Jump to content

Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Cross-party campaign against UKIP

I started a new section under this heading in the article, only to have it removed by an IP who has since become scarce - though both another editor and myself invited them to start a new discussion about this. It seems to me the cross-company campaign widely announced in the press is a legitimate subject: no doubt what I wrote could be improved, and I would welcome this - but to have it removed altogether seems to me unwarranted. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point, it seems primarily to have been a Labour press campaign which has not caught hold in the population. Such "campaigns" are announced with great fanfare, and then melt away - giving it much weight past a sentence would be improper at this point. Collect (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
How can you determine this less than two weeks after it was launched? And as it is, we don't even have a sentence on it in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Alas - find me actual on-going coverage of the "campaign." So far, only the initial PR material seems to be around, which means it was quite likely - PR material. And precious little indication that it is "cross party" other than in name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't have its own section. The article is already weighed hugely towards the current European Election and the events surrounding it. Most parties run campaigns like this towards others, Labour have also run campaigns against the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats recently (in fact, I was just watching a Labour broadcast criticising Nick Clegg last night) My point is, having an entire subsection based on this is undue weight, it deserves a sentence in a relevant section at best --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
To include a full two paragraph section on this campaign against UKIP seems to violate WP:recedentism WP:notnews and undue. If it should be included, it should rather be a sentence or two in the past 2013 history section. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with others. It's too soon to view this campaign as notable. If it proves to have legs, we can cover it, but our default isn't to cover everything and see what lasts, it's to wait until events prove their notability. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I see your points, but rather wonder if it's significant that such a campaign, backed by Migration Matters Trust, has been thought necessary (due, apparently, to UKIP's apparent rise in support measured by the polls mentioned in the sources). For now I'll certainly hold fire until I see more media attention or some further news breaking over this. Alfietucker (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's probably best. What we have is parties opposed to UKIP opposing UKIP. Er..., that's just politics as normal. The fact that there has been some announcement that the parties opposing UKIP oppose UKIP is the only event; what has come of it or will come of it is just business as usual. Emeraude (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to include anything about a cross party campaign against UKIP. This is just electioneering in the run up to the EU election. This page is about UKIP, not about the 2014 EU election, so there is no need to have anything about this in my opinion. Atshal (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Though I agree with many of the statements here, I think it is worth mentioning the ongoing campaign against UKIP organised by the UAF and, reportedly the SWP as well Kezzer16 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Would we also be reporting the contents of the campaign by Unite Against Fascism and HOPE not hate and the issues that they raised or just the matter that they campaigned against them? I don't know if we all want to go through the "are UKIP far-right" debate again but including information about the protesting by anti-fascist groups in article would be suggestive of this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to integrate these different threads -- questions about whether UKIP is far-right, embarrassing racist claims by certain candidates, cross-party or UAF campaign -- into one succinct piece of text? Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as the issue of whether UKIP is "far-right" or not as been pretty much done to death, perhaps it would just be best to mention that the UAF/SWP has a campaign going on against UKIP. Kezzer16 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
My point was, if we were to discuss this campaign, we should also list some of what their issues with the party are. This is linked to the content that has been removed concerning the racism controversy as well as the far-right issue. We can't just say two anti-fascist groups campaigned against UKIP without at showing why these groups felt such a campaign was necessary. Otherwise it would not be giving the issue due weight. It fits in the tone of an article like the British National Party to just state outright that Unite Against Fascism and HOPE not hate have campaigned against them, but not the one that currently exists for UKIP. Maybe a section can be structured that combines both the racism controversies and the campaign by UAF and HNH? Otherwise it would read like UKIP are a perfectly moderate political party that anti-fascist groups regularly lobby against which is hugely confusing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I know this is just my opinion but, I think the term "anti-fascist" is applied too liberally in this day and age. I would not class UAF as "anti-fascist"; UAF attacks political organisations it doesn't agree with, it just so happens that arguably Fascist organisations are one type political organisation it disagrees with. Though I don't necessarily agree with UKIP, I do happen to believe that they are a perfectly moderate political party that 'anti-fascist' groups regularly lobby against. The problem with making a comment about racism controversies would be the fact that it may blow the issue out of proportion and ignore the fact that Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories all have controversial characters, but we do not see much of those. Kezzer16 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Previous so full of personal and contentious opinion as to be practically worthless in this discussion Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal and contentious opinion is littered throughout the discussion and throughout wikipedia. The fact that you disagree with my position does not, in itself, make it "worthless in this discussion". Kezzer16 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, Unite Against Fascism is an anti-fascist group. Anyway, this is all independent research, take the discussion of UAF to the UAF page. While UKIP are clearly not a fascist party, their previous manifesto and the comments of party members show that they are anything but moderate. The fact that you and some other editors see the racism controversies as blown out of proportion but the fact that political groups felt the need to make them as hugely relevant to inclusion is questionable. Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy against UKIP specifically and that this is more relevant to the article than the racism controversies that would make up such a conspiracy? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drowninginlimbo. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is, we do not make a judgement on a political party based on previous manifestos or past major policies. If we did we would be changing the Labour party's wiki page to "pro-war" or "interventionist" for starting two major conflicts. In regards to statements made or actions committed, are you aware of the Lib Dem councillor convicted of racially aggrevated assault? Or the Lib Dem councillor imprisoned on terrorism charges? Or the Lib Dem councillor charged for child sex offences? Do we say the Lib Dems an extreme political party based on these grounds? I would assume No. I do not assert a conspiracy, but I do make mention of a seeming double-standard. You need to demonstrate that UKIP is extreme, if you truely believe that it is. Kezzer16 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well no, you're right that this was a few years ago, and I understand that the party is going through a substantial rebranding [1] change in policy, but there isn't much else to go on. This is starting to go off topic anyway so we should get back to the matter at hand. Do you still think we should include information about the campaigns by groups like Unite Against Fascism and HOPE not hate and if so, do you think we should detail the content of these campaigns, and what it is the groups are saying? [2] [3] If so, I don't think we should describe it as a multi-party conspiracy when many of these groups do act independently, and when you get so many different organisations and parties campaigning against a party, we should at least depict their concerns as substantial --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
To use Kezzer16's words: Actually, "the fact of the matter is, we do not make..... judgement"s on a political party. This is an encyclopaedia, but what we write will be "based on previous manifestos or past major policies" simply because they are what defines a party. Emeraude (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In reply to Kezzer16: the Labour Party (UK) article does cover the Blair administration's wars and the controversy this caused. As for the comparison between certain individual LibDem councillors and certain individual UKIP councillors/candidates, the judgement is not up to us. The judgement is up the reliable sources we cite. We have reliable sources discussing UKIP as having a problem with the number of candidates saying unfortunate things. You, Kezzer16, may believe what you wish about a double standard, but editors' personal views are not used as a basis for editing Wikipedia. What reliable secondary sources say is. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


I hope people don't mind of I interject into the conversation here. I am genuinely interesting in trying to make this page as neutral and high quality as possible, and generally do not have strong pro- or anti-UKIP feelings. I feel that making large numbers of edits in the run up to the EU elections are counter productive to the quality of the page. Clearly UKIP is getting massive coverage in the media and attention from other parties at the moment and there is plenty of potential material to include, but we have to be careful not to include any and all media/political coverage. UKIP is likely to poll as the largest party in the upcoming election, and the election is probably worth a small section of its own for this reason - but this section is far better written after the election, once the usual political sniping is over, and various implications of the result clear.

As such, I suggest that there is a moratorium on adding large amount of new material until after the election, which is only a couple of weeks away. Then we can reflect on an appropriate section on the election to add to the article. Perhaps this "cross party campaign" is worthy of inclusion, but only as part of the larger 2014 EU election story, which itself is only part of the history of UKIP. With the number of articles that are published each day (in excess of one per day in The Guardian alone) we run the risk of giving far too much weight to recent events. I see no particular urgency to add this material until we can have a better idea of the most relevant and useful material. Atshal (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Far-right?

I see attempts by some users to defame the party as 'far-right'. This is marginal minority view and does not belong in the infobox. The idea that a libertarian (!) party could also be 'far-right' just reveals how insane the PC mafia have gone in their hopeless defense of Anjem Choudary, the communist UAF and the holy Sharia.
According to their logic every individual who does not preach white guilt, does not hate their own fatherland and does not promote the idea that the hideous cult that calls for death to apostates, 'adulterous' women and homosexuals is the height of progress - that he is 'far-right' for opposing all that - well, that view does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

go read WP:AGF then come back, apologise and try to have a discussion. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've assumed enough good faith here, but smearing even UKIP as 'far-right' is too much even for me. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no attempt to discuss the issue, just the start of an edit war. You need to explain why you are removing cited content rather than accusing other editors of bias. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Lokalkosmopolit, your comments about a 'PC mafia' and claiming Unite Against Fascism is 'communist' (which reliable sources state that?) show you have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article. Your personal politics is getting in the way of the reliable sources that clearly describe UKIP as far-right. Please read the following WP:RS, WP:AGF andWP:COI. Your comments describing Islam as a 'hideous cult' and making seriously questionable claims about is clearly against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. LordFixit (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the idea that UKIP, whilst opposing same-sex marriage and calling for a ban on the burqa could be 'libertarian' is seriously questionable. LordFixit (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:COI 'reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of your party'. Please explain why you deleted the description which was reliably sourced with three sources? LordFixit (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
UAF was founded as a front organization of the Trotskyist socialist Workers Party.
Where did I mention Islam? Did anyone recognize the holy Islam in my comment?
To sources. Ashley Lavelle just mentions UKIP passing-by under the heading 'far-right' with no further comments. She's a self-professed Marxist [4]. Would you also support a characterization of the Labour Party based on a BNP political scientist?
Gunlicks just mentions the UKIP as 'far-right' (and 'anti-immigration') without substantiating his view in any manner. Colomer mentions the term 'far-right' twice in his book in connection with the UKIP. No further comments from him either. How is that supposed to prove the Red Flag claim that the UKIP is 'far-right'?
The policy that exceptional claims require very good sources in order to avoid giving fringe views prominence is the policy applicable here. The general view is that the UKIP is right-wing ('centre-right' is a minority view, hence I did not supporting introducing it, when some editors proposed it, the same goes for 'far-right'). Any more questions? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's step back and put this in context. An editor amended the infobox, with four refs, to say that UKIP's position was right to far right. This wa deleted by Lokalkosmopolit with the reason "rmv minority views from the infobox. some of these even don't mention the word far-right. POV pushing!" I partially reverted this because, as I wrote, three of the sources do state specifically and unambiguously that UKIP is far right. The fourth strongly hints at it, so not worth pressing the point.
Lokalkosmopolit reverted again, saying "consensus is that the party is NOT far-right in any sense. if you think otherwise please prove at talk)". GimliDotNet has now returned the page to include the three sources that describe UKIP as far right, but seeing as Lokalkosmopolit wants it in talk - here I was going to bring it anyway - here we are; but I see it's already here.
Firstly, It is disingenuous to accuse an editor of POV pushing as he did in his first revert, especially when higjly creable reliable sources are being used. Secondly, to claim that "some of these even don't mention the word far-right" when, clearly, three of them do is downright dishonest. For the record, the sources referred to say the following:
Under the subhead The Far Right, Lavelle writes:
"While some forces on the left have benefited from New Labour's abandonment of social democratice politics, there is evidence that Far Right parties such as the British National Party (BNP) and United Kingdom Independence PArty (UKIP) have been boosted by Labour's abandmonment of social democratice polices." (Dr Ashley Lavelle: The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century, 2013, p104)
Gunlicks writes:
"Because of the party list proportional representation system, small parties have also had some success in EU parliamentary elections. Indeed, a new far-right, anti-EU and anti-immigrant party, the UK Independent Party (UKIP), cames in second to the Conseervatives in the voting for the EU Parliament in June 2009." (Arthur B. Gunlicks: Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, 2011, p121)
Margetts writes:
"Meanwhile, Conservative voters gave strong support to the far-right with their second preference; 41 per cent chose the UK Independence Party, and 10 per cent chose the British National Party...." (Helen Margetts, in Josep M. Colomer (ed): Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, 2013, p51)
So there we have it. The words far right do appear in the sources, in the correct context, unequivocally. Emeraude (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
there are very limited sources that describe the part as libertarian, the best one being a comment piece from the guardian. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that describe the party as libertarian, just make a little search at google Books. I'm not saying these are all very in-detail analyses but the number is much larger than those claiming it to be 'far-right'.
@Emeraude: nothing in your reply managed to show me where is the consensus to label it as far-right. No-one cares what two or three cherrypicked sources (you also included the commie in there, that's really telling) mention passing by. The bottom line is, the infobox has to reflect the article and the article has to abide verifiability policies, which include the demand for exceptionally good sources for exceptional claims. I wouldn't be opposed at all to mention the 'far-right' accusations in the main text if any substance is found for it. Unfortunately, as of now nothing has been presented that could be mentioned in the article. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
if there are numerous reliable sources that describe the party as libertarian feel free to provide them as it stands that claim is exceptional. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 19:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Libertarianism is based on limited state intervention and maximum individual liberty. The UK Independence Party, however, believes in a bigger government (e.g., war on drugs, re-introduction of capital punishment, and the state-ownership of the Royal Mail)and opposes civil liberties (e.g., opposition to same-sex civil union as well as same-sex marriage); hence it is an antithesis of libertarian ideas. If I were an editor of this article, I would have simply described UKIP as a non-dimensional "populist" party with both far-left elements(e.g., opposing any sort of military, including humanitarian, intervention and the absurdity of blaming the Ukrainian crisis on an "expansionist EU"), and right-wing elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.147.233 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lokalkosmopolit: You do not seem to understand what consensus means in this context: it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, obtained through discussion, as to what should appear in the article. We do not look for consensus among reliable sources, and if there is a clear disagreement or lack of clarity in the sources we say so. In fact, that is what is happening - the infobox plainly says "right to far right", reflecting the reliable sources that cover the issue.
But the real issue is your refusal to accept what the given sources say and, worse, to attack the integrity of the academics who wrote them and, then, to attack the Wikipedia editors who quote them ("you also included the commie in there, that's really telling"). What's really telling is your use of such methods.
There is no reason why a "commie" cannot, as an academic, write honestly and accurately on their subject, just as there's no reason why a Spurs fan cannot say that Liverpool is a superior team and deserved to win! For the record, the writers quoted in the sources are a political scientist and Oxford Professor, a retired professor of political science from University of Richmond specialising in comparative politics and European politics, and the "commie". Actually, Lavelle is a former member of the International Socialists in Australia (so, not strictly a "commie") and is a political scientist at Griffith University: his research was part funded by the Griffith Business School, hardly a hotbed of commie subversion one would have thought!
Incidentally, to go right back to your first comment: "I see attempts by some users to defame the party as 'far-right''". Why on earth would anyone think that being described as far right was defamation? Emeraude (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts... I think the political labels in the current version of this article are the best I've seen in this article, though far from perfect. I think the central problem is that the left-right paradigm is of limited use, if it's even valid at all. It doesn't deal with the fact that, for example, many people are anti-immigration and anti-market, which, if you think about it, makes more sense than being anti-immigration but pro-market or pro-immigration but anti-market, because the labour market is a part of the market, and a truly free market would have free migration. I'd like to see Wikipedians abandon the practice of right-left labelling for that reason. But, as I said, in the absence of such a radical re-think, the version we have now is pretty good. I also think that mentioning that UKIP refers to itself as libertarian, rather than our labelling UKIP as libertarian, is fair. On some issues, some parties are more libertarian, and, on other issues, other parties are more libertarian. But, UKIP's policies are not especially libertarian, even in the British context, which is admittedly more authoritarian than, for example, the US context. Royal Mail privatization is now mainstream British opinion. UKIP opposes it. The free movement of people is mainstream British opinion. UKIP opposes it. People accuse UKIP of being a one-man band, but, if that were true, UKIP would favour drug decriminalization, which is what Nigel Farage personally supports. I think the 'right-wing populist' label is pretty fair. There are definite tensions behind the public image, between libertarians, social-conservative ex-Conservatives, Thatcherites, social-conservative ex-Labour, etc. Remember when the youth wing was purged a while back? They were actually anarcho-capitalists: as far as I'm aware, the first anarcho-capitalist faction in any major British political party! Renren8123 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Membership

Can anyone explain why UKIP are not RS for their own membership numbers? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added an Economist citation which claims 35,000. It's good enough for now, although I do not dispute the 35,081 figure. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
UKIP are not a reliable source for controversial facts and claims. That's why we require third party sources. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Surely a third party source could only get the information on membership numbers from UKIP themselves? It seems as if we're putting something in the middle that doesn't need to be there.CH7i5 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. How would a third party get the info except from UKIP itself? Renren8123 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The repealing Human Rights Act would not remove the UK from the Council of Europe and thus the ECHR

> UKIP wants to repeal the Human Rights Act and thereby remove Britain from the European Court of Human Rights.

This is wrong because the membership of the Court is not governed by the HRA, but rather by the European Convention on Human Rigths. It would be better to remove the "thereby".

79.76.246.149 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) jfc

Sounds reasonable, I see no reason not to make that change. Check the source backs up what the new sentence says and go ahead and make the change. Atshal (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The UK was subject to the Court before the HRA. In fact, there were very many famous Court cases, such as Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, which legalized homosexuality in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. Renren8123 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Two recent news stories

Asking for opinions concerning the two most recent UKIP controversies.

  • The first is the story of policemen asking blogger to remove negative tweet about UKIP. While this is certainly notable, I think we should maybe wait a few days or so for the story to run full course (because, naturally, there will be a "no we didn't... yes you did..." until there is definitive truth. Having read quite a few articles on this from both sides, as well as the bloggers information, I am leaning towards the evidence being that it happened. That said, I still think we should wait a few days. Police ask blogger to remove tweet about Ukip The Guardian, 2014.
  • The second is the UKIP candidate suggesting that voter rights should be changed quote from UKIP candidate Magnus Nielsen, who is running for a council seat in north London, and this is definitely verifiable. He is quoted as saying "I sometimes think the people who fought for the vote in 1832 and 1888 and so forth, trying to extend the franchise were probably doing the wrong thing. Generally speaking when you start taking things away, or threatening to take things away, people start clamouring and say they really want it. I think maybe we should start reducing the franchise." Although the story has been reported as such, he isn't specifically referring to the suffrage, but the limitation of voters rights is still a strange policy to make. Ukip candidate: 'Take away the right to vote to improve election turnout The Independent, 2014.

I have the feeling that the police story in particular is going to be expanded upon in the next few days. What are other editors opinions? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Members saying or doing stupid things is typical for this type of party. I like the approach taken at Reform Party of Canada#Public controversies regarding Reform's policies. (Reform was a right-wing populist party that merged with the Progressive Conservative Party before Wikipedia began, hence it is not based on daily news reports.) Instead of listing all the incidents, it uses a reliable source to identify the issue, then provides some illustrations. TFD (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I like the approach taken there too, there is certainly a pattern appearing with these controversies (mostly relating to issues of race, nationality and sexuality) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't see any of this making the article. It all seems to be barely news, while I can see the police tweet one theoretically gaining traction, as the police have suggested between the lines that the (overwhelmingly biased) bloggers account of the visit is wrong, it doesn't seem likely. This just seems to be newspapers campaigning politically, unless any of the three individuals involved get their own wiki page, I don't think any of it is notable enough for wiki, certainly not this article. I'm not exactly happy with the way these things are being listed on the talk page. The police scandal? https://www.google.co.uk/#q=ukip+%22police+scandal%22&tbm=nws only returns a blogspot, in which the phrase 'police scandal' is talking about something entirely unrelated. 92.1.34.203 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Why look at a Google search blog when the first paragraph above gives a link to the article inThe Guardian? Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just putting news stories forward for debate and collecting potential future sources, but if you would like me to change the titles, I will do so. You will find most of these stories were widely reported, not just in "left wing newspapers". Do you have anything to say other than WP:JDLI? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's a better idea to calm down for a while now that the elections will be going on and atleast not start edit wars whether a single member resigning from the party is notable or not. The media buzz seems to have a climax right about now, literally every time I check the front page of the Guardian there is always something about the UKIP. So instead of going on with the election fever and add a news story to the article every day it's probably better to stick to an adequate, stable version. --Pudeo' 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet more stories today - this time about UKIP members apparently paying for prominent positions on the EU election lists and a UKIP candidate getting a brick through his window and claiming this is politically motivated. There is going to be at least one of these stories per day until the election, given the nature UKIPs role in this election. I say we hold off adding this mass of stories until after the election, when we can have a better idea of what is notable and construct a succinct paragraph or two summarising this election. Atshal (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You might consider a "Timeline of the EU elections (UK)" article. Then you list all these things without violating neutrality. Two articles might be useful for comparison. The Tea Party movement was built from daily news reports and is a POV nightmare while the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal has attracted few edit disputes. And of course the Reform Party of Canada is a good example of how to write a neutral article. Unfortunately the same types of sources are not available for topics in the news. TFD (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You raise a good point. Whether they win or not the events leading up to this election have been highly significant in the parties history, and I believe there is a good chance that the Guardian at least will write a "UKIP in the Timeline of the EU elections" article among others. In fact, if they do win, there will possibly be a book or two written on the topic. Unless something very important and controversial comes up, most likely the actions of Farage himself (as he seems to be the only party member who is not excused for his actions as "part of the old UKIP"), we should we careful adding new content to the article. Given the climate in my area at least, tensions are going to keep increasing as the date draws closer, and we will see more and more news stories appearing up to the election --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Party Membership Figures

There appears to be disagreements between editors on this page over acceptable sources for party membership figures (something I have not edited and am not involved with). I think we should have a discussion about this to stop the endless edit/revert cycle. The issue of contention is whether party published figures for membership are acceptable sources for membership, or whether only independent third party sources are acceptable.

My opinion on this is that, since the only source for party membership figures are the party itself, that party published figures are acceptable. All the third party sources quote the party published figures, so anything in the Guardian/BBC/Sky etc. is only as good as the original source, which is the party itself. Whether or not these figures are accurate is not the question - it is whether the figures are verifiable. There is no independent third party source for party membership figures. Look at the membership figures for other major parties - every time the source quotes directly the figures published by the party. If we require an independent third party source, then we should not include the party membership at all (something I am not averse to, as it is a constantly changing and not especially important figure in my opinion)

I am also of the opinion that this figure should appear on the info box on the right, and nowhere else in the article. Currently the membership figure is in the lead, and quite possibly elsewhere on the page.

To summarise, I believe there are two options:

Do not include party membership anywhere on the page, since third party verification does not exist.

OR

Include membership and use source directly from UKIP, which all other sources are based on.

Atshal (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who is not aware, this has been discussed here before. (See archive pages.) The gist is fairly well covered in the previous comments. There are all sorts of reasons why the figures given by any party cannot be unquestioningly accepted (they're politicians, for a start!) and that is why, within the text of the article, it has been usual to say something like "UKIP claims 12,345 members". The numbers can't be verified and we are not blindly accepting them or endorsing them, but the claim can be verified. The problem with infoboxes, despite their eminent usefulnes, is that there is no space to make such qualifications; what goes there must be brief and sourced to independent sources, which rules out UKIP (or whatever party). It's a fact that newspapers suffer the same problem, but we can at least use them as a reliable source! So, if The Times says "UKIP membership has grown to 23,4500" we can assume that The Times has got its figure from UKIP, but it has at least found it plausible enough to give it its blessing. That rather lets us off the hook.
Membership figures must be covered in articles on political parties somewhere, otherwise a party with two members can be as prominent as one with millions. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to wait until another organisation quotes the figures - the media takes figures from all the major parties at face value, simply citing a newspaper article that does this, does not make the figure any more or less reliable. My vote would be to have the membership figures in the info box, with a citation from UKIP (the only source for such figures) and not to mention the membership figures elsewhere in the page. Atshal (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, of course, if you want to believe everything that UKIP says. Presumably you would also blindly accept membership figures from other groups that have a vested interest in presenting inflated numbers. I'm reminded that the National Front in the 1970s regularly described itself as Britain's fastest growing party - it wasn't, and everyone knew it wasn't. There needs to be some measure of quality control here as elsewhere, and blindly accepting any political party's statements is simply presenting a platform for their claims with our endorsement. In this specific case (UKIP), they have already been caught out with lies in their election leaflets and their campaign director (or whatever his title is now) is a proven "liar and a cheat". Caution, caution, caution. Emeraude (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY does caution against this kind of thing, so I support Emeraude's position. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that the sources used are just quotes from the primary source of UKIP. Other organisation quoting the UKIP webpage, or saying "UKIP claims to have xxx members" does not make the primary UKIP source more reliable or more verifiable. It seems silly to quote the BBC quoting UKIP, when we could just quote UKIP directly. Either we treat the figures as reliable to include on the page, or we don't include them at all. Atshal (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There are more than just these two alternatives. Emeraude (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Reporters are able to assess sources and determine whether they are accurate. We cannot do that. In this case it is suggested that because a reliable source confirmed the accuracy of UKIP's figures, we can rely on any statement made by UKIP about their membership numbers. TFD (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS are core elements of Wikipedia and should be respected. (Although I note WP:PRIMARY allows some leeway.) Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree about the secondary source criteria. What do people also think about restricting membership info to the info box, rather than having a blow by blow account of membership changes, as seems to be regularly added/deleted by various users? I don't see the purpose of having a section detailing every announcement of membership figures by UKIP every couple of weeks. Atshal (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you write about a political party and never mention its membership? Any figures given in the text should be subject to the same criteria for reliablity as in the infobox. I do agree that regularly updating figures from dubious, or at least, non-reliable sources is wrong, as was the table of month-by-month stats that I deleted a while back, but there must be some figure given. Emeraude (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Voter base

The article generally lacks detail on members and supporters (I'm thinking sociological/demographic detail here). There is an interesting article in The Guardian today ("Ukip poll finds fans of Farage more likely to feel alienated and angry") based on a survey that ought to be useful in updating what is in the Voter base section. And then, of coure, there is Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin's book, Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Routledge, 2014), which I'm personally saving for holiday reading. Emeraude (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian a preferred source on the UKIP? Yes, much like the Daily Telegraph is the ideal source on the Labour Party. But seriously, wording like the "fans of Farage" isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia so the results of the survey, if inserted, should probably be without that kind of third party editorialism. --Pudeo' 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We do not deal with "preferred source"s but reliable sources. The Guardian is a reliable source in its reporting. And yes, The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source for reporting on the Labour Party. In any case, it's the survey that would be the source, not The Guardian's headline reporting of it. Emeraude (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lenny Henry ‘does not have to live with whites’, said Ukip’s William Henwood

Would it be relevant to include the latest UKIP racism controversy from William Henwood (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/27/ukip-farage-racism-lenny-henry-politics-europe) or is it not notable enough due to it being just a single member who made the racist remark? It doesn't seem like he has been requested to leave the party like the usual baggage so I suppose this depends on media coverage. Either way, I'm asking for consensus/opinions before adding this particular racism controversy to the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm always wary of including current news stories anywhere - you nver know how long they will be important enough for an encyclopaedia - but this story does not involve just the one UKIP candidate and his Lenny Henrey comments. Emeraude (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with in principle with Emeraude but note the Telegraph article says it may be relevant in the 2014 election campaign & hence to the article. Much will depend on Farage's actions & whether UKIP policies -recently torn up -are actually what candidates think they are. JRPG (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the point I was trying to make. This may (or may not) have more than passing significance. Emeraude (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Did he really say it? Well, that was a right thing to say IMNSHO. What's 'racist' in claiming that if a black person does not like life in a democratic white country then he/she can emigrate to a black country? This was a very sensible statement and I'm sure Ukip just won many patriotic votes thanks to such honest statement. Greetings from Copenhagen. Danish Infidel (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Very briefy, Lenny Henry was born in Dudley in Birmingham UK, and speaks -like myself as a UK native and Brummie. JRPG (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Troll may be confusing 'a black country' (countries have colour?) with The Black Country. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Remarks not made by an actual official of a party speaking as such are valueless entirely. Candidates are on their own -- and obviously do not represent official party positions, no matter what country or party is involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth a mention, but not extensive direct quoting, which gives it undue weight. I would suggest waiting till the dust settles a little to see the outcome, and reevaluating the importance of the episode then. 90.222.71.124 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been a series of these. If it were just one member then it wouldn't be notable, if it's a series of them then it starts to look like a trend. Examples 1 2 3 4 5 Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, it is definitely not the one member who has made racist remarks. That said, I'm not entirely sure it would not be synthesis to include a list of racism controversies and connect them ourselves. What we would really need is a good source that links together these instances and writes on it, like an article that talks about the different candidates that have made racist comments in the same place. There are certainly a lot of examples though and I would argue that, with better sources, we could include a racism controversies section --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use individually non-relevant factoids and then link them in any way whatsoever. That is one of the purest forms of SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11
32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by this reasoning I'm afraid. This was a significant news story and provoked a huge amount of discussion. Whilst I'm not sure an entry dedicated to Henry is justified, I think not including a controversies section – in light of the Bloom comments, references to gay marriage leading to flooding, Farage's recent comments about the fact it's understandable people wouldn't want to live next door to a Romanian family – fails to accurately represent that UKIP is considered a contentious party in the UK and has received significant backlash for its comments. This doesn't count as SYNTH in my eyes: it's just consistent with how Wikipedia handles any controversies attached to a subject. 5.65.239.37 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It has to be said. This whole discussion has been pretty poorly thought out. We have had instances where Labour Party members have been caught protecting people involved in paedopholia and just recently a Labour Party Councillor has been on trial accused of molesting a little boy. Yet I wouldn't even contemplate attempting to edit the Labour Party page to suggest they support paedophiles or encourage that kind of activity. It seems to me that people are more than willing to "pack out" the UKIP Wikipedia page, and all linked pages such as Roger Helmer with every single news story they can lay their hands on. Be it local or National news sources.

You wouldn't see this with regards to any other main political party so I ask. Why should it be acceptable for UKIP? (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

POV tag, why

All the accusations of racism and comparisons to the BNP are undue in the lede and are a terrible breach of our neutrality policies. I am pretty sure that crap was not there a few weeks ago, so it needs to be removed then discussed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Crap"? "Removed then discussed"? I just posted a large explanation of why the lead is like it is and this is your best refutation, two sentences on how it is "crap" and must be removed before being discussed? Great job, man. Zozs (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
"Terrible breach of neutrality policies"? How's that? If something is described by reliable sources as whatever, we say so. How is that not neutral? You might argue about the sources (I'm sure you will), but if it swims, waddles and quacks it's a duck! "Undue in the lede"? Why? If a duck is a bird we say so in the first paragraph, not near the end (or nowhere). Emeraude (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Have removed tag as Zozs' "crap" is now gone. Emeraude, if you really think attacks from their political opponents belong there you should reconsider your involvement with political articles. 92.1.34.203 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this. There has been substantial discussion in the media about whether UKIP is a racist party. I am not saying that it is our job to say it is or isn't. But it is certainly our job to report what is: UKIP is a contentious party and is facing accusations of racism. I think bias has creeped in on this point. These aren't 'attacks from their political opponents' – it is serious media coverage. Including a balanced selection of their coverage is vital. Not including that under the above reasoning actually jeopardises the neutrality of this article and does Wikipedia's audience a disservice. 5.65.239.37 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It's only UKIP opponents who call it racist. Even then, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have all refused to call Farage a racist or UKIP a racist party.--Flexdream (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
"Only UKIP opponents"???? You mean the vast majority of the population?? Everyone who votes for or supports any other party? Get real. The fact that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have refused to call Farage racist could be because they're scared of him or UKIP, or it may be because they do not consider him racist; neither explanation makes him or UKIP not racist. You might, though, have pointed out that numerous other politicians have said UKIP is racist, but you chose not to! Indeed, a number of commentators have said that Farage is not racist, even though they say the party itself is. All of which rather misses the point: the purpose of this discussion is not to decide whether Farage or UKIP is or is not racist - that's not our job - but to consider whether or not the POV tag should be at the head of the page. Emeraude (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
UKIP differs from the other parties in that it has no support in reliable sources. Neutrality does not require that we exclude their opinions just because they happen to view UKIP unfavorably. TFD (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Styling of Ukip v. UKIP

The British press routinely refers to the party as Ukip, not UKIP, so why is this article presenting it as "UKIP"? 172.56.37.39 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Never mind: I see I was incorrect on that. While the Guardian uses Ukip, the BBC uses UKIP. 172.56.37.39 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

British standards generally use a mix where an acronym "recognizable as a word" is involved (thus "Aids" and not "AIDS") but where it is not a word, the acronym is kept as upper case ""HRH" and not "Hrh" etc.). Where the acronym is not a word but is pronounceable, some go one way, some the other, though many ("MIT") are very rarely mixed case. "UKIP" appears to mainly be in all upper case overall. Collect (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The BBC do absolutely mad things with capitalisation. On BBC News Online, I've actually seen "Wpcs" (as in Women Police Constables—back when they made a formal distinction between PCs and WPCs) which—if the BBC is following its own style—should be pronounceable (try it: it sounds like flatulence in Welsh). Wikipedia's Manual of Style insists on all caps for acronyms like UKIP (quite rightly in my mind). Tom Chivers at the Telegraph has a post about the writing of 'Ukip' under their style guide, incidentally. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah there is a lot of lazy journalism, especially from the BBC and the Grauniad. It is UKIP. Argovian (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Drat - I was looking forward to calling Elizabeth II "Queen of the Uk". Collect (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, UKIP consistently refers to itself as UKIP, not Ukip or UKip. I did go through the article on 18 February 2014 and changed everything to UKIP with the rationale "Standardised Ukip and UKIP as UKIP (Party's preferred form) except in quotes and refs." Emeraude (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not lazy journalism, it's just an alternate style choice. It's not a big issue surely one way or the other, so long as this page is consistent within itself, ideally in line with what MOS suggests. N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
And now The Guardian have a piece about why they style it "Ukip". We absolutley should continue following both the official usage of UKIP, which happens to match up with our own Manual of Style. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

Diff here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK_Independence_Party&diff=prev&oldid=609743245

Comment says "appears a political rant" - of course it is as it is the UKIP manifesto. But it gives the information needed part way down the page, from the official UKIP site, and is the obvious place to go, seems to me, to find what their policy is on this topic. Surely it is best to refer to material produced by the party itself saying what their position is rather than material from other sites reporting what their position is? And the other refs didn't say what their position is on human rights. Or am I missing something?

I can't imagine a better ref to cite than a party's manifesto, when referring to their policies.

I have no connection with UKIP and have totally no wish at all to promulgate their views. Actually was researching because they are the main opposition to the Green party MEP in the current elections in Scotland, who I support in this election. Robert Walker (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You added a footnote, "The European Court of Human Rights – which the Lisbon Treaty forces all EU member states to sign up to – still wants to give prisoners the vote. It also prevents convicted terrorists from being deported. UKIP will leave the EU and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Parliament should decide fairer human rights laws - UKIP Manifesto 2014." "forces" is an odd phrasing. If one freely enters into an agreement, whether a treaty or contract, it is odd to say one is "forced" to perform actions to which one has agreed. The treaty does not prevent the deportation of terrorists, but merely requires that persons convicted of terrorism be treated the same as any alien convicted of criminality. The U.K. does not deport people when they face torture or the death penalty. It implies too that the existing right to vote and human rights laws are unfair.
Primary sources are not good sources for organizations, except for non-controversial information.
TFD (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
My fault for not explaining properly - I was not suggesting the editor was guilty of a "political rant" in his editing. I think TFD has explained the objection to primary sources, which we do need to use, but to quote them entirely uncritically is to risk endorsing what they say, however far that may be from the intention, and to accept that what they say is correct. In this case, there are so many errors of basic fact that to quote is totally inappropriate: to take just a simple example, "enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable" - there is absolutely nothing in the Human Rights Convention that stops any state from doing that providing human rights issues are considered; neither does the EU have such restrictions. Indeed, police forces in member states may request criminal records on any person for three months after arriving from their home state and EU rules specifically permit their expulsion if deemed not conducive to the public good or national security. (Of course, if UK withdraws from Europol as the government keeps threatening this can't happen!) Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

UPDATE PARTY MEMBERSHIP

UPDATE UP TO ELECTION RESULTS 2014 94.175.50.0 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The final Council election results are still being counted, and European election results will be announced tomorrow. I think people have wisely refrained from making premature edits before the full results are in. Rest assured, the results will be included once they are announced. Atshal (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
He wants the page updated to reflect the recent election results. This will be done when the election results are announced. 5.71.92.204 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Local Councillors

Has the Infobox been updated to reflect the increased number of local UKIP councillors now these elections are over?Guyb123321 (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. See section above. The figures show an addition of 161 seats; however, I wouldn't rely on them, because they do not include any seats that UKIP may have lost, the edit was made beofre all results were properly published, and updating requires a definitive reliable source, and none is given. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Scotland

Scottish Community Councils are strictly non-political, thus there are no Ukip Community Councillors. Dubh-Iolare (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

They may be politically of no great significance, but they do have elected members. However, the link in the article supposedly claiming UKIP representation is dead (as is much of UKIP's website) and I have tagged it as such. Emeraude (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
legally candidates cannot stand on a party-political ticket, so any claim by UKIP to have elected Community Councillors is false. Dubh-Iolare (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with you removing it, especially since the claim appears to be unsupported in the first place. Atshal (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an "established user" or whatever so I'm not able to change it, Could someone do it for me?Dubh-Iolare (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed due to lack of working links, and CCs requirement to be non-political --Saalstin (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit hasty! Where is the evidence that Community Councils have to be non-political? How can any elected body be non-political? If councillors are elected as members of UKIP how can they be non-political? It's a bit like saying that CCs cannot be elected on the basis of their race and therefore there are no black councillors!! The article said "UKIP has elected councillors on a number of Scottish community councils" which appears a straightforward matter of fact - some of the Community Council elected councillors are members of UKIP, regardless of what's meant to happen (if it's the case they should be "non-political" - still not shown). Of course, the fact that we have no evidence that UKIP does have CC members rather negates all of this.... Emeraude (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
According to angus.gov.uk, a community council has a role & responsibility (g) to be non party political in all its activities. Aberdeenshire.gov.uk describes community councils as "non party political". falkirk.gov.uk says community councils should always act in a non political manner. The Association of Scottish Community Councils says under the Act they have to be non party-political. No, I really wouldn't call agreeing that they have a requirement to be non party political "a bit hasty". There may be members elected who happen to be members of UKIP, but this doesn't mean they were elected as UKIP (indeed, it appears this would be unlawful) --Saalstin (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

Should add Stuart Wheeler as a registered officer of the party (Treasurer) in the opening summary. Titusthomasacb (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article.
The only mention of Stuart Wheeler on the page is that he gave a donation, and the reference says nothing about him being Treasurer of the party - Arjayay (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Since when has a Wikipedia article mentioning or not mentioning someone been a criteria for whether such an inclusion is made?? According to the Electoral Commission's searchable database, the party treasurer is John Stuart Wheeler, so there's the reliable source. Whether or not party treasurers should be inclusded in infoboxes is another issue. Emeraude (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

London

I don't know where information like this should go and how to express it. Voter base is a good place to put it, and I'm sure that the other broadsheets have voiced their opinion that London is an anomaly in UKIP's results. And as this isn't a forum, don't debate me this - I already know they flopped in Manchester and Birmingham too. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if we could use that exactly, but maybe if you could find a political commentator commenting on UKIP don't do so well in major cities then it could be added in without people bringing up the possibility of straying into original research? The european elections in London did indicate some rise in support, around 10% if I remember from BBC News (I will look it up if needed), so I'm not sure how factor that in. I wouldn't say they 'flopped' as their vote share still went up in almost every area I believe. CH7i5 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also evidence that UKIP does badly in other cities (as opposed to the EP constituencies which contain them) but no definitive study has been done on this yet. It will happen, indeed BBC last night was breaking European constituency results down into parliamentary constituencies and there was an interesting pattern of support/non-support. Voter base would be the place to cover this but, I suggest, it's too soon. Emeraude (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify that, the breakdown was by local authority - European elections are counted by district council, some of which are similar/contiguous to national constituencies. Each council website contains the local results (e.g. Bristol, South Gloucestershire, West Somerset, all of which form part of the South West constituency). As you say, surely analysis on this data will be performed in short order --Saalstin (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(Old) Request for comment

Consensus is clearly against this change. Number 57 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numerous reliable, academic sources describe UKIP as far-right. Please see some here:

  • "While some forces on the left have benefited from New Labour's abandonment of social democratic politics, there is evidence that Far Right parties such as the British National Party (BNP) and United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have been boosted by Labour's abandonment of social democratic polices." (Dr Ashley Lavelle: The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century, 2013, p104)
  • "Because of the party list proportional representation system, small parties have also had some success in EU parliamentary elections. Indeed, a new far-right, anti-EU and anti-immigrant party, the UK Independent Party (UKIP), cames in second to the Conseervatives in the voting for the EU Parliament in June 2009." (Arthur B. Gunlicks: Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, 2011, p121)
  • "Meanwhile, Conservative voters gave strong support to the far-right with their second preference; 41 per cent chose the UK Independence Party, and 10 per cent chose the British National Party...." (Helen Margetts, in Josep M. Colomer (ed): Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, 2013, p51)
  • Ruth Wodak; John E. Richardson (2013). Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. Routledge. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-0-415-89919-2.

These are all relativley new sources, and they all describe the party as far-right. Should the party be labelled as right-wing to far-right in the Infobox? LordFixit (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note User:LordFixit has been indeffed as a sock for ]]WP:Abusing multiple accounts]]. Collect (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (appending as one editor objects to use of "sock" here) Collect (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Emeraude (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of reliable source citations describing the party as right-wing and perhaps fewer describing it as far right, and also some describing it as centre-right. The question, i suggest, is not the one given above -- are there RS sources describing the party as far right -- but what is the best way of summarising a range of sources with different views in the infobox. My feeling at the moment is that that is best done with just "right wing" (not centre-right, not far right) in the infobox and with a longer description in the article text, but I haven't devoted time to a fuller analysis of the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bondegezou, a persuasive argument. When you say a lot of reliable source citations do you mean ones that are already in the article, or other ones that we should add? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support the Infobox description of the party as "right-wing to far-right" for its political position, using referenced sources.--Autospark (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Right-wing, yes, Far right, no. "Far right" in the UK suggests extremist nationalist groups such as the National Front or British National Party, not a mainstream political party such as UKIP. The opinion of a few writers, who probably have their own agenda (and who don't, from their names, generally appear to actually be British and so maybe are used to using different terminology), is not a good reason to give this label, usually seen as a fairly unpleasant one, to a party. It undoubtedly has some far right supporters (just as the Labour Party has plenty of far left supporters), but I don't think it's reasonable to describe it as a far right party, since its policies aren't particularly far right. Labelling a mainstream party in this way suggests to me a distinctly POV political agenda on the part of editors which is not backed up by the facts (I'm not saying there is such an agenda, just that that's the way such a label would appear). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? What evidence do you have that the academic sources have 'their own agenda'. Your racial comment are irrelevant. You say labeling UKIP as far-right is not backed by facts. Didn't you see the multiple credible academic sources above? LordFixit (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note User:LordFixit has been indeffed as a sock. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Actually for WP:Abusing multiple accounts Collect (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, did you just imply that I was racist? You need to wind your neck in, my friend! I didn't mention race. I said that foreign sources may be using terminology different from British terminology, where "far right" is generally not a compliment (just as "liberal" is not a compliment as far as many Americans are concerned, but is generally regarded as a good thing in the UK, except by the far right!). A handful of offhand mentions by largely foreign sources does not equate to fact. These are opinions. Academics are not the founts of all knowledge just because they're academics. They have opinions just like the rest of us. Is it described as a far right party in the reliable British media, for instance? No, it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinions should be cited and ascribed as opinions. We must trust readers to weigh those opinions appropriately, and need not state them as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. The least contentious term should be used in an infobox in any case -- the infobox is not a complete article, but designed to give Google a snippet to use <g>. (In the case at hand, I suspect "right wing" is that term) (I trust this is in accord with the actual positions of others here) (coming from NPOV/N) Collect (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should examine the multiple, reliable, academic sources above. LordFixit (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note User:LordFixit has been indeffed as a sock. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read up on the political spectrum, and the problems therewith. Academics can, and do, express opinions as opinions. [6] Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge By Roger Eatwell; Cas Mudde; Routledge; says the UKIP has some "former extremists" (page 77). [7](page 156) The UK Parliament calls the UKIP "right wing." the far right British National Party (BNP) and the antiEuropean, right wing party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). is found in Devolution in the United Kingdom Russell Deacon and Alan Sandry; Edinburgh University Press page 21 [8] making a clear distinction between the positions of the BNP and the UKIP, And all strong academic sources. Such right wing scepticism as in the case of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and certain sections of the Conservative Party considers itself as ... [9], and so on. Sorry -- there are lots of strong academic sources only using "right wing" about the UKIP. NYT [10] Harsher critics, particularly on the left, have sought to link UKIP to two far-right fringe parties, the British National Party and the English Defence League, that have plied a politics tinged with racist and Nazi sympathies. But as the ballot counting for 2,300 council seats was completed, results from widely separated areas of England, including districts that will be swing-vote battlegrounds in a general election set for May 2015, showed that UKIP had drawn levels of popular support not matched by any insurgent party in an electoral contest with the mainstream parties, mainly the Conservatives and Labour, since Labour’s rise in the 1920s. clearly ascribes the "far right" pejorative to "harsher critics" and states that it has a broad base of support not matched since "Labour's rise in the 1920s." Several hundred more cites available on request. And the "neutral wording" for the RfC, ain't. Collect (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support They stand as good sources and it is only quite recently that UKIP tried to change their perception as a Far right group. I would see the intent behind this request for the sources removal as dubious considering the upcoming elections next year Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, we know there are sources saying UKIP is "right wing" - that's not the issue. Nor is it correct to say that "far right" equates with extremism. Ever heard of "extreme right"? The issue is a very, very simple one: should the infobox, in the light of a collection of reliable academic sources, say "right to far right"? We have one editor here saying, inter alia, that the political spectrum is not precise. Precisely why "right to far right" is appropriate. We have others attacking the academics who wrote these - totally unacceptable - and suggesting it may look like some editors have an agenda, not that they are making accusations you understand, but it may look like they have. (Funnily enough, they were happy to make those slurs earlier - see above.) And we still get comments that "right wing" and "far right" are somehow perjorative terms. They aren't. And just to show that academics aren't entirely out of touch with the populace, The Independent today published a survey that shows that 40% think UKIP is far right, 38% don't (though what that 38% did think is not reported).
    • Yes, "far right" is usually considered to equate to extremism and is usually considered to be a pejorative. Nobody said "right-wing" was. No doubt it's me you're implying is "attacking" the academics. In what way was I? You are clearly either unable to understand what I wrote or have not actually bothered to read it. And are you really and truly saying that academics aren't frequently politically biased in their work? Seriously? Neither was I implying that any editor had an agenda, whatever your snide remarks to the contrary. I quite clearly said that adding "far right" would appear that they were, which is a different thing entirely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Where's your evidence that academic political scientists equate far right with extremism?? In 40 years as a political scientist I have never heard such a thing! Or that it's usually considered pejorative?? I never said you were attacking the academics, I wasn't thinking about you at all. I was referring as much as anything to the earlier debate on this topic. But to accuse another editor of being "clearly either unable to understand what I wrote or have not actually bothered to read it" is not acceptable. I know you said it would appear; consider how that statement appears. Emeraude (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Consider how aggressive yours appear! Whether or not you consider the term to be a pejorative, clearly others do. This being the case, why are you opposing the requests to retain a NPOV by adopting the less controversial form of words? Yes, UKIP have been described as "far right" by some sources. They have also, as cited above, been referred to as "right-wing" or "centre-right" by far more sources. Surely it's better to use the less controversial term to avoid accusations of agenda-pushing either by Wikipedia or by its editors? Which is what I was quite clearly saying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
People keep saying they have been described as center-right and right-wing by far more sources and then not producing sources. WP:NPOV would mean we go with what the sources say, not our interpretations of them. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of sources have been cited in this discussion that do not use "far right". Just scrolling up for two seconds, to contributions in the few days prior to the above claim that people are "not producing sources" shows ones that appear to use the more general "right-wing" as well as even – oddly to my mind as it happens – the "centre-right" description. There really is no point if people are going to either not read or not acknowledge what others have posted and/or assert that only the sources that back up one side are going to count rather than the totality of them. N-HH talk/edits 10:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose noting that the claim that "they all describe the party as far-right" generally is only true when one only searches for that term -- Questia found zero academic sources for calling it "far right" and a goodly number calling it "right wing" and I searched for both terms. (!voting finally -- looks like a consensus is here) Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT: If Questia found zero academic sources saying "far right", and we have three listed here, there's something seriously wrong with Questia!! And "they all describe the party as far-right" obviously refers to 'all three'. Emeraude (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI
 – A very similar discussion is taking place at Talk:Right_Sector Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "far right" as an unqualified description or assertion. The use of the term in UKIP's case is relevant, sourced and worth discussing on the page in a broader analytical context but as a straight adjective to be used in passing, especially in the lead or infobox, the broader and more encompassing "right-wing" – with perhaps the addition of "populist" as currently or "radical", both of which are just as well attested as "far" right at least in raw Google Books numbers – is more appropriate. Unless there's something close to universal agreement on the use of "far right" for UKIP, and what exactly is meant by that – which there clearly is not, on either point, in media and academic sources – it should be avoided both as a matter of sourcing numbers and because, in some but not all definitions, it implies outright racism and fascism. Saying "right-wing" doesn't mean they're not far right, or contradict those sources that do use the term, it just avoids zeroing in on a contentious label and asserting it as fact while also catching those who prefer, for example, "radical right", "single-issue right-wing party" (in a book entitled "Radical Right"), "hard" and "populist" right and "radical-right populist". N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As a ocompromise, put the sources with caveat as saying so, but add that it has certain policies that are considered classical liberal (sovereignty etc)Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Helen Margetts, Peter John and Stuart Weir: "Latent Support for the Far-Right in British Politics: The BNP and UKIP in the 2004 European and London Elections", Paper to PSA EPOP conference, University of Oxford, September 10-12 2004
Anne Delouis writes: The British far right is split into two political organisations, the BNP and UKIP, which has been more successful in recent by-elections. ("When history becomes a metaphor for the present and the future: recent far-right discourse about immigration in the UK" in Lexis 8: “Metaphor Studies in the English Language" (Lyon University), January 2014, p30 (online) Emeraude (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No one's disputing that the term is sometimes used for UKIP, in both academic writing and the media – indeed most "opposes", including the one being responded to here, have specifically acknowledged that. The issue is about the overall view across divergent sources as a whole and how to present that on a WP page, as well as the different implications of the term depending on who's using it and in what way. Throwing more cherry-picked one-off cites isn't moving the discussion forward at all but just clogging up the page (even if it is the usual way these discussions tend to get conducted and usually leads to individual contentious descriptions in WP content being footnote-bombed, as if collecting multiple examples of use proves everything in itself). N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Entirely agree with N-HH's comment here. Atshal (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The most neutral description for the info box is the summary phrase, "right wing". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a main or unqualified descriptor, for example in the infobox, first sentence or para. The term is powerful and pejorative but imprecise, and as many equally reliable refs could no doubt be found denying this. To say UKIP are sometimes so described is fine. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the most neutral stance would be 'right', because this is a British article we should use British English terms, in BE 'far-right' is classes as an extreme position akin to the likes of the KKK or BNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CH7i5 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are several regular editors of the UKIP page who regularly attempt to introduce bias and POV into the article, particularly to paint UKIP as racist and extreme. Often this involves the manipulation of sources, or selective use of sources. This is another example. Clearly it is better to use the highly accurate and undebatable 'right wing' to the POV, debatable, label of 'far right' or 'right to far right'. Atshal (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a serious accusation to make. Please restrict your comments to the issue, not your unfounded attacks on and antagonism for other editors. Emeraude (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not accusing anyone of anything, Emeraude. This is a clear example of the selective use of sources in order to insert a particular description of UKIP that is odds with the common description. The comment I made was very relevant to the issue at hand, and I made it to justify why I oppose this change. One of the issues that interests me on Wikipedia is bias in articles, particularly political articles, and I feel this is a clear example of that, hence why I am commenting. You have had your say on this issue, please leave it to others to discuss it now in this section - I have also had my say so will leave it at that too. Atshal (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and before I go - people in glass houses should not throw stones. I seem to remember you accusing me of bad faith and being affiliated to UKIP because I made edits that removed POV from the article (edits that were upheld by other users, I might add) Atshal (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do people feel we've reached some sort of conclusion? It appears to me that there is no consensus among current editors to include "far right" in the infobox. However, there may be scope to include some of the citations found in the main text of the article. Would it be appropriate to say this RfC is over, but also to look at using some of the citations unearthed elsewhere in the text? Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that there is insufficient support for such a controversial change. The point that was raised that the current description of 'right wing' is already consistent with any description as 'far right', is also a good argument against the need for a change.
As for including a mention of the 'far right' sources cited earlier in the discussion, I think great care is needed if we think about including them. I think editor N-HH hit the nail on the head with his comment at 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC). The term 'far right' is used in different ways by different people and often implies fascism or outright racism, so inclusion of this material will need qualifiers as to exactly what each author means by 'far right, and an acknowledgement (with sources) that in the media and popular discourse UKIP are rarely labelled as far right. Care would also be needed to make sure the article remains internally consistent, as there already exist several sources in the article (for example in the voter base section) that state UKIP is quite distinct from groups that definitely exist on the far right, such as the BNP. Atshal (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I have had a look at each of the references given at the start of the discussion. In each case, UKIP is not the topic of discussion, and are mentioned as an aside. At no point in these sources do the authors discuss whether or not UKIP are actually a far right party, or provide any justification for this label. As such they are not terribly useful sources for justifying why the label of 'far right' is appropriate - rather they are simply examples of when an author has referred to UKIP as a far right party, while actually discussing an entirely different topic. So in my opinion these sources can not be used to support the statement "UKIP is a far right party" but can support the statement "Some authors have referred to UKIP as a far right party". Then we should ask the question of why we particularly want to include this statement in the article in the first place, based on these rather obscure sources - it certainly feels like source mining in order to be able to force a particular term into the article. Atshal (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Another example of this type of source mining is the source provided by Emeraud. That quotation is taken from a publication called "Metaphor Studies in the English Language", by a French academic, and is contained entirely within a footnote to the article (which then goes on to explicitly state that the article will not be about UKIP at all). Atshal (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
So what? I never commented on the quality of the source (though it's better than you intimate), merely pointing out to another editor that there are more sources that are available. Emeraude (talk)

Keep in mind that many of the theories or methods used by academics in social sciences are normative: you have neo-Marxist sociologists saying that the ideologies of right-wing parties are bad per se. But certainly they can be mentioned if they are notable, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. It's just hard to form a balanced article with varying, critical and less-critical views. That's the main problem in Wikipedia in my view, anyway. --Pudeo' 21:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

New source Locates UKIP within the spectrum of euro-sceptic parties across Europe. Might be useful. The enemy invasion: Brussels braced for influx of Eurosceptics in EU polls Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the RfC tag. Thanks, B. musculus for the new source. That's an article explicitly discussing where various Eurosceptic parties sit and, thus, seems a more useful citation than some given previously describing UKIP as "far right" but which do so merely in passing. I broadly agree with Atshal and Pudeo: articles describing UKIP as far right in passing may warrant a "Some authors have referred to UKIP as a far right party" statement but are of less value than articles specifically about the party and the political spectrum. B. musculus' new source supports "right-wing" as a label, as we currently have.
That said, I support inclusion of material discussing the arguments around various UKIP members having very right-wing and/or racist views. There's enough there to warrant coverage. I also support discussion of UKIP's position and appeal that goes beyond a unidimensional political spectrum: we describe the party as "populist". I see sources using terms like "anti-establishment" and even "anti-modernist" that may warrant inclusion in this article as well. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've readded the tag due to this Rfc not reaching the point where it can be closed. They normally last 30 days. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs for my reasoning. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that's a misinterpretation. The default length of time is 30 days, but it is entirely acceptable for them to close earlier. "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Bondegezou (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend getting a neutral admin to close it at WP:ANRFC just to be safe --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There are seemingly reputable sources out there that can be cited to attach pretty much any label to pretty much any political party. For example, many professors would refer to the Labour Party as 'right-wing'. That doesn't mean that that is what Wikipedia should say. It's just not the consensus! Furthermore, if UKIP were to be labelled 'far-right' on here, I think it would be the first party to be labelled 'far right' on here that does not admit, and has not in the past admitted, to being racially motivated. The Front national in the past admitted it. The British National Party still admits it. UKIP would be, as far as I'm aware, the sole exception, and, especially during an election period, that would come across as political propaganda. Renren8123 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Independence_Party/Archive_10&oldid=1137278025"