Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Ideology

The Ideology of UKIP is complex, I've read UKIP's manifesto and it does appear that the party has a libertarian and traditional or social conservative elements in the party's ideology. It does not appear their are any right-wing populist elements to the manifesto. So I would strongly recommend that UKIP's Ideology is changed.(CatCalledJim (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

TheUKIP manifesto is a primary source and therefore only useful when discussing their own published take. There are multitudes of reliable secondary sources that disagree with it and they get primacy here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, a primary source is only useful when discussing their own published take. However, there are many secondary sources which do view UKIP as libertarian, social conservative and traditional conservative. I can only see two ideologies on the article, so I believe it would be beneficial to the article to add those ideologies or similar ideologies to UKIP's Ideology.(CatCalledJim (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

Dozens of editors have tried umpteen times to include "libertarianism" in the ideology field of the infobox - none of them has ever been able to cite one single independent reliable source which categorises UKIP as libertarian. The archives of this talk page are full with the discussions regarding this issue. --RJFF (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I get the distinct feeling that this is the start of another attempt to draw editors into a long-drawn out and ultimately pointless discussion into UKIP's political position. See "Not Libertarianism section" above, which had us all bogged down thanks to the intransigence of one person who refused to accept reliable sources, wiki policies etc etc. I wonder if CatCalledJim has read that; if he has he is wasting our time. If he hasn't he ought to before wasting our time with his own personal beliefs and sythesis of doubtful (for these purposes) primary sources. Emeraude (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Home and Libertarian Meetups both view UKIP as a libertarian party. UKIP is not Right-Wing Populist, and I am sure you cannot find any reliable source which views UKIP as Right-Wing Populist. I also believe that either traditional conservative or social conservative needs to be added to the ideology. More to the point, there are only two ideologies on UKIP's article.(CatCalledJim (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

The reliable sources which verify that UKIP is right-wing populist are already cited in the article. Libertarian Home and Libertarian Meetups are no neutral reliable sources. If the relevant literature describes UKIP's ideology with only two categories, than these have to stand alone. We can't just invent more descriptors, or do WP:original research (like analysing the party's programme by ourselves, as you proposed). --RJFF (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That source claiming UKIP is Right-Wing Populist was in fact very short and insignificant. However, it may be a good idea for Populism to be added to UKIP's Ideology. Libertarian Home and Libertarian Meetups are reliable, their only unneutral in the sense that they are both staunchly libertarian, both organisations view UKIP as libertarian. On the subject of traditional or social conservatism, Daily Mail journalist Nick Wood views UKIP as traditional conservative and has written articles on traditional conservatives defecting to UKIP. I feel there is some cherry-picking going on when deciding which source is right, reliable or neutral.(CatCalledJim (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

I don't agree that a 15 pages academic source in an Oxford journal is "very short and insignificant". I guess that every source that you don't like will be considered "insignificant" by you. There are criteria for WP:Identifying reliable sources and if you are in doubt you can let sources be checked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --RJFF (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the section which only claimed UKIP is Right-Wing Populist. With all due respect, I do think their is quite a lot of cherry-picking when deciding which source to use, because I think you know that there are many reliable sources which view UKIP as libertarian and traditional conservative.(CatCalledJim (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

After reading WP:Identifying reliable sources I have a reliable source by a journalist which highlights UKIP as traditional conservative. [1](CatCalledJim (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

Now the Daily Mail is on the same level as an Oxford Journal. Interesting. How about some actual academic sources? Ah, right, they don't support your point of view. Too bad. --RJFF (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To make it short: as you can see from the archives of this page, dozens of editors have tried for years to find a single adequate reliable source that would verify that UKIP is a libertarian party. Obviously, they don't exist. On the other hand there are enough sources to verify that UKIP is right-wing populist. Better stop wasting your time. --RJFF (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Let him continue wasting his time if he wants. But don't let him waste ours! Emeraude (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a decided body of opinion that suggests that UKIP should be described as "the BNP in blazers" (do a Google search on the phrase). For example, Melissa Kite ("Ukip hopes to climb out of the wilderness", Daily Telegraph, 30 May 2009) reports Robert Kilroy-Silk calling them: "bloody Right-wing fascist nutters", David Cameron valling them "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" and Andrea Berardi, "an Open University lecturer from Naples, is worried by what he sees as a rise in the Far Right", accuses Ukip of being "the BNP in blazers". Andy McSmith in The Independent ("Ukip surfs the rising tide of protest in South", 1 June 2009) writes: "The Independent appropriately described its members as "the BNP in blazers"." And, "So is this little more than the BNP in blazers, as its critics suggest," asked Gaby Hinsliff in The Observer ("It feels like the BNP - only in blazers", 30 May 2004). Much better sourced that libertarian. Emeraude (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to promote UKIP, I am simply here to improve this article and Wikipedia's reliability when it comes to politics. I feel the way some people are treating me is unprofessional and disrespectful. I don't see why the decisions on changing this article should be in the hands of some people who have no respect for any new ideas which they disagree with. Saying that I am "wasting my time" and saying "too bad" I find is sarcastic in a provocative way.(CatCalledJim (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

I didn't mean to provoke you and I am sorry if I did. But indeed you are wasting your time and ours, because this issue has been discussed ever and ever again during the last years. Please take a look in the archives and search them for "libertarian". See? The current state of the article, especially the introductory sentence and the infobox, already is the result of dozens of discussions and disputes. Believe me: umpteen editors before you have tried to find reliable sources verifying that UKIP is a libertarian party. If they all have failed despite trying very hard, I have to believe that these sources do not exist.

UKIP claims to be libertarian, and some people outside UKIP may believe this, but the political scientists who publish studies on UKIP do not confirm it, but classify UKIP as a right-wing populist party. As long as the party's claim is not acknowledged by a single independent scholar doing research on this party, Wikipedia cannot acknowledge it either, because Wikipedia is based on independent, third party, reliable sources, and not on parties' self-portrayals.

The article is based on neutral and reliable sources. And these sources say that it is a Eurosceptic and right-wing populist party. With adding something that is not supported by neutral, reliable sources, you will not improve the neutrality or reliability of the article. --RJFF (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time in that a self righteous tag team of bias editors have been working together for ages to ensure that this article is always skewed to their bias pov. Until wikipedia can be protected against this sort of abuse it will always continue and outisde input will never be welcome. They cherry pick then tag team edit any changes and team up to shout down any opposition. The ring leaders of this little propaganda outfit are emeraude, rjff, one night in hackney, snowded and a couple of others. Emeraude in particular seems to be actively dropping all pretence at neutrality as late and is slipping his mask, hence the pig ignorant remarks here and the outright anti-ukip statements (farage is bonkers, bnp in blazers. etc) elsewhere. Ukip's recent popularity has got these deluded pseudo socialist cyber warriors terrified and they think misinformation on a wiki page will change that. This happens on many, many articles with different tag teams pushing pov and getting their rocks off. Pity them in their wasted lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.84 (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for the above remarks to remain - they provide a suitable comment on the writer's attitude to collaborative working within Wikipedia. "Pig ignorant" is pretty rich coming from someone who refuses to accept what is meant by consensus, reliable sources, wiki policy and who generally does not recognise a sense of humour when it crops up. His previous edits (see, for example [2]) resulted in a warning and tell us all we need to know. Add to that his claiming that I called Farage "bonkers" (when the first use of the word on the page is his) and that I called UKIP the "BNP in blazers" (I didn't, I quoted others who did) mark him for what he is and show he doesn't even read properly. Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"deluded pseudo socialist cyber warrior"! Moi? Emeraude (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources on why UKIP is libertarian: [3] [4] [5]. Or maybe a more suitable ideology to add would be Libertarian conservatism.(CatCalledJim (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:BLOGS. Please compare the sources you propose to the ones already cited in the article. The former are blog entries, the latter are academic sources by political scientists, published by universities and reputable peer-reviewed journals. --RJFF (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You could debate that any source could be unreliable and not neutral. I could argue that the source claiming UKIP is right-wing populist is not neutral as the source has come only from Oxford. I have seen many sources on this article which have been derived from newspapers, it would be very unfair to say that I am limited to sources which only are "academic sources by political scientists, published by universities and reputable peer-reviewed journals". I feel there is a sense of cherry-picking going on when deciding which source to use.(CatCalledJim (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Neutrality plays no part in a source's reliability. You can have two opposing sources of equal reliability. The general rule on reliability is that the greater the scrutiny a source comes under prior to publication, the more reliable it is considered to be. A peer reviewed paper is generally of high reliability as it has been considered by subject matter experts. Newspapers vary in editorial quality and their ability to check facts, so judgements can be made on their relative reliability. Self published sources come under no prior scrutiny and are not considered reliable except in limited circumstances when referring to themselves. The Backbencher and Libertarian Home blogs appear to be self published sources while Peter Hitchens blog appears to be an opinion piece. Road Wizard (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting my blog, though a more reliable source might be Harry Aldridge of the party's youth organisation claiming, on video [6] , that he is libertarian. Though I was skeptical as to the effectiveness of the party's libertarian positioning in practice. --62.173.203.142 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets not forget UKIP is still a relatively small party in British politics, so there wont be many peer-reviewed papers on UKIP. There are no peer-reviewed papers claiming UKIP is not libertarian. The article on the Green party shows that the party's ideology has Republicanism in there ideology, and there certainly no peer-reviewed papers claiming the Greens are Republican, but because the Green Party itself says they are Republican their article has it down. Because UKIP has said it is libertarian it would be right for Libertarianism to be added to the ideology.(CatCalledJim (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

On the contrary, there is a large number of peer reviewed journal articles on UKIP. Many have been listed on this discussion page previously. None says that UKIP is libertarian. Those that give a specific position all say right wing and most say populist. Journals are not easy to access without a subscription, which is why I listed some books not two weeks ago (see above, almost last posting under "Not Libertarianism") which also describe UKIP as right wing populist. They don't say libertarian (or any fancy type of libertarianism). Once again, please go back over this talk page, revise what makes a reliable source and what doesn't and then either come up with a citable source or stop wasting everyone's time rehashing old issues. Emeraude (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (aka deluded pseudo socialist cyber warrior)

Sanitized article ?

This article seems to whitewash the more controversial aspects of UKIP, such as its links with the BNP and EDF and its members views on race. There are academic sources (e.g. Sim, Stuart (2006). Empires of belief: why we need more scepticism and doubt in the twenty-first century. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 109. ISBN 9780748623266.) which describe UKIP as a racist, extremist, organisation, and the significant body of work which suggests that UKIP really belongs on the far right of the British political spectrum is not incorporated into the article. I do not suggest that this is how we should explicitly portray UKIP, but the fact that it is viewed in this way by some political scientists suggests that this is a valid viewpoint worth discussion in the article. The party's anti-Islam stance, a major part of its platform, is barely discussed.--Claritas § 09:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but you risk joining the ranks of the "deluded pseudo socialist cyber warriors" (see above) for even thinking it. Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC) aka deluded pseudo socialist cyber warrior

I have never heard such stories about UKIP so i'm assuming that it may be a fringe view. Then again I don't really follow the party, but have never heard anything like this in any press or media. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fringe view. There are plenty of academic sources available which expose UKIPs links with the far right. Check the book above for a start, or go for a quick GoogleBooks search for "UKIP Extreme" or something similar. --Claritas § 23:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues. Massively bias wiki editors pushing to smear other parties. What a shock.87.112.170.123 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Other parties? Other than....? You accuse editors of being "massively bias" (sic) - this is a direct personal attack, contrary to Wikipedia ethos, and demands an apology. Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Members or former members of the BNP are forbidden from joining UKIP according to its manifesto so I would describe Mr Stuart's position as untenable at best. --94.173.22.24 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW? Worth nothing at all, since none of the manifestos on UKIP's website mention the BNP!! Perhaps you meant the membership application form, which does say that members of former members of British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People's Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party are banned. But that is in response to exposures over the years about fascists joining UKIP, exactly as described by Stuart et al. Richard Corbett, former MEP, was one of the first to describe these links in 25 things you didn’t know when you voted for UKIP which shows that even UKIP parliamentary candidates have been former members of these parties. Interestingly, UKIP does not seem to proscribe New Britain Party, but since even UKIP's leaders and MEPs (e.g. Jeffrey Titford, Michael Nattrass) have been members we should not be surprised.Emeraude (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I meant the 'terms and conditions of membership'. Thank you for pointing out my heinous error. Perhaps you might acknowledge ('membership application form') thine own?! --94.173.22.24 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm loving your neutrality by the way. Very repfreshing and just how an encyclopaedia should be. You're not related to Joyce Thacker by any chance, are you? --94.173.22.24 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No error on my part. I was quoting from the small print on the membership application form on their website, which lists those seven parties and asks applicants to certify that they are not a member of either [sic] of them. . Emeraude (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Most POV article ever

I have read a few seriously pov articles on non-English wiki pages but this takes the absolute biscuit. I am returning the article to a semblance of neutrality, if any editor has an issue with that discuss it here, do not revert my edits without consensus. Twobells (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Just who do you think you are? Editors are free to revert and discuss changes as they see fit. Please do not issue ultimatums regardless of how well intentioned your edits are. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is the product of well-discussed (often at inordinate length) consensus. Coming along and unilaterally declaring thet this is the most POV article ever (who are you to say? UKIP member?) and threatening any editors who may revert you is contrary to just about everything WIkipedia stands for. Emeraude (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the most pov article I have ever read, using negativity in place of neutrality. If you continue to revert edits I will have the article locked. Twobells (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And just how will you do that? We work by consensus not threats. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is what I mentioned in my opening, from the disputed notice it is obvious there is no consensus so please return the article to a neutral position. An editor has reverted yet again without consensus, I am calling for a lock. Twobells (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If Twobells has an opinion on the neutrality of the article - having read all the previous discussions here - we could discuss it further. We should obviously make sure we don't descend into edit warring, which is what could happen if major edits are not discussed here first. Starting off a discussion by describing an article as POV, when it has clearly developed through the edits of numerous good faith editors, is likely to be counter-productive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The article does need some work, but it's not the most pov article on wikipedia. Unfortunately most editors who come here claiming it is not neutral are POV pushing themselves. Neutrality does not mean publishing a pro-UKIP article it means representing how they appear in mainstream reliable sources. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have got to the edit warring stage. I've warned Twobells. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert the article, protection has been requested. Twobells (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The request you have made is meaningless. Semi-protection only affects Anons and Newly-registered users. One more revert and you will be reported to administrators for violating WP:3RR GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on this article, there is a tag team of bias editors who forced it into the heavy pov article that it is. This tag team is now pushing to gain a "consensus" (ha ha) to make it even more bias with the usual utter lies and smears. This is all a result of the surge in UKIP popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.138.37 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to say Twobells has a point here! Phrases such as "Right-wing populist can only be described as biased libertarian is a fairer description, this is how the party is officially constituted. Please bear in mind that Libertarian is written into the constitution of UKIP and the constitution is a legal written document, written by lawyers hired in by UKIP, the part leader and the NEC have not written the constitution, real bonified lawyers have! Other places describe UKIP as Libertarian, admittedly not the EU and Jose Barrosso, he of course prefers the term populist and can be quoted as having said this on a number of occasions! To have an opening paragraph and an ideology description such as this I'm afraid shows extreme bias! Very disapointed wikipedia! We don't want this page to be an advert, neither a positiv one or indeed a negative one. We want a fair encyclopedia entry, I hope thats not too much to ask from a website that claims to be an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This argument has been done to death, and you are not adding anything to it by re-hashing the same old POV pushing agenda. 3rd Party sources count, not what UKIP describes as itself. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So you don't even accept that aopening sentence for the main introductory paragraph is in any way biased or written in negative manner, I quote: "UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons, but has three members in the unelected House of Lords, all of which are as a result of defections by Conservative peers." Is that written in a positive or negative fashion? I'm not asking for a positive fashion, I'm asking for neutrality, that sentence is not neutral and neither is a lot of what is on this page! Once again wikipedia is showing political bias! I do not want a positive article, if I want that I'll got to the UKIP website, I want impartiality from a supposed impartial source! Also I really can't see how you justify the term "right-wing populist". It's a case of being selective with your sources, apparently legal documents aren't suitible sources....fine. It's incredibly odd and unorthadox but if wiki doesn't want to recogise the rule of law, thats fine! Also what about all the examples of other sources that have been brought to wiki's attention, only to be dismissed. If you don't like Libertarian as a description then try and find a better one. Libertarian is certainly more appropriate than right-wing populist out of those 2 options. What about neo-Libertarian, I'm tryng to be constructive here but all you can do is be dismissive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If you'd care to read the sections below you will see I am attempting to get a better start for the opening paragraph. UKIPs legal documents have nothing to do with how we describe the party here. Find 3rd party sources describing them as libertarian and it can be added. As it stands populist right-wing is well sourced and backed up by multiple sources too. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

People are very selective with sourcing, for example all 3of the sources used to back up the claim that UKIP are "right-wingpopulist" come from pro-EU sources, blatent biased, one of the sources is actually from the European Union's own website, how can that be a credible source, of course they are going to use deflamatory terms! There is no sense of fair play or accurate reporting on wikipedia. I use to think there were sufficient safe guards but clearly their are not, it's all down to editorial opinion, just like a newspaper! I can not see any reaon why wikipedia should keep this incredibly biased term. I personally find it insulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Resposne to above: That's pretty good of you to accuse the EU of being biased - would you by any chance be a UKIP supporter? Seriously, you are stating a case with no evidence to back it up. You say that "all 3of the sources.....come from pro-EU sources" with no evidence of that at all. And, as it happens, none of them "is actually from the European Union's own website". One is from a peer-reviewed journal, the 'gold standard' for Wikipdeia citations. Please get your facts right, then try again. But before you do, be aware that there is nothing "deflamatory" (did you mean 'defamatory' or 'inflamatory'?) about the term right wing populism - it is a precisely understood description of political position and style. Emeraude (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've aready said I'm a UKIP supporter! I'm being open and honest abutit, so please don't try and pull that card. I'm simply arguing for an unbiased article. For starters "http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/unitedkingdom.html" as a web address sounds pretty official to me, what more look at the author a bit closer, he is known for being fiercly pro-EU! Note I say pro-EU and not pro-European, I'm pro-European, I love Europe and it's diverse culture, I just object to polictial and economic union and that is that party's stance! The second source from Parliamentary Affairs is also questionable, just look at the way it's been written, also it's hardly a well renowned credible source! What's more Lundberg has written for the EU Commission before see: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/legal-metrology-and-prepack/files/r44_en.pdf I think this shows where his loyalties lie! As for the third source, that is not even accessible which emidiately invalidates it, also the author is a pro-EU writer, Giacomo Benedetto argues for EU "Fiscal Fderalism", again we can see how his impartiallity might be comprimised when refering to UKIP. There we have it, not one of these sources is uncomprimised, authored by people that oppose UKIP. All we want is a fair hearing and for wikipedia not to behave like a newspaper, wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia! Also if you want to try and insult someone who's a bit dyslexic about their spelling, by all means carry on, it really doesn't bother me. Your just making yourself out to be the sort of people you claim that we are. All I'm asking for is fair treatment. Just read the opening paragraph of this page, it's written very negatively "UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons" as an opening sentence is not a neutral statement, it plantsa negative seed straight away. I don't want a positive one, just a neutral one. I fully accept that what is written is a fact but it is not written in an appropriate manner for an encyclopedia! Please reconsider! I was trying to play nice enitially, both on this page and the Rotherham by election page but I do feel that people are deliberately trying to word things for the purposes of sabotage! Thats a concern I'd like to see addressed sensibly, instead of just shutting down debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying a cabal of editors is deliberately mis-representing UKIPs position is not debating. There is a section below on how to address concerns over the opening paragraph - Why don't some of you anons join in that debate rather than try mud-slinging here? I notice two bells got the article locked and then has show zero interest in joining the debate. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, Twobells should not have behaved so rashly but I'm not Twobells am I! I can understand why he behaved the way he did but once again it wasn't the right thing to do! Also I know the opening paragraph is being debated, what I am arguing for is for the entire article to be rewritten, it's not just one or 2 things, it needs to be rewritten by someone impartial not by people like me and not by people like yourself and previous editors, this is not a newspaper! We need someone impartial to start again! The reason we get the impression UKIP are being mis-represented is because for years now this has being going on! If anything is ever questioned people are emidiatly shut down and in some cases abused, I'm sorry but that's just not nice! A lot of people are fed up with trying to debate with people who behave like this and they get so wound up they end up behaving like that themselves and behave worsely! Try and treat people like human beings please, it's not a lot to ask! In behaving like this you (you collectively not you personally) are engaging in he exact form of biggotry that you accuse UKIP of engaging in. Just think about it for a bit, I'm trying to explain why some of us get so adjitated on here and behave a bit out of character, I hope this gets through to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has accused UKIP of being bigots, I personally voted for them in the recent PCC elections. The problem is UKIP are described by the vast majority of sources as right-wing and populist. The Libertarian label is one they apply to themselves, which if you read the history of the debates above I have supported including. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point but ask yourself if hese sources have comprimised their partiallity? Sources from renouned pro-EU writers are bound to describe UKIP in as unfavourable way as possible. Look above, I have pointed this out, sources from people who have done work for the EU commission makes them biased, they have an interest in this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fostering Row

I don't see how the Fostering Row is notable enough for it's own section, we're not a not a news site. It needs to gain far wider significance before being included. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be deserving of a brief mention once the dust has settled, but for the time being it is impossible for any of us to present a neutral point of view as new information is emerging. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem in laying out the facts in a neutral manner now, with time the section can be laid out. Twobells (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It fails WP:NOTABLE for now. We don't have enough facts to condense it into a coherent neutral encyclopaedic entry. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the article is being locked. Twobells (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact this scandall has gained more coverage and as been more wider reaching than Nigel Farage's controversey with Prince Charles....sense of proportion. If you ask me this entire page neds rewritting, it is embaracingly biased in places.... I mean "right-wing populism" as the title for their ideology is quite inaccurate and unfair. No this article is very biasd based on people being very selective with their sources. I have now got zero confidence in the impartiality of Wikipedia! Wikipedia will happily report negatives about UKIP with no sense of balance. How sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A balanced view cannot be possibly be provided until results of the enquiries are published, we haven't heard "the case for the defence" though even then I expect significant facts will remain confidential. See WP:NOTNEWS JRPG (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It should not have escaped anyone's notice that there is a by-election in progress in Rotherham at the moment. Most of the comment on this story is blatant electioneering and seems almost entirely based on what the UKIP foster parents say they were told; next to nothing from Rotherham Council's social care dept.. This is a live news story and we should not cover it until the dust settles, and even then it may turn out to be a lot less significant than Nigel Farage ("prejudice" and "discrimination" against UKIP, which opposes multiculturalism?) and other politicians are saying. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been suggested that UKIP leaked what was obviously a confidential matter to the Telegraph. Whatever, it's clearly been built up as electioneering froth rather than as a serious issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fact check, UKIP did not leak anything, it was Rotherham Borough Council that brought this story to the news. It was the parents themselves that contacted the telegraph, this is why the Telegraph has their version of events in their own words. UKIP did not leak this story, stop making things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither source (UKIP leak/Rotheram Leak) address the issue that his is a local incident that needs to gain more widespread significance before being included. If if becomes notable we can then add it in, using 3rd parties information rather than drawing our own conclusion. If this were a negative story about UKIP would you be as keen to put information up before facts where truly known? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit protect

Please add libertarian to the Ideology section of the infobox. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I changed it to "libertarianism", though, to match the other items, and I also gave it a wikilink. Let me know if this wasn't what you intended. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now please delete it again. This has been discussed ad nauseam (see above at Not Libertarianism and extensively in the archive for this page) and there is no justification for it. Indeed, it has been the subject of long-running edit wars, usually when anonymous IP editors turn up, make the change, get reverted, revert back, refuse to consider reasoned argument about reliable sources etc. Now, it seems, with the article locked, someone can just turn up, ask for libertarian to be added, no discussion, in it goes. Disgusting. Emeraude (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As for the cited source, this is what it says: "United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP): A libertarian political party, founded in 1993, whose main goal is the UK's withdrawal from the EU, on the basis that the latter has destroyed the country's political sovereignty." That's it in total. In the Glossary on p 541. It is the only mention of UKIP in the whole book - the index to this 576 page work does not list UKIP at all. The book is for trainee social workers and the like, not political scientists. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
• As someone who apparently has seen it all on this issue, you could perhaps enlighten me on whether the Edinburgh University Press book by Chris Robinson ever came up in all of these discussions. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No I can't. To be honest, I can't be arsed to go back through archives going over and over the same old ground. Emeraude (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you mrstradivarius for finally sorting out the ideology tags. Please ignore the anti-libertarian tag loons. They have been tag teaming to keep this article heavily biased to their pov on ukip, rather than neutral, for ages. Their was never a consensus to their pov, as is claimed above.146.90.35.186 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done And removed again. My apologies - if I had my brain more tightly screwed on I would have realised that there obviously wasn't a consensus for that edit. Perhaps it is time to take this dispute to WP:DRN? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Emeraude (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Libertarianism

Why is a party that is more authoritarian than Conservatives and Labour being described as 'Libertarian'? This is Americanized, and should be described as American Conservatism. Ahahaha373 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I think Libertarian Conservatism is the best description of Ukip. They want low immigration and not too fussy about social liberalism, but are mainly concerned with small state libertarian conservatism. Ahahaha373 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources describing them as that? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

UKIP Constitution - "2.5 The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party." Mabuska ^(talk) 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether they are truly libertarian or not i don't know, but they do say their beliefs are "very closely aligned" with the Libertarian Party - [7] in what appears to be a trumpet call to encourage Libertarian Party members to join them. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF, they aren't a reliable source for self-serving claims about themself. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for the context it is added in. Though there is no problem if it's put into the proper context in a new sentence, i.e. The party calls itself a "democractic, libertarian party" which fully meets the opening sentence of WP:ABOUTSELF. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, read the first bullet point - "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". It happens to be both, since an exceptional claim is "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". So where are all the mainstream sources that say UKIP is libertarian? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Does that bullet point even apply in this case considering the context i just proposed adding it in as - a quotation from themselves about themselves and nothing more? There is at least one mainstream source (yes not multiple) that covers mentions the party's claim: [8]. If you wish i could start an RfC for outside input on whether that point applies for the context? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally i couldn't give a figs about what UKIP is, but if it stops the recurring issue from happening again it's not a bad solution. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the bullet point applies. "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 source has been brought up before, it doesn't say UKIP are Libertarian. Three of the four bullet point at WP:REDFLAG apply to the claim. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I said that sourced mentions the party's claim. Very big difference from it stating that the party is. I've initiated a simple RfC below. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the party is libertarian (it seems to be more populist), but there certainly is a true Ludwig von Mises-style libertarian faction within the party. I think the solution is to do this the same way the Conservative Party (United Kingdom), the Republican Party (United States) and the Democratic Party (United States) were done, have a general section in ideology (for UKIP, I think Euroscepticism might be the only one, given that there are some former Labour Party people and other people with generally left wing views in UKIP. Populism would probably also be appropriate. After the general section, have a column of "internal factions". These factions could include: Libertarianism, Social conservatism (because of opposition from some UKIP officials to gay marriage) and maybe Fiscal conservatism and Thatcherism.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

UKIP is purely Libertarian party, with Austrian economics, emphasis on Civil liberties and support of Ethnic diversity. Let's talk about facts, not biased statements without quotations. 217.159.212.102 (talk) (talk)‎ 11:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And the above is not a biased statements without quotations??? Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. Read Libertarianism in the United Kingdom Wiki article first, I quote "The Eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have defined themselves as a libertarian party,[7] construed by some as an attempt to outflank the Conservatives on economic issues.[8] Under the leadership of Nigel Farage, Farage's stated intention was to broaden the public perception of UKIP beyond merely being a party seeking to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union, to one of being a free market party broadly standing for libertarian values." Then a list of Prominent libertarians: "Nigel Farage (born 1964), UK Independence Party Leader", so the leader of a party mentioned as prominent libertarian. Next: UKIP – the only home for libertarians (http://www.indhome.com/2012/06/ukip-home-libertarians/) and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/06/leaving-tories-ukip-alexandra-swann). Watch video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STZGH9fInek) Examine UKIP's policies and program to make correct evaluation of their ideology. 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.212.102 (talk)

Well, just a few problems with that. First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source! Second, Nigel Farage I'm sure would appear in a list of prominent plonkers, but it doesn't meean that UKIP is a plonker because its leader is. Third, as has been explained ad nauseam, what UKIP says about itself is not a reliable source for anything other than a sentence which begins "UKIP describes itself as...." (And we have that sentence in the article.) Fourth, while The Guardian is generally regarded as a reliable source, the piece you quote is not BY The Guardian as such, nor even a Guardian writer. To quote the paper: "Alexandra Swann is a 23 year old member of UKIP. She was previously the national deputy chairman (political) of Conservative Future and is studying for a PhD in intellectual history at the University of Sussex." In other words, as it does most days, the paper has allowed someone unconnected with it to write a personal opinion piece. (The clue is in the http address: "Comment is free" is the relevant column.) Fifth, "UKIP Nigel Farage MEP talks to the Oxford Libertarian society -2009" on YouTube fails for the reasons stated already. Emeraude (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an insanity of Wikipedia. Some bribed and biased journalist (knowing nothing about politics) writing an article in some newspaper, and that's a "reliable source" enough but words and deeds of a party itself are nothing. Documents, programs and manifesto, policies and decisions are literally nothing. Journalists that most of the time lie or unprofessional in the topic they are writing about, only their words are gold, that counts for Wikipedia. I can google the topic and find a lot of "third party" sources that say UKIP is a libertarian party. But I am sure it's pointless because you are biased towards UKIP. Don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.212.102 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. Once you have read them and have a little better understanding how wikipedia works, then come back and have a grown up discussion. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a model of civility to be condescending toward an unregistered (and obviously new) user. --RJFF (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to give more than a cursory glance at the edit history you will see the IP is bouncing about being disruptive. Thanks for the input though. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Even BBC accused of leftwing and liberal bias. That's everywhere on the news today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/10/bbc-review-liberal-bias), (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9599899/Why-did-the-BBC-sideline-David-Camerons-speech-on-the-Today-programme.html), (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-leftwing-bias-7268459.html). I think the same problem is with Wikipedia. And yes, I read all WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS links you provided. Didn't find myself wrong in any sense. To call UKIP a right-wing populist party, having so few and unreliable sources for that (2 sources, one of which is just an individual from Germany: Wolfram Nordsieck, Merkurstraße 1, 40223 Düsseldorf, Germany, is bias and incivility. I quote from WP:RS "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim". Populism is a heavyweight claim that should be supported by heavyweight sources. And finally, you sounded so smug, overbearing and patronizing... We (unregistered new users) are just wogs, right?--217.159.212.102 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is tiresome. Please read the comments above, and in the archives to this talk page, that explain why "libertarian" is not reliably sourced and why "right-wing populism" is. You have also been pointed to Wikipedia policies and procedures that cover the issue of reliable sources, and why your behaviour is unacceptable - please take the time to read and understand them, rather than ranting about supposed bias of journalists in general and the BBC in particular. And I note you have not actually criticised either source save one seems to you be an individual; I presume the academic journal Parliamentary Affairs is acceptable. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Nordsieck's website is cited as a source in several scholarly publications.[9] It is accepted as a resource by the EUDO, an academic platform at the European University Institute ("The editor (Nordsieck) began his comparative study of political parties, party systems, elections and constitutional laws in the late 1980s.") (Right-wing) populism is not an insult, judgement or stigma, but a valid category for classifying political ideologies, used by a great number of reputable political scientists. (And please don't tell me they all have a left-wing bias and just want to vilify parties like UKIP.) --RJFF (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the journal already cited (Abedi, A. and Lundberg, T.C. 2009. "Doomed to Failure? UKIP and the Organizational Challenges Facing Right-Wing Populist Anti-Political Establishment Parties." Parliamentary Affairs, 62 (1), 72-87) we may add:

• "Right-wing populism is on the rise - and it is shamelessly courting working-class people. The BNP is unlikely ever to establish itself as a credible party, but it is an ominous portent of what could come. The populist right can also boast the presence of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), ...." Owen Jones: Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, p 245, Verso 2011

• "The List Pim Fortuyn and New Democracy are not the only examples of radical right – or right-wing populist – flash parties: the Schill Party in Germany, the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) in Greece, and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) would qualify as well." David Art, Inside the Radical Right, p 188, Cambridge University Press, 2011

• "But when set against the advances made by the populist radical right in many other parts of Europe, UKIP and the BNP remain minor parties in British politics." Stephen Driver. Understanding British Party Politics, p 151, Polity Press 2011

• "...other British parties had played a leading role in ushering this populism towards the mainstream. UKIP had formed the Europe of Freedom and Democracy bloc,...." Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, p 154, Verso 2012

• "Recent events have created a seemingly perfect storm for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the right-wing populist eurosceptic party that has supplanted the British National Party as the main electoral force to the right of the Conservative Party." Adam Carter Searchlight, June 2012

All available from your local bookshop or library, and maybe even online. But, on reflection, let's not add them and pad out the article with excessive referencing. Emeraude (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for the UKIP mainstream supporting the Austrian economic theory?--Jay942942 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a mainstream media source stating that UKIP are LIbertarian: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100191811/ukip-are-libertarian-theyre-also-conservative-pro-free-trade-and-anti-mass-immigration-and-theyre-coherent/ I can not see why people can't accept this. It's making wikipedia look very biased! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly a mainstream source is it? It's a blog. And it doesn't specifically say that UKIP is libertarian (apart from the wide-ranging headline); rather it suggests that UKIP has policies/views that are not imcompatible with libertarianism. The author is somewaht confused about what libertarianism means ("Libertarian used to ...refer to people ... who preferred social pressure and shame to unnecessary laws"; "Today it is increasingly used by socially liberal people who want all of the permissiveness of the post-60s world but without having to pay for the state to look after the inevitable casualties"). So, not a reliable source. Wikipedia's article does say: "The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party." (second sentence). When a source such as a peer-reviewed journal agrees, we will have something useful to go on. Emeraude (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, so we're moving goal posts, ok, just so as I know! I don't see how you can say that the Telegraph is not part of the mainstream media, it's one of Britain's most influential and widely read papers! Also I suggest you read UKIP's policies, they favour scrapping a lot of legislation and as you say prefer social regulation, for example: they are considering the legalisation of some drugs, they want a Royal Commission to look in to this! The Party leader has said he would ere towards legalisation of some drugs on the basis that the current war on drugs is not working. They have said they want to repeal the smoking ban, that should be a matter for landlords to decide! They have said they wan't to repeal the fox hunting ban stating "That should be a matter for personal conscience" Nigel Farage said. There are loads more examples. I don't think your capable of determining a party's ideology if you don't know the party's policies and don't listen to what they and particularly the party eader says! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: It's a blog (albeit a rather good one). It is not the Daily Telegraph as such. What YOU say are the UKIP policies is original research. That you ascribe some of their policies to libertarianism is original research. For any party you care to name, I could pick policies that could be described as libertarian; that would not make it liberatrian, and besides, it would be original research as well! I repeat again: When a source such as a peer-reviewed journal agrees, we will have something useful to go on. This is not, as you put it, "moving goal posts" - it is the way Wikipedia works. Emeraude (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I just came here for the first time in ages to tell this discussion thread that I had found a reliable source for the claim that UKIP is libertarian - namely Ed West's Telegraph article (titled "Ukip are libertarian. They're also conservative, pro-free trade, and anti-mass immigration – and they're coherent")! I was sure that this would finally end the sterile dispute which has raged on this talk page for so long, thus earning me the gratitude of all concerned. Sadly, I see that it is not to be. In order to focus the debate, I'm wondering Emeraude if you would be kind enough to indicate which sections of a newspaper's online edition you would regard as sufficiently authoritative to use as references for a Wikipedia article? Then we could save wasting your time in the future :-) (Incidentally, I don't think it will ever be possible to settle this as there are too many competing definitions of libertarianism, and any claim about political ideology that can be authoritatively sourced can be matched by an equal and contradictory claim from a different authoritative source; which is why political science, unlike (say) physics, remains in the dark ages. But I don't want to spoil anyone's fun!) Twilde (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would subscribe to the general Wikipedia practice of treating all blogs as less than reliable. It is also dangerous to assume that everything that appears in a newspaper is reliable - reliable sources can and do make mistakes (and, in my view, this is especially true of blogs). I'm not a great reader of blogs, in fact I tend to avoid them like the plague. That said, as I indicated above, Ed West's Telegraph blog seems fairly cogent, but it remains a blog. Your rather sarcastic query to me (no offence taken, I like a bit of sarcasm) is an interesting one, but rather wide-ranging. Personally, I would not place much reliance on anything that has not appeared in the paper version, but I'm an old-fashioned hard copy reader! Your comments in parentheses actually get to the crux of the issue: what is libertarianism? As a political scientist I obviously can't agree with your dark ages comment, but I would repeat what has been said many times before in this discussion and its forebears, and that is that we seek the gold standard of acceptable Wikipedia resources, i.e. references from peer-reviewed journals that state that UKIP is libertarian and explain why. Unfortunately, that means waiting for someone at such a journal to step out of the dark ages! (Or it may never happen because UKIP is not libertarian......?) In the meantime, as I said before, the article does say that UKIP claims to be libertarian. Emeraude (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add this section in

Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament

UKIP do not currently have any representatives in the other devolved nations of Scotland or Wales. UKIP fielded 29 candidates at the Scottish Parliament election on 5 May. The party also fielded candidates in the Welsh Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.177.208 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 November 2012‎

Why add non information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.228.252 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't non-information.. This is information as to the strategy of the party in devolved institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.177.208 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So what you're looking for is a sentence like: UKIP has fielded candidates in elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; as of 2012, none have been elected. That's all it needs, and that would be OK with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a fine statement. Please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.177.208 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2012‎ (UTC)

 Administrator note Please reactivate request when the wording has been agreed on. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have deactivated the {{editprotected}} template again. You need to wait another couple of days for other users to comment. If, after that, there is a consensus to add a particular version, please reactivate the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle's suggested sentence would go nicely at the end of the second paragraph in the intro. This does not need a separate section. Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't have anything in the intro that isn't expanded upon in the main body. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer to that point would be to add my sentence to the lead, and User:92.14.177.208's wording to the main article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

By-elections

I'm not supplying a necessary phrasing for it, but I think it's necessary to highlight the results from by-elections of the 29th of November 2012 results in Rotherham and Middlesbrough. 21% in Rotherham was the most ever in an English by-election excluding University seats, while UKIP previous to last night had only ever come 2nd twice, then did it twice in one night. Because this is a large development in electoral support for a relatively small party, it is worthy in my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.201.82 (talk • contribs)

Again this boils down to long-term significance and coverage in third party sources. WP:NOTNEWS dictates that we don't just report what happens because it appears in a news paper or is of transient interest. If this becomes the start of an upward trend for UKIP then it becomes notable, as it stands the elections where amongst some of the lowest turnouts ever (in the top 10 lowest turnouts). If this turns out to be a blip then this is a non-story. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. What seems to me significant is not UKIP's vote (not particularaly good in any of the three constituencies in the by-election apart from Rotherham, but that was probably influened by the fostering story so not representative) but the collapse of the Lib Dem and Con vote. UKIP came second practically by default after the Coalition lost so many votes percentage wise. The big story here is the drubbing that the coalition government got, but that also is "news" and cannot yet be said to be a trend of encyclopaedic merit. Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disregard this, someone beat me to it.--24.240.187.254 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons - lets get concensus

Currently the article opens with

UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons, but has three members in the unelected House of Lords, all of which are as a result of defections by Conservative peers. It also has 12 seats in the European Parliament, which is a reduction from 13 won in 2009 because of defections, but with one gained from the defection of Roger Helmer from the Conservative Party. UKIP currently holds one seat on the Northern Ireland Assembly due to a defection from former Ulster Unionist Party MLA David McNarry in October 2012.[9][10]

This could be re-written as something along the lines of

UKIP has 12 seats in the European Parliament and three members in the House of Lords - all defections by Conservative peers. It is yet to win a seat to the House of Commons. UKIP currently holds one seat on the Northern Ireland Assembly due to a defection from former Ulster Unionist Party MLA David McNarry in October 2012.[9][10]

This is a slightly less negative view point. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems fairSlatersteven (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Stricty speaking not all are defections of conservative peers, one was a crossbencher for over a decade, makes it a bit different really! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happier with a shorter version: "UKIP has 12 seats in the European Parliament following the 2009 elections. It also has three members in the House of Lords, and one seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly, all of which are the result of defections by members of other parties." There's no need to say what parties they are from, and no need to say either that they "have never" or that they "have not yet" won a parliamentary election - either of which could convey a non-neutral meaning. When in doubt, leave it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wish to register my approval of this new sentence, I feel it is neutral (neither positive or negative), nice to see some progress on this, even if it is small, it's something! So thankyou for being reasonable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So whats happening about this? Were discussing one opening paragraph! This entire encyclopedia entry is written like a newspaper, need to pick up the pace a bit here! Also Ghmyrtle, I've just realised who you are, you have an account on yahooanswers under the name Myrtle , I recognise your writting style and well I can just tell it's you! I really think it is wholly inappropriate that you have any futher involvement in this entry on the basis that you have expressed political views online that have compromised your impartiallity with regard to this article! I have seen you slag off UKIP before, that is perfectly fine on YahooAnswers, that is your right if you choose to use it but this is not the place for it. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Heres an article of what Myrtle has asked as a question: [[Banks are the cathedrals of capitalism ...................? Then isnt it a tad unfair these private enterprise, free market, capitalist, bloodsuckers are saved by socialist policies - the tax payer are keeping them afloat. YET - most other businesses are left to sink. while the bankers rake in the bonus pay.]] Now this sounds like someone who is very anti-capitalist full stop, perhaps social-democrats are too "right-wing" for you as you might see it! The truth of the matter people from UKIP are sympathetic to the anger associated with this kind of thing but have different ways of dealing with things! The problem is that people like Myrtle are emidiatly anti-UKIP because they're trying to save capitalism, whereas really Myrtle wants it too fail. Personally I just want a system that works and for this article to be written by someone impartial, that rules both myself and Myrtle(Ghmyrtle) out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not me. I can 100% guarantee that I don't have an account on Yahoo, have never posted there, and have never made those comments. So I suggest you withdraw that claim, per WP:NPA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% convinced either way, I'd like to see it looked in to if you are to have any further editorial input, just so that we can be 100% sure either way. I have no personal grievance with you, I don't wish to discredit you, I'm sure most of your contributions are perfecty valid and impartial and it might well be the case tat it isn't you, in which case I'd owe you a full appology and retract any suggestion of this being you! However we are not 100% sure at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It says under "Myrtel"'s account (note spelling, by the way), that he says: "My knowledge base is Consumer Law and Boxing. I have helped numerous people over the years on consumer issues and never lost a case when challenging any seller. I was an Amateur boxer and trainer." If you can find the remotest trace of evidence that I, ghmyrtle, have any interest in, or knowledge of, either consumer law or boxing, I will immediately renounce my membership of whatever political organisation you think I am a member of. (Which will be very easy for me to do, as I'm not a member of any.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Re your post, who are "we", exactly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what we can do to prove this either way, like I say I'm dyslexic and a bit of a technophobe so don't know/understand how you can verify these things. As for "We" we well if you refering to me, it's people that aren't militantly against capitalism and if it's you (not 100% either way if it is you) then it's people who are! I just want to reiterate that I accept it might well not be you but I have had my reservations about your partiality in all of this, other contributors have been more pragmatic and not dead against including certain things, there has been a sense of balance by accepting quotations from all parties. You don't seem so willing, so this is where my suspicions come from and you just reminded me of this person, in the way this person answers political questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Verification is not going to happen. What you are doing is a personal attack. What someone does outside of wikipedia with other accounts is irrelevant. The only behaviour that matters is what goes on here. I suggest you withdraw this accusation before it goes too far GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it has already gone too far. Emeraude (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that we don't know either way but for the sake of peace I'll say I'm not making allegations and say my suggestions was simply me thinking a loud and that it should not be taken as an allegation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "I've just realised who you are, you have an account on yahooanswers under the name Myrtle, I recognise your writting style and well I can just tell it's you!" Quote: "[Y]ou have expressed political views online that have compromised your impartiallity." Quote: "I have seen you slag off UKIP before." Seem like allegations to me.

Quote: "we don't know either way" Quote: "if it's you (not 100% either way if it is you)" Quote: "I'm not 100% convinced either way" Doesn't sound like contrition. There is still a matter of a personal attack to be resolved here. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And outing (almost) this has to be dealt with now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP should read WP:OUTING GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source from a member of the mainstream media stating that UKIP are Libertarian, I don't see why people can't accept this! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100191811/ukip-are-libertarian-theyre-also-conservative-pro-free-trade-and-anti-mass-immigration-and-theyre-coherent/

Personally I'm fed up with all of this as I'm sure you all are but I'm going to stand my ground! I don't want a fight but when people react the way they do on here, it brings out another side of me that is completely out of character and aggressive. You tend to find that with a lot of UKIP supporters, we feel enraged with how we've been treated and it kind of takes over. We should know better, I know. What I'm trying to say to Ghmyrtle is I'm sorry if I have caused you ny offence, that was never my intention and please don't take my comment as an accusation because it's not and just to be sure I retract the implication! I was thinking aloud! All I want is a fair crack and you have been so obstructive, no other editor on this page has behaved like that, your clearly not neutral and neither am I! Other editors have demonstrated balance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No improvement. You are still accusing an editor who preceded your original rant with a perfectly reasonable comment of being "clearly not neutral", with no basis for that at all. You can only make such a comment based on the accusation you made from an external source. For that, you were clearly wrong, but it should not have been made in the first place. You have still to apologise for your behaviour ("sorry if I have caused you ny offence" does not cover it). And seeing as you claim not to be neutral...... Emeraude (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I'm not scared of admitting when I've done wrong, I was just trying to explain why I said what I said, why I got irate etc! For further clarification, I whole heartedy appologise for my comments, I clearly have no evidence for such an accusation, therefore I withdraw any implication of an allegation! I appologise for getting irate, aggressive, loosing my temper and getting emotional. Generally it is not within my character to do so, I over reacted, I felt ganged up so, so I fought back! For that I am also sorry! As far as Ghmyrtle's partiality is concerned, I can only say that my opinion is based on that feeling of feeling like I've been percicuted! I have found other editors on this page that have been willing to try and work forwards in this. Ghmyrtle changed their mind part way through a discussion which has blocked further progress. I suggest that this could either be that he/she has something against UKIP or against me. Either of which are understandable, everyone's entightled to their poitical views and everyone's entightled to dislike whoever they like! I can see how I'm responsible for Ghmyrtle disliking me, my over reacting (out of character) makes that perfectly understandable. I'm happy to make a further retraction if I can be assured that we're going to be able to move on, get on with fixing this entry and that everyone get's a fair crack, i.e. that a simple majority can't use their collective will to discriminate. That's all I've wanted all along - a fair crack, and well I don't feel I/my cause has 100% had that. That is not to say that I have found some editors to be great and in my view perfectly neutral (or as near to perfect as possible)! Can we move on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just read through all of this and well it's concerning to say the least! Editors do seem to have been deliberately pushing our guests buttons! Yes, editors have the last word but that doesn't give us a right to act like this. As for the IP user; Please refrain from this behaviour! I understand the point your tryng to make and it will be heard! However, you do not get a "fair-crack" via the mean you have been using! I hope your retractions are genuine and I hope other editors ake heed of them! Let's call that an end to all the biterness!

Right then, what we going to about this article? If I'm honest I have to say it's one of the worsed and most impartial I've ever read! The IP makes the point about the opening paragraph... we should hang our heads in shame that it's been like this for so long! Lets sort it! Nick Dancer comment added by Nick Dancer (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Er...what's the difference between an editor with a name and an editor with an IP? None. So what's your point? Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But to get to businesss, please indicate which IP you are referring to and suggest, at risk of going over old ground, exactly what you (and whichever IP) object to in the first paragraph, which to avoid to much back clicking I reproduce here in its entirety:

"The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is a Eurosceptic right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party".
Emeraude (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, firstly if you've not been bothered to get a sign on then I don't think people have as much respect for your contributions. That at least seems to be the way they get treated. But also in fairness, if they've not bothered to get a sign on, how important do they think it is to make wiki contributions? Both as it happens. I didn't actually check the IP numbers, I just assumed it was 1 person! Well specifically, I think an opening paragraph such as this is shockingly biased e.g. "UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons...." is an incredibly negative and (seemingly dliberetly so) way to start any article! Also, I think the term "right-wing populists" is bad, this is a political slur, as pointed out, used by the party's most powerful opponent, the President of the EC! Populism is a subjective term, what is popular depends on ones opinion! I have to say I agree with theaove rewrite and think it should be changed to that! Also in fairness the party is constituted as a Libertarian party. Political party constitutions are legally binding documents, written by lwayers, not politicians and I think really this needs some recognition. I get why there are objections to this being out right labeled as an ideology (wiki policy or at least precedents seem to ignore this part of the law) but I don't see why we can't put: "The UK Independence Party is a Eurosceptic political party in the United Kingdom. The party is legally constituted as a democratic, libertarian party." I really don't get what's wrong withthat for an opening sentence. And then we can also add the drafted paragraph from above to replace the second one. Can we have some agreement on this?Nick Dancer (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Nick Dancer (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very careful where you are going with this, saying we are ignoring the law is verging on WP:NLT. Wikipedia policy is very clear on the point, UKIPs constitution is not the source we go to when describing it's ideology. We use WP:SECONDARY and even WP:TERTIARY sources. I agree that UKIP's view of itself should be in the article but not as the defining text. For example they are not Libertarian in social policy (against gay marriage, pro-monarchy etc) so their constitution is not consistent. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone on wiki of breaking the law, I'm merely saying that wikipedia's policy seems to be to ignore a legally binding document! For instance UKIP are unable to have a policy that discriminates on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. In order to do so they must 1st change their constitution! Labour had to repeal Clause IV of their's so that they could change the policy of nationalising state utilities and railways! Your over simplifying things if your saying that UKIP are against gay marriage! There only against gay marriage (for now) because there isn't a seperation between church and state and that means that rulings from the ECHR and ECJ could potentially mean individual churches could loose their marriage liscences if they refuse a same sex couple solely on those grounds. Look at what happened with women and car insurance, it folows the same precedent on their discrimination policy! Your over simplifying things! This is not inconsistent, it is anti-libertarian to take liberty away from others, in order to give more liberty to one other group! Libertarians believe in striving for equal liberty, given our current legal framework, to legalise gay marriage would be anti-libertarian! Also don't know if you've noticed but all 3of the main parties are pro-monarchy! Our monarchy is ceremonial, your argument is weak! As far as things like extraditions go, they have sided with people like Shami Chakrabarti, head of liberty UK! Also allowing smoking in pubs and aloing fox hunting are also libertarian! Libertarianism is about freedom of choice, having the liberty to do what you like and be who you are! Libertarians don't believe morals should be determined by government, if you want to chase a fox on a sunday afternoon, that should be a matter of personal conscience! I think it's stupid personally but Libertarians don't believe in dictating morals! They believe if people are given more responsibility, they will learn to be more responsible! I suggest you read up on Libertarianism, you don't seem to know what it is! Look I could go through the whole manifesto with you if you want! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dancer (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the three main parties do not describe themselves as libertarian. This legal document argument is meaningless nonsense, a parties constitution cannot be discriminatory - but it is not legally binding in terms of left/right leanings GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you want to put right-wing on here, I really don't care! What I'm objecting to is the term populism, it is subjective and opinion based! As far as Libertarianism goes. I'm not even arguing it get's put down as an official ideology, I'm not, so get that out your head! I'm simply saying instead of putting "The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party"". We put "The party is constituted as democratic, libertarian party." Which it is, there's no use of the word legal in that phrase or anything like that, it simply replaces "describes it's self as" with "is constituted as", that's all. It's more accurate at any rate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dancer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RJFF has removed an edit that can only be assumed to have consensus since this talk page has been silent for a week. I will do a partial reverted edit to try and address this indivisuals concerns! Please come to talk pag before reverting edits to a discussed section. Nick Nick Dancer 00:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This new edit is much better than the earlier one you did, RJFF was right reverting your previous edit as that was completely against consensus. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Far-right

The recent change to Far-right is not from an acceptable source. If a telegraph comment page is not sufficient to prove UKIP are libertarian, then certainly a Guardian comment page isn't good enough to claim they are Far-right. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're twisting reality again. What you "call a telegraph comment page" was no such thing: it was a blog on the Telegraph website, as was pointed out very clearly above. The "Guardian comment page" you claim is not good enough appeared actually in print (hard copy) and is by a respected academic who has an acceptable level of renown within the topic; as such it is a reliable source. However, his article does not fully support the use to which it was put, to state that UKIP is far right. Indeed, even the title ("Ukip shares more with the far right than it admits" - the only appearance of the phrase "far right" in the article) is a bit of a give away. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's still appropriate to call UKIP "far-right". There are better sources around. --Claritas § 11:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment is free is a blog site (regardless of whether it appears in print), it does not come under the same rigorous journalistic standards as the rest of the paper. I also do not appreciate I am 'twisting reality' - that is verging on a WP:NPA, you really need to start assuming good faith when dealing with editors, especially those of us who are trying to improve the article from a neutral standpoint. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reality is this: You reverted a series of edits on the grounds that they were "contraversial, that is a 'comment' blog and not sufficent for such a claim". Firstly, it was not particularly controversial; the source is a good one, but not for the claim made for it. Secondly it was not a "comment blog" as you stated or "a blog site" as you repeat above. Thirdly, you have persisted in referring to a "telegraph comment page" when it has been clearly pointed out to you it is a blog. To me, that's twisting reality. I could also describe it as being deliberately misleading. If you don't appreciate it, stop twisting reality. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment is free section on the guardian is the equivalent of a blog site, it is an opinion piece it is not journalistic. It is the same as the Comment pages on the telegraph that where 'not good enough to describe the party as libertarian'. If you continue to accuse other editors of bad-faith editing then I will have no choice but to take this to arbitration GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Goodwin writes that "Ukip is not a rightwing extremist party" Having similarities with the far-right (as Goodwin claims) does not mean that the party is far-right. This source isn't strong enough either. If a UKIP defector claims that the party is linked to far right organisations, this doesn't automatically make UKIP themselves far-right. --RJFF (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The context is clear: Goodwin was not saying that UKIP is not far right, but that it is not extremist. Emeraude (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be difficult to argue, however, that the UKIP is not perceived as being towards the far right. Might be worth making the point in a subsection dealing with perceptions - this might have been tried before, I'm not completely familiar with the tortured history of this article having come to it via a persistent SPI. What does strike me as very, very odd however is that Cameron's description of the party doesn't feature anywhere at all in the article. That's pretty high profile and a not unreasonable thing to include from a NPOV. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think to simply describe UKIP as far-right in matter of fact terms would be inaccurate and wrong. I think Blue Square Thing has made a good point about public perceptions. Instead of reporting all the media slander as fact, why don't we report it in it's own seperate section. We've got to be careful here. I have tidied the introduction (with consensus above) because it was the most POV thing I had ever read and others had said so as well. I have made every effort to use neutral, non-negative and non-positive words. People seem to think it strikes the right balance. We have just got to get on with the rest of the article now. Like I say Blue Squares idea would solve the problem, I'm in favour! Nick Nick Dancer 11:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you use phrases like "reporting all the media slander as fact" you blow your case and expose your own POV. Of your own writing you say "People seem to think it strikes the right balance". Evidence? Or do you mean it strikes your own personal view? Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:POT springs to mind. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)