasions." Firstly, I did not say that it is not "accurate and true", nor have I suggested such. Secondly, I did not say that UKIP is sectarian, nor have I suggested such. To say that I have displays complete ignorance of what I wrote above, not to mention arrogance. There are two issues which both I and One Night In Hackney have made clear: 1 The source (Nigel Farage's own words, as quoted) is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. But even if it were, 2 "Non-sectarian" is not an ideology. Before an edit war starts, wasting everybody's time, it would be better if the IP discussed the issue here, as I noted in my first revert and will in the second revert I am about to make. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. My personal belief is it doesn't belong in the infobox for the reasons already stated, but I was willing to get the opinion of other editors before just reverting it out. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive listing of Lords

I don't know of any other political article where every failed attempt by anyone is recorded. Even the amended version is excessive. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Does seem redundantSlatersteven (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To put it mildly. Emeraude (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mention that there have been failed attempts is suffice enough rather than listing every one. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who added the section about the House of Lords, I have now removed the names of quite a few who I added and instead only those who have served as a UKIP peer in the Lords is mentioned, as I have realised that I was overcrowding the article. Mail to a Foreign Place (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

excesive length

Do we really need a list of every election near success. Especially when it's local elections?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, needs to be summarised and reduced ----Snowded ^TALK 15:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree. We don't do it for the larger parties - the scale would be absolutely enormous - but with smaller parties any election visory may be significant. Think, for example, how we would have covered Plaid Cymru when Gwynfor Evans won the party's first parliamentary seat at the 1966 Carmarthen by-election, or the SDP if they had ever won an election. However, this is not the case with UKIP and, as Snowded says, we are only dealing with local elections here. No need to cut European election coverage though (though text may be over-wordy). Emeraude (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thatcherism

UKIP I believe has many Thatcherite elements, for example economic liberalism, civic nationalism & populism all are part of the ideology of Thatcherism. That's why I believe that it would be wise to add Thatcherism to the Ideology section of this UKIP article.(97daviee (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

I think it would be wise if you just stopped socking. Blocked means blocked, we're not interested in any edits you want to suggest. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I normally don't take any notice of someone who has been socking. However 97daviee makes a very good point, UKIP has many policies which are Thatcherite like lowering taxes, deregulation, and limited government. Even the article on Thatcherism UKIP is listed down as a Thatcherite organization. I fully support Thatcherism to be added to UKIP's Ideology.(PoliticalUK (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC))

UKIP does support deregulation and limited government. However, it supports small businesses and, more importantly, feels that essential infrastructure should be under the control of the Government. So UKIP is only partly Thatcherite. I feel that it is more a Centre-Right party (although this community does not accept that it is Centre-Right) than ThatcheritePstaveley (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

just because UKIP has things in common with Thatcherism does not mean that UKIP is 'Thatcherist' (is that a real word?)134.3.76.108 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Me and user One Night In Hackney have a difference of opinion on whether the policy WP:ABOUTSELF (and through it Exceptional sources) is relevant or not. I proposed adding into the article in the sentence after the lede: The party calls itself a "democractic, libertarian party" (however i now think The party classifies itself as a "democractic, libertarian party" seems better) which would make the lede look like this:

The UK Independence Party (UKIP, /ˈjuːkɪp/ YEW-kip) is a Eurosceptic and right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. The party classifies itself as a "democractic, libertarian party". The party was founded on the idea of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union but has since become a multi-issue party with a full manifesto.

The source used is the parties own Constitution.

ONiH says that the first bullet point of WP:ABOUTSELF applies (bringing the Exceptional claims policy into play), and that it can't be added. I disagree due to the context i'm proposing adding it in as. Does my proposal violate the policies mentioned regardless of the context? Or rather is it more suited for the body of the article? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy is very clear. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" - what's so difficult to understand? That a certain editor doesn't understand the meaning of simple words in the English language is a clear problem here, WP:COMPETENCE anyone? Especially since his selective quoting applies to my comments too, since I also said the material was self-serving. No reliable sources have ever been provided that agree with UKIP's own claim, the fact that people are prepared to argue policy says the opposite of what it says rather than actually provide any demonstrates that extremely well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:AGF ONiH and refrain from making derogatory ad hominem comments. I have a right to instigate an RfC for outside opinion. On outside opinion it appears that Scolaire didn't agree with you after they had looked at the proposal properly.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why they couldn't of just posted that after their initial comment instead of deleting it outright i don't understand though as it was useful towards the discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said was irrelevant, because I had not read the proposal properly. That does not mean that having read it, I agreed with it. Rather, it meant I had no opinion, and couldn't be bothered forming one. Hence I deleted. Scolaire (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Given your track record of misrepresenting me on this page, I suggest letting other people say what they mean instead of trying to work it out yourself, since it appears you're struggling to understand the meaning of "however, it will be seen to be unduly self-serving". Either you don't understand or you deliberately misrepresented, which? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment The party does classify itself as Libertarian, complete none issue, WP:ABOUTSELF has nothing to do with it. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I've explained in depth why it does, we'll need more than "I say it doesn't". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wrong. It is not an extraordinary claim to say the party describes itself as Libertarian when it clearly does, again a complete non-issue GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why you should read what I actually said not Mabuska's selective quoting of it, since it's a self-serving claim. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read what you have posted on this page, and you are wrong. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A simple "I say so" carries no weight anywhere on Wikipedia. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither does a misrepresentation of the guidance. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines issue guidance, policies don't. You're still using a "I say so" tactic, since you haven't actually explained your point at all. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I posted [7] again this is a complete non-issue GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did that already. You never rebutted the fact it's also self-serving, which Mabuska conveniently left out of the initial post but detailed in my post underneath it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't unduly self-serving. The operative word being unduly. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a CAS for self description where we have a long history, but then in those circumstances the is third party material available. It's not our job to reflect policy statements, but third party reliable sources. If the party is libertarian then there would be at least a broadsheet reference to say that. Rath than dancing on the heads of pins I suggest the proponents try and find some third party sources ----Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we;re getting away from what i am suggesting - making mention that the party claims itself to be libertarian, not that it is libertarian. As far as i am aware we need 3-rd party sources to say that they are - but i am not proposing that. How else can you insert into an article a party's own position on itself? Especially when put into the proper context. Seeing as the article starts of with what the party is actually classified as in 3rd-party sources, is it not balance to then state what the party itself sees itself as? Maybe it could be worded differently.

It's inclusion in a proper context would also work as a suitable compromise to encourage those IPs and other editorsz from continually adding "libertarian" into the infobox and into the article as if all sources agree it actually is libertarian. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13404496, Times Online - Jan 24, 2010 “In effect, UKIP, which purports to be a libertarian party as far removed as possible from new Labour busybodyism”, http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/ukip-at-the-crossroadsSlatersteven (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Mabuska's proposed lead is correct. It's very reasonable to describe a political party by taking key ideological terms from their constitution. Of course it can happen that a party describes itself as something it's not - there you would have to include sources that explain this disconnection. But it seems clear that the UKIP is Eurosceptic, populist, democratic and libertarian, so that's what we should have in the article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Support proposed lead, there's no conflict with WP:ABOUTSELF as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor is it an exceptional claim. Thom2002 (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

well we have a source which says its 'purports to be'. Maybe that is a possible wording?----Snowded ^TALK 14:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what the essence of my proposal is Snowded for what is the difference between "purports to be" for the "classifies itself as" in my proposal? I feel that "classifies" is a less loaded term than "purports", which to me makes it feel like the party is definitely pretending to be something it is not. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Going by the response to the RfC, in my view there is a rough consensus for the edit. I shall request later an admin to look at this RfC and to form a closing decision to avoid any issues. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. It's low participation and not any real difference in numbers between opposed and those for. I'm opposed by the way, if there is to be something then it needs to be sourced which means that 'purports' would be valid while 'classified' would not.' b----Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to join so late in the discussion - been away for a while. I don't wish to rehash old arguments, so let me just say that I'm with One Night In Hackney on this one. Emeraude (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

UKIP are a Libertarian party, the word libertarian is rarely used to describe any party in the media except those specifically called Libertarian party but the two sources provided here are adequate. JasonnF (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@Snowded - Please re-read my last two comments. I suggested having an admin form a closing decision so there are no issues and I asked you a question. You failed to respond to me for 3 days until my last comment.

I feel that you are splitting hairs in regards to the terminology. You still haven't answered my question on what is the difference in meaning? Also you are suggesting using terminology used in only one source out of five that we have: [8], [9], [10], [11] and "Times Online - Jan 24, 2010. Why should the last source listed there be given greater authority?

Especially seeing as the requirement for sources is for questionable claims and statements, which in this instance is what the party claims to be. Using "classifies itself as" in light of the evidence can hardly require a source. We could say if you wish "The party says it is" but that sounds quite non-academic for a political article. If you wish I will initiate an RfC or Dispute Resolution to see whether we need a source for it? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you wish to provide a proposal for the wording yourself? I am open and no proposal is ever concrete until implemented. We also could say "The party states that it is", but again what is the difference? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of us have jobs to do Mabuska, the three days you mention coincide with a double red eye at the end of a four week round the world flight. Otherwise I'm sorry I see no need to propose alternative wording. Without some more authoritative source the "libertarian label" is not justified. The Searchlight source for example, if you want to use that, would require you to say that the use of the label is in the context of an attempt to not be a "one trick pony" on the EU. We should not be supporting a minority parties attempt to make itself more respectable here. Wait for proper third party sources that make the issue front and centre, not as a side reference to a wider point that you seem less inclined to include. Oh, and I was being ironic on the "purports point", sorry I thought that was clear----Snowded ^TALK 04:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment:The facts are that UKIP describes itself as Libertarian and we have several sources supporting that. This should be noted. There is no issue.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There most definitely is an issue. All sorts of people and organisations describe themselves as something which is not accurate. I, for example, can describe myself as super-intelligent, a superb sportsman and incredibly handsome! I could probably get some others to agree. But my self-description doesn't carry nearly as much weight as what my wife sees!! Similarly, the Co-operative Bank describes itself as "ethical" and you can find several newspaper reports which support that. But you can also find reports that say it is not as ethical as it makes out. The key point is what not what UKIP describes itself as or what a few (not "several") sources say, but rather what reliable academic sources consistently say: they do not support this assertion. (Actually, I am incredibly hadsome.) Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment You are confusing us describing them as libertarian, and us saying they describe themselves as libertarian. There is no issue in putting what they describe themselves as. Plenty of counter arguments can be added to give due balance. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Of cuorse we can say what they call tehmselves, they are RS for their views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - that's quite right. It's been a confusing old discussion. (I am incredibly handsome though!) Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems an agreement has been reached then. Who is to add the new sentence?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No takers?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a RfC you need an independent admin to close it based on assessment of what has been said ----Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Is their an action required? Or will it happen automatically after a set time?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away, recovering from eye surgery so had to avoid computer screen glare for a bit. I agree with Snowded that an admin should close it, just like I suggested up above. Also please abide by WP:AGF Snowded, there was no need for your cheeky comment. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

what cheeky comment? I' e searched but can't find one ----Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, admins are not needed to close RFCs. Only if it goes to dispute resolution does an admin need to get involved. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Was just about to say that as it is between editors, however for the purposes of this I think it's better we get an admin to pass judgement so there is little room for argument. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just asked administrator SarekOfVulcan to assess and close the RfC. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan appears to be busy so I've contacted Valenciano to do so. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not an admin, and its a policy issue anyway on the 'unduly serving' issue. Given the politics you might want to look at dispute resolution. Even if its agreed to put something in, then your wording is questionable. You might find it easier to go to dispute resolution to see if a compromise can be found. Main body statement that the so describe themselves might for example be acceptable but not the lede ----Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So Valenciano has just informed me. I see no need for a compromise as there is nothing controversial about the edit and it violates no policies and there appears to be a clear enough rough agreement for it 0 hence why I am requesting an admin to assess the RfC to decide whether there is or isn't. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support the "The party describes itself as a..." wording, as was put in for a while. Don't see any probs with that. — Jon C.^ॐ 08:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)