Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Protected edit request on 14 July 2015

The lede currently contains the controversial statement ", with many drawing comparisons with far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP).[8]". While the debate as to whether this represents undue weight or not continues, I suggest that we might make some small prose changes to this particular passage to alleviate some of the issues it raises. The problem which I wish to highlight here is that while it carries a citation after it (from an article in The Guardian), this passage has been added straight on to an older sentence discussing right-wing populism and radical right; thus many readers may well be mistaken into assuming that the citation covers that information too. To correct this problem, I would suggest dividing this currently lengthy sentence up so that we have "European radical right. Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP).[8] " This revision deals with this particular problem while not fundamentally damaging the attempt to build consensus over whether such information should be in the lede or not to start with. It should therefore be an un-controversial edit. Best,

Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with that----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Other requests and comments

The problem I have with the UKIP page right now is that the people who intitially edited the page to read "Anti-Immigration" and "British Nationalist" never had the agreement of the talk page to add it. If you look back over the last 3 years. Those two descriptions were never in the info-box. So they should both be removed, and their viability for being included should be discussed. I find it particularly troubling that they have been left there on the bases of 2 lines in a biased left wing Guardian article. Whilst my description of "Direct democracy" which was fully resourced with BBC reference was removed without discussion and my raising of it as being a current UKIP ideology above has gone completely ignored. "British Nationalist" and "anti-Immigration" should be removed from the info-box immediately and debated, which it should have been before and wasn't sufficiently and "Direct democracy" needs to be debated and considered. For the record, the main consensus above seems to be that UKIP are a "Civic-Nationalist" party and that "anti-Immigration" is not an adequate description due to UKIP's policy of controlled Global Immigration, and not wanting to put an end to immigration. Can I suggest "Civic-Nationalism", "Measured-Immigration" and "Direct Democracy" to be added to the info-box.User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (GMT)

The above discussions show a clear move towards consensus for replacing "British nationalist" with "civic nationalist", so this change can be made by an administrator without further discussions. I'm requesting that separately below.

UKIP's immigration emphasis does need mentioning (there seems to be emerging consensus on that), but anti-immigration is considered too strong a description. "Measured immigration" sounds a bit vague and euphemistic, so would modifying "anti-immigration" to "immigration reform" or (better) "immigration reduction" be a suitable compromise (already Wiki pages, albeit US centred) be acceptable? Neither appear to be a particularly controversial description of UKIPs position,

Direct democracy has not been discussed sufficiently yet to warrant the change, but it definitely is worth creating the discussion above. As is the possible removal of "social conservatism" which oddly I seem to be the only person harping on about. Dtellett (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source and while I understand that '"Civic-Nationalism", "Measured-Immigration" are UKIP's preferred words I see no reason to depart from independent sourcing. Neither do I see a consensus emerging for it. They are very clearly in the tradition of British Nationalism and per multiple comments above are anti-immigration. Please keep requests separate ----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you please show me where (sourced) UKIP in policy have said that the UK is "superior" to other countries. Could be a challenge as UKIP have never said that and so that rules out "British Nationalism". As for the Guardian's viability as a source. Can I suggest that referencing a news source that has in the past produced articles such as; '10 good reasons not to vote for Ukip' [1] which point-blank lied about links to other parties in Europe, action taken against members for doing inappropriate things and quite literally making up policies which have never been in UKIP manifestos. It rather brings its impartiality as a source and reasoning into question. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2015 (GMT)

I see if you have strong opinions, regrettably in Wikipedia the broadsheets are reliable sources. Not sure why you want a reference to UKIP policy for anything given we use third party sources. But as far as I can see no one wants to argue that UKIP say that the UK is 'superior' to other countries. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rover, while The Guardian, as a broadly centre-left outfit may well express hostility and bias against UKIP, they still count as a reliable source under Wikipedia's policy on the matter. As would, for instance, media outlets more favourable to UKIP's general ideological standpoints such as The Times or The Telegraph. Hence, they can certainly be used within this article. They might not be the best sources that we have (our RS policy generally suggests that peer-reviewed, academic sources are best), but they are still usable, even if they do exhibit an anti-UKIP bias. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again. The Info-Box issues raised have gone completely unanswered and remain. The point I was making was that a key element in "British Nationalism" or "Nationalism" is (as described by the Oxford Dictionary: "an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries." UKIP have never expressed a sense of superiority over other countries so why does this tagline remain as suitable? As for "Anti-Immigration", it has been done to death above and consensus seems to be that "Anti-immigration" isn't a fitting description. Does anyone have a problem with "Direct Democracy", "Civic-Nationalism" and "Points-based Immigration Policy" being added to the info-box. If so, why? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2015 (GMT)

I'd be careful about relying on OED definitions of words, given that they often use definitions which are in various respects at odds with how these terms are used within specialist, academic discourse. I don't personally know if that is the case with nationalism, but it is something to keep in mind. As for "Civic nationalism" (which me and Snowded have discussed here on this page) the problem lies in the fact that it is the term with which UKIP describes itself, not a term that etic academics explicitly use to describe the party. The same goes for "direct democracy". UKIP might say "we are a libertarian, civil nationalist party that supports direct democracy" but if academic specialists in political science and political history (individuals who should have studied UKIP in very great depth and who should be able to be also very knowledgeable about Europe's right-wing political scene more widely) say that this is not an accurate description, then we (as an encyclopaedia) should be following the academics' example. This isn't just the case with UKIP of course; the BNP for instance repeatedly denied being "fascist" or "neo-fascist" but many argued that that is exactly what they are, while the Labour Party still have the word "socialism" knocking about in some of their constitutional material yet I think you'd have a hard time finding political scientists willing to endorse that description. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Another protected edit request on 14 July 2015

Various editors in the above discussions have requested or supported replacing the ideology "British nationalism" in the infobox with "civic nationalism" on the grounds that the term "British nationalism" has possibly misleading associations. There are no major objections to the use of term "civic nationalism", which already appears in the lede and article text. Ford/Goodwin - an academic text already in the reference list - could be used as a third party source if needed. Dtellett (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK to include both terms per the current article, but not to remove the ideology section. In the context of UK Politics, British Nationalism is clearer ----Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for the addition of "Civic nationalism" to the list of ideologies in the infobox, so long as it is properly sourced to Ford and Goodwin page 7. With regards to "British nationalism", the problem is that at present we lack any reliable sources (and especially academic sources) that actually describe UKIP using that term. The one citation that was used to back that claim (an article from The New York Times) didn't actually say that UKIP were "British nationalist", but "nationalist", and thus was being used in an inappropriate manner. Moreover, I'd have thought that "British nationalism" was a little superfluous if we have the slightly more precise "Civic nationalism" in that infobox, no ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well you have references like this but a search indicates that English Nationalism is more common. Civic Nationalism rarer ----Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about using Dye's study in this article at present seeing as it has yet to be published in an peer-reviewed journal. Hopefully a version of it will be published in such an outlet in the near future so that we can then use it with ease. Having read through a fair bit of the academic literature on the subject of UKIP, I'd say that I've come upon "civic nationalism" a good deal more than "English nationalism", although that is of course perhaps a slanted sample. However, given that the main question here surrounds the appropriateness of "civic nationalism" being added to the infobox, discussions surrounding the inclusion of "English nationalism" should perhaps he reserved for a different thread. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Request disabled for now, as discussion continues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Source Check

Do the sources (like Ford and Godwin for example) say that UKIP describe themselves as civic nationalists, or do they designate them as civic nationalists? I don't have the books to hand but I assume people who are referencing them do. So can we have a quote please? I say this because there are also sources that say it is wrong to bracket the SNP and UKIP under that label. All English Nationalist tends to manifest as ethnic nationalism given the imperialist past and association of Britain with England, while the nationalist movements in Wales and Scotland are about independence (from one of them). We need to be careful here because it is clear that UKIP is trying to distance itself from the potentially negative impact of ethnic nationalism. So I would like to see the sources and also assess against the overall weight of courses before we go much further here. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Snowded. Let's take a look:

Ford and Goodwin, p. 7: "UKIP present themselves as a non-racist and non-sectarian party who are 'civic' nationalists."

Mycock and Hayton p. 264: "But whilst UKIP’s conception of British civic nationalism purports to be ‘inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain’, the party identifies a number of ‘threats to Britishness’ that compromise this stated position."

Tournier-Sol, p. 146: "Unsurprisingly, UKIP opposes multiculturalism, promoting uniculturalism and civic nationalism"

Lynch and Whitaker, p. 294: "It claims to support civic nationalism, rejects ‘multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism – aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours’ (UKIP, 2010a)."

So there seems to be a slight difference of approaches, but generally I think it's clear: most of these sources present "civic nationalism" as something which UKIP describes itself as, rather than actually etically categorising it as such. We should follow this example in our article here, and that will probably mean some minor amendments in the "Ideology and policy" section. It also makes me seriously reconsider my support for placing "Civic nationalism" in the "Ideology" section of the infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we remove civic nationalism - I suspected as much. Not in the ideology box for sure, maybe in the main text we can say they claim it but it is disputed ----Snowded ^TALK 00:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If we have at least four academic sources saying that UKIP considers itself to be civic nationalist, then it is important that we state this within the "Ideology and policies" section of the article, as it is a significant part of the party's own self-presentation. I'd be open to adding that this is a disputed characterisation, although we'd need good (and ideally academic) references that explicitly say this in order to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Considers itself is the operative phrase - OK to say that it so designates itself in the body of the next. But it is not an authority to say it is civic nationalist in nature. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am in total agreement and will propose changes to the article accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Even more protected edit request on 14 July 2015

In the "Hard Euroscepticism and foreign policy" section we have some passages that rely only on first hand and press sources rather than academic, peer-reviewed ones. Given that these latter sources are generally identified as preferable by Wikipedia standards, I would recommend the addition of "sfn|Abedi|Lundberg|2009|p=73" straight after the "UKIP wants to repeal the Human Rights Act". I see no reason why this minor addition would prove controversial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed ----Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2015

The section on "Defence" is in a bit of a sorry state, lacking several much needed citations. Although I do not have citations for some of the claims made, I would suggest expanding the section with the following academically-referenced prose that better reflects UKIP's general approach on this subject:

UKIP advocate a 40% increase in the UK's national defence budget. It opposes UK military involvement in conflicts that are not perceived to be in the national interest, specifically rejecting the concept of humanitarian interventionism. For instance, in 2014 it opposed the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government's plans to militarily intervene against the government of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war.

Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Suggested removal of BNP comparison in the lede.

In the edit war ruckus that consumed this page several days ago (and which resulted in the current block on anyone but administrators editing), one of the additions that was made to the lede was the statement that "with many drawing comparisons with far-right political parties such as the British National Party or BNP.[8]" Now I'm certainly not denying that some commentators have drawn such comparisons (although I am unsure as to the reliability of claiming that "many" have done so). However, my main problem is that I really don't think that this statement is particularly appropriate for the lede. I'm certainly not averse to including a sentence or two in the article's "Ideology" section that deals with academic and/or media comparisons between UKIP and far right groups like the BNP (ensuring, of course, that such information is presented in a balanced way and relies solely upon reliable sources and not the opinions and original research of editors), but that's a different issue to having it stuck so prominently into the lede as well. It is clear that most political scientists consider UKIP to be "right-wing populist" or "radical right", and the lede states this; I really don't see how the addition of the BNP comparison adds anything of real value here and it could certainly be interpreted as an attempt to discredit UKIP by association with white nationalism (and this page has already been regularly bombarded with accusations of anti-UKIP bias by UKIP supporters over the past few months, mostly unfairly in my opinion). Can we get some sort of consensus here as to whether this can be a) removed, b) altered to a less objectionable wording, or c) kept in its current state ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the wider political issues is the UKIP has occupied a space that the BNP formerly occupied (as well as other spaces, it is not the same thing). So in effect a soft anti-immigration vote that would have from time to time voted BNP has now found another home. So there is something there which is significant and it in part explains the fact that a lot of commentary on history makes at least some linkage. It is not clear to me how we should do this. A one for one comparison is not fair, so I agree on that, but removing all reference may also be unbalanced. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to change. In recent years, there have been two main parties to the right of the Tories - UKIP and BNP. A comparision is thus inevitable, especially now that BNP has collapsed and UKIP seems to have picked up its supporters. I recall that a few years ago, UKIP was referred to frequently as "the BNP in blazers" and, while that might not have been entirely fair, it does indicate why the comparison has to be made. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the comparison should not be made. I think this is tantamount to political bias. Despite having some overlaps in support, the parties rest upon entire polarized ideological platforms. The BNP are a far-right party, emphasizing ethnic nationalism, white supremacy and variants of neo-nazism. UKIP is a civic nationalist party stemming from a tradition which is largely affiliated with the Conservative party. It's stepped in the variants of "Libertarianism", "anti-state", "anti-government", "classical liberty" etc. Comparing it to the BNP and the far-right is not an accurate comparison, this was also stated clearly in Ford and Goodwin (2014) and Abedi & Lundberg (2009) who were quick to highlight the non-far right nature of UKIP. There is, as the original post suggests, a staunch difference between media sensationalism and academic analysis TF92 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support keeping the sentence, but moving it from the lede. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

TF92, you seem to be arguing a position based on a particular view of UKIP. You don't have to be far right at the centre to have linked with the BNP if you are on the right and Emeraude makes that point well. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly quite a lot of polarised opinion on this issue. Some editors want it to stay, others want it gone. I get the sense, however, that there is a general dissatisfaction with the current wording. In seeking a compromise, therefore, my suggestion would be that we remove reference to the BNP and far right completely from that second paragraph in the lede (where we discuss UKIP's ideology) and instead make reference to the fact that UKIP largely swallowed the BNP's electoral support base in the third paragraph (where we discuss the party's history). That way, we still make reference to the fact that both parties operated in roughly the same right-of-centre milieu of British politics, while at the same time not projecting the idea that their respective ideologies are fundamentally similar. How would that sound ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can source it then its a possible way forward, but something would have to remain in the lede. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the offending sentence should not be included in the lead. Comparisons have been made between UKIP and just about every party in the UK, including BNP. So what? Clearly, this is not appropriate for inclusion in the lede, and probably anywhere else in the article and it smacks of POV inclusion. Secondly, the given source does not even support the assertion - it actually appears to be a comparison between the SNP and UKIP (anyone think we should include that one in the lede?). Under Wiki guidelines, this sentence should clearly be removed in my opinion. Incidentally, similar references to BNP and far right groups have been repeatedly removed in the past for similar reasons. Comparisons that are made generally reject the link between them and state they are quite distinct - see, for example, the Goodwin quote that is already in the main body of the article. Atshal (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the evidence that "UKIP largely swallowed the BNP's electoral support base"? With all the guilt by association mentions of the BNP why is there no mention that unlike Labour or Conservatives, UKIP bar formmer BNP members from joining?--Flexdream (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems some on here are desperate to link UKIP to the Far-Right by any means necessary, be it vague references, comparisons or comments from the tabloids. All of which are sketchy at the very best and not valid in terms of tagging in the info-box. It is blatant for any reasonably minded person to see that political bias is at play here yet the page locking has resulted in untrue labeling locked into UKIP's Wikipedia page. Disgraceful! Especially how discussion has been ignored in the talk page and on consensus reached on things which have been allowed to remain. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:27, 8 July 2015 (GMT)

Rover, welcome to Wikipedia. --Flexdream (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It might help if people actually understood what "comparison" means. It does not mean equivalence or similarity or even proximity (though as right wing parties there is a degree of similarity between UKIP and BNP). It seems that the protestors here are objecting to UKIP and BNP being mentioned in the same sentence, or even paragraph, because they fear some guilt by association. That's nonsense. Some commentators have likened the two; this article shows there is a clear difference; that's what comparison is.

Incdentally, seeing as I mentioned it first and others have accepted it, while it is extremely likely that the bulk of BNP voters switched to UKIP and there are numerous sources suggesting this is the case, there have, as yet, been no published academic results to prove this. Midnightblueowl commented that "both parties operated in roughly the same right-of-centre milieu". This is not the case. BNP is undoubtedly far right; UKIP is right-of centre. If they did "operate in the same milieu", the argument is over! Emeraude (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In my original post, my use of "operate in the same milieu" was meant in reference to the fact that both UKIP and the BNP were a) right of the Conservatives (generally speaking), b) shared many (although not all) of the same voters, and c) shared certain general attitudes in common (like a desire to counter multiculturalism in the UK). I certainly did not mean to presume that they shared the same ideological standpoint. Perhaps my use of wording should have been clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was merely suggesting that you were unclear. Emeraude (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So, if I have this right (and if I've misinterpreted anyone, I apologise and feel free to correct me), we have six votes for removing the particular passage from the lede (myself, Bondegezou, TF92, Atshal, Flexdream, RoverTheBendinSussex), one for amending it in some form (Snowded, although I am also somewhat sympathetic to this approach), and one for keeping it as is (Emeraude) ? Given that option one clearly has the most support, and because there was no consensus to add this controversial passage into the lede in the first place, I do think that we should remove it, at least for now. I'm not saying that that signals the end of all discussion, but I do feel it to be the most appropriate course of action at the present time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You have me right.--Flexdream (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy particularity on political issues. Editors may not like the comparison, but the fact that it has been made in a reliable source makes it significant. We have to use sources. One way to move this forward might be to replace "with many drawing comparisons" with "some drawing comparison" ----Snowded ^TALK 08:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipdia relies on what reliable sources say. To simply delete is for the article to deny that the comparison was ever made. And I repeat, the text as it stands does not say that UKIP=BNP; at most it suggests there are similarities (there are, anyone deny that?) and equqlly there are clear differences. Emeraude (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is not one of whether or not we have reliable sources or not (because we clearly do). The issue at hand is one of undue weight and its potential effects on this article's NPOV. Yes comparisons between UKIP and the BNP have been drawn. But so have comparisons between UKIP and the Conservatives, and between UKIP and the SNP. (And in each case by reliable sources.) Does that mean that we should be saying "Comparisons have been drawn between UKIP and the BNP, SNP, and Conservatives" in the lede ? I certainly don't think so. The lede is for the really important information, and I don't think there is any way that a BNP-UKIP comparison of this sort constitutes that. As myself and many other editors have made clear, the current wording in the lede is unacceptable and really does read like a pretty blatant attempt to tarnish UKIP by association with a more extreme political group (and I say this as someone who does find a number of UKIP's key policies to be pretty unpalatable). I'm certainly open to mentioning that comparisons between the two parties have been made elsewhere within the body of the text (probably in the "Ideology" section, which I have argued elsewhere deserves to be fleshed out in far greater detail using academic sources), but that's a very different kettle of fish to it being in the lede. Basically I share the view of Bondegezou when they said that "I would support keeping the sentence, but moving it from the lede." We've got majority support for the removal of the information from the lede, if not a consensus. Snowded and Emeraude, would you be willing to shift to this position, thus enabling a consensus of sorts to emerge ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In the context of recent political history the comparison is significant and important enough for the lede. I've suggested a small modification that handles any weight issue that might (and I stress might) be there. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Emeraude, the suggestion, as I understand it, is not to remove the material, but to cover it in the body of the article while omitting it from the lede. I agree this comparison should be covered (and, indeed, covered in greater depth than the current mention in the lede gives it), but I don't think it's lede material. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for delay in responding - been away. I support Snowded's suggestion on this. Emeraude (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2015

In the "European Parliament" sub-section of the "Representatives" section, I propose opening the text with the following:

As a result of its hard Eurosceptic approach, UKIP does not recognise the legitimacy of the European Parliament (EP), and under Sked's leadership adopted a policy of abstentionism by refusing to sit in any of the EP seats that it was elected to. This changed after 1997, when the party decided that its elected representatives would take their EP seats, in order to publicise its anti-EU agenda.

This academically-referenced material provides a brief introduction to the rest of the section, and thus puts it within its wider perspective without going into excessive detail. The following citation would then need to be added to the article's "Sources": "sfn |last=Usherwood |first=Simon |year=2008 |title=The Dilemmas of a Single-Issue Party: The UK Independence Party |journal=Representation |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=255-64 |ref=harv".

Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Per my suggestion on your talk page, could you hold off with {{edit protected}} until other editors have had a chance to comment and a consensus has emerged? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. I thought that most of these proposed edits would be fairly or totally un-controversial, but clearly a couple of them have generated some debate. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is no response after a few days, feel free to reactivate. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see the Usherwood text, too many other references have proved to be reports of UKIP statements NOT academic judgement. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a pre-publication copy online here. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank's I read it. Interestingly it adds more evidence for including anti- immigration in the lede but I am less sure it supports the above text without including some of its wider conclusions. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm open to including further information from Usherwood too. I simply highlighted the above passage as a brief addition that i thought would be largely un-controversial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 July 2015

The article consistently (and correctly) uses the singular when referring to UKIP apart from two recent edits. Can we change "UKIP advocate a 40% increase" to "UKIP advocates..." (section on Defence) and "UKIP announced that they would be fielding candidates" to "UKIP announced that it would..." and "UKIP do not have any representatives..." to "UKIP does not..."(section on Regional assemblies and parliaments). Emeraude (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Emeraude (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. There's also the "UKIP do not have any representatives..." to "UKIP does not..."(section on Regional assemblies and parliaments). Emeraude (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 July 2015

The "Ideology and policies" section of this article refers to the fact that UKIP have often been categorised as right-wing populist, but at present fails to elaborate on the party's populist message. Thus I would suggest the following addition, which I have put together using two academic, peer-reviewed research articles which discuss this very aspect of the party:

During its establishment in 1993, UKIP's founders explicitly described it as a populist party, and as it developed it would be heavily influenced by the "Tory populism" of prominent Conservative politicians Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell. As part of its populist strategy, the party's rhetoric claims that there is a fundamental divide in the UK between the governing elite and the wider population. In part it does this by presenting the country's three primary parties, the Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats, as being essentially interchangeable, referring to them as "LibLabCon". UKIP claims to stand up for ordinary people against this political elite, presenting itself using recurring populist rhetoric, such as the claim that it advocates "common sense policies". As a result of this populist approach, the political scientists Amir Abedi and Thomas Carl Lundberg characterised UKIP as an "Anti-Political Establishment" party.

Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a party broadcast not an encyclopaedia entry. Synthesis at best ----Snowded ^TALK 00:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is academically referenced information that deals specifically with UKIP's populist strategies. I would deny the characterisation of it as "synthesis", given that it comes from academic sources which discuss this populist strategy in this very manner. As to the idea that it reads like a PPB, I have been very careful with my wording to ensure that it states "UKIP claims...", rather than presenting UKIP's claims as an objective, indisputable analysis of British society. What is it specifically about the wording that you don't like, Snowded ? Hopefully we can come to an agreement here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with User:Snowded: I like Midnightblueowl's edit: it appropriately uses reliable sources and does not sound like a party broadcast to me at all! Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a clear synthesis of multiple sources to tell a story, and an uncritical one Fails policy. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I shall look to providing a second proposed draft that deals with your comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this altered wording:

UKIP was officially designated as a populist party at its establishment in 1993. As it developed it was heavily influenced by the "Tory populism" of prominent Conservative politicians Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell. As part of its populist strategy, the party's rhetoric claims that there is a fundamental divide in the UK between the governing elite and the wider population. It presents the country's three primary parties, the Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats, as being essentially interchangeable, referring to them as "LibLabCon". UKIP claims to stand up for ordinary people against this political elite, presenting itself using recurring populist rhetoric, such as the claim that it advocates a "common sense" approach to politics. Highlighting its populist ethos, the political scientists Amir Abedi and Thomas Carl Lundberg characterised UKIP as an "Anti-Political Establishment" party.

Would that work for you, Snowded ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve to be honest. It still looks like synthesis to me----Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the specific points at which you feel it looks like synthesis, so I can alter them ? This information is important for understanding UKIP, for it outlines how they adopt a populist platform; it's not much use to say "they're right-wing populists" without then unpacking that a little. Many readers might not understand what populism is, while others will be curious to know in what way they are populist. Further, I would argue that this isn't just my own opinion, given that the two academic articles cited devote great space to a discussion of UKIP's populist strategies; if they deemed it important and worthy of discussion, shouldn't we ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't anything in the unpacking which isn't self evidently 'right wing populist'. What you have done is to string together the UKIP line on that using reports of what they say rather than assessments. We've had this elsewhere. If a sources say that UKIP is something, regardless of the source, that does not mean that UK is that thing. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with the statement that the information is self-evident. If someone from the U.S. was reading this article and came across the "right-wing populist" term, would they understand what that actually meant in the peculiarly British (or perhaps more accurately, English) case of UKIP ? I doubt it. They might have a vague idea that it meant that UKIP would claim to represent "the people" against some sort of elite, but they wouldn't necessarily be aware of what particular elite this was. That's why I maintain that this really needs some unpacking. UKIP's anti-political establishment stance is a big part of their rhetoric and their general outlook on the world, and thus is worthy of a mention. My wording isn't saying that this attitude represents empirical truth, but it is an important part of UKIP's ideological outlook and thus is worth presenting. Maybe we can get some more opinions on this one ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue for me is that you are selectively combining sources to support a UKIP Party line. You have not addressed the fundamental point that the references report what UKIP claim they are not third party statements on which we can rely. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Selectively combing sources ? All of the sources cited come from two research articles in peer-reviewed journals that discuss UKIP's populist strategies. I don't think that I'm being "selective" in this; all of the citations come from the same few pages which document exactly what is being claimed. I'm not pulling sources from all over the place in a highly selective manner. As for your second point, I disagree again; by any definition, these are third party statements and they are reliable. They are reporting on UKIP's own self-perception and the way in which the party articulates its arguments to the electorate. I'm not trying to push some pro-UKIP agenda here by presenting UKIP claims as fact, just ensure that the Wikipedia article reports on what these academic sources say. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am unmoved by User:Snowded's concerns. I don't see any WP:SYNTH: this is a set of statements that are individually clearly supported. I don't see the construction of anything new on top of what the sources say. Nor does this appear to be supporting the UKIP party line. It explains what UKIP's line is, as is appropriate, but the wording does not endorse that view. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Todate when sources have been checked it turns out they report UKIP statements or are taken out of context. So I think we need to be careful here. I think that means reading the two references if they are readily available- or the proposing editor making exact quotes available to support the statements. I have the book on Kindle now and I have asked for one of the articles ----Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Having skimmed the book and the two articles I think we have a lot of cherry picking here. Quotes are being taken out of context. I've look at them in more depth but so far it confirms my view that the proposal is a clear synthesis. There is useful material in that - the BNP link for example that can be added in. But the quotes on Europe are in the context of statements that UKIP faces a contradiction that will destroy it. The date of some of the material is also questionable - 2007 is a long time in the life of a protest party ----Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Quotes taken out of context ? But I barely used any quotation in the proposed addition at all... Quotes on Europe ? There aren't any quotes about Europe in my proposed addition... Are you referring to my proposed additions or something else ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You're the one proposing a change. My original point was that this appeared synthesis to me. Having read the two articles and skimmed the book that view is strengthened. The context of the statements (sorry is that better than quotes?) which can be supported by the proposed text is missing. Classic synthesis, selective sourcing to support a narrative. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What book are you referring to ? If you mean Ford and Goodwin, I'm not using that book for these proposed additions. Look, we really do need to give a much better explanation of UKIP's general ideological position in this article, and that should include a brief discussion of its populist strategies (which are totally absent at present despite being discussed at some length by the two academic papers that I cite). If you have a problem with the wording as I have presented it then please offer up an alternative. Given its C-class status, this article is in desperate need of improvement, and the way to do that is using academic sources; I am really trying to do that, so please, offer me some suggestions rather than simply opposing my proposed addition. Otherwise we just get stuck in a stale deadlock where this article isn't improving and for me at least that is really quite frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes we need to improve it, but we have got to use the texts. For example Mycock and hayton when you read it makes it clear that 'civic nationalism' is a UKIP claim and this has been my point for some time. We are not using the sources properly. From what I have been through we can say that it is populist and anti-establishment, anti-european, anti-immigration and right wing. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If you change "anti-European" to "hard Eurosceptic" (which I think is a more precise assessment) then I think we can agree on that. "Anti-immigration" is a slightly difficult one, and I sit on the fence regarding its use a little. I'd really like to see some academic sources that explicitly state "UKIP is anti-immigration", but that's another debate for another place. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 13 July 2015

In the "Ideology and politics" section, we have the following passage: "The party espouses a viewpoint rooted in civic nationalism, while explicitly rejecting ethnic nationalism and encouraging support from Britons of all ethnicities and religions." That is cited to an academic source, the work of Ford and Goodwin, which I added to the page a month or so ago. I have recently also found a second academic citation to bolster that claim, and believe that it should be added in. Thus, where we currently cite "sfn|Ford|Goodwin|2014|p=7", I would like to see it converted to "sfnm|1a1=Ford|1a2=Goodwin|1y=2014|1p=7|2a1=Mycock|2a2=Hayton|2y=2014|2p=264". We would then require the following academic addition to the References section: ": Mycock, Andrew; Hayton, Richard (2014). "The Party Politics of Englishness". The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 16 (2): 251–272. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00543.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)". In doing so we would be bolstering the academic credibility of the article by using the best quality sources available. Moreover, I see no reason why this move would prove controversial, so think that it could be done with ease. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding in more that one source is OK, but not sure why it is necessary ----Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It might not be 100% necessary but it helps to have multiple academic sources for any particular claim, particularly on such a controversial and contentious subject such as UKIP. We use multiple academic sources for the claims that UKIP are right-wing populist and radical right, so why not have it for the fact that they are civic nationalist too ! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As an update, I have a third academic source that can be used here too. Thus, I would advocate a change to "sfnm|1a1=Ford|1a2=Goodwin|1y=2014|1p=7|2a1=Mycock|2a2=Hayton|2y=2014|2p=264|3a1=Tournier-Sol|3y=2015|3p=146}}", with the following reference also being added: " : Tournier-Sol, Karine (2015). "Reworking the Eurosceptic and Conservative Traditions into a Populist Narrative: UKIP's Winning Formula?". Journal of Common Market Studies. 53 (1): 140–156. doi:10.1111/jcms.12208. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)". Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We only need one source for anything unless it is contested per WP:WEIGHT ----Snowded ^TALK 23:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that an actual Wikipedia policy ? I've not come across it before and can't find any reference to it, but I suppose I could be missing something. Certainly I have regularly used multiple citations to academic sources in the articles that I have worked upon, and never come across this before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

While I would like to see the additional two references added, I would also like to propose that we change the prose in the article slightly, from "The party espouses a viewpoint rooted in civic nationalism, while explicitly rejecting ethnic nationalism and encouraging support from Britons of all ethnicities and religions" to "The party officially describes its approach as "civic nationalism", as part of which they reject ethnic nationalism and encourage support from Britons of all ethnicities and religions". That better reflects the sources themselves. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't use wikipedia's voice to make that statement. You can say "The Party claims a civil rather than ethic nationalist position, but this is contested" or something similar. We are not here to reflect how UKIP would like to describe itself - you make that point well in comments in another section so lets keep to third party sources for any definitive statements. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this, Snowded ? "The party describes its approach as civic nationalism, claiming to reject ethnic nationalism and stating that it welcomes support from Britons of all ethnicities and religions.". I would be happy to then say something like "This has however been challenged because..." but we would need good sources for that too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a Bill Bragg comment on the 'civic nationalism' orwellianism which was good when I looked. Most of the sources call it English Nationalism when I checked on Scholar. So the first phrase without the 'welcomes support from ...' and a reference to English Nationalism being used might work . I can look at that but not tonight ----Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that we should necessarily be quoting Billy Bragg in this article (although I don't think that that was what you were actually suggesting). I have definitely come across academic references to the Anglocentrism of UKIP and to their hostility towards Welsh and Scottish civic nationalisms, if not the specific designation of "English nationalism", but these are all issues that I think should be included in the Ideology section at some point. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I have disabled this request as it seems discussion is still continuing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 July 2015

That any references to "Louise van Bours" or "Louise van de Bours" be reverted back to or be changed to "Louise Bours", which is her name, as an MEP, as used and recorded by the European Parliament ([2]). Her name is Louise Bours, full stop. There was really no obvious and conceivable good (and good-faith), non-political, non-partisan, non-polemical reason or justification for User:Snowded to previously insist that an unofficial name for her be used, by previously reverting my two edits, which sought to rectify this. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had restored it to Louise Bours - I remember checking the web site. If not then apologies and I'm OK with the change ----Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: it should be "Louise Bours"; "van de Bours" appears to be a stage name that she has used, but we shouldn't be using it here. However, Urquhartnite, might I suggest you assume good faith as to other's actions. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I was summarily reverted twice. There wasn't really a very good reason for it, especially for the second. Far from being an innocent mix-up, calling Louise Bours "Louise van de Bours" (or allowing it to stand) is an indirect political attack by the Labour Party (or their supporters) on Bours over the hypocrisy of the anti-immigration (as the Labour Party would see it) or anti-mass-immigration (as UKIP would see it) stance of her and UKIP, on the grounds that "she is not English, or British enough, herself", as some would, or might, see it ([3]). ("Political Scrapbook", incidentally, far from being an academic or journalistic political Blog with a simple bias, is essentially a (highly-partisan) political attack-page.) I think that political battles should better be conducted outside of Wikipedia. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Having looked into this earlier, I withdraw my earlier remark. She goes by "Louise Bours", so we should call her that here, as I think we all agree. However this article quotes Bours herself as saying her full name is van der Bours, so that should be reflected in her article. Further discussion on that point at Talk:Louise Bours.

Urquhartnite, I would suggest again that you review WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and under what crazy belief system does adding 'van' to a name indicate an attack? Its just a name ----Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, one instance of "van de" removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we be deleting un-referenced information ?

At present, there are quite a few un-referenced statements in this article, particularly within the "Economic" and "Defense" sub-sections of the "Ideology and policies" section. Now, these statements may all be completely factual, but should we be leaving them in the article without any accompanying citations or should we instead delete them (at least until they can be re-added, with appropriate citations, at a later date) ? I err on the side of the latter at present, but (given how contentious many edits have been on this page) thought it best to open it up to debate here rather than act alone. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

All contributions to Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable and verifiable reference. This is a core Wikipedia policy. You may freely delete anything from any Wikipedia article that is not supported by such a reference. It is the responsibility of any editor who choses to restore the deleted material to provide the required reference (WP:BURDEN). Of course, if you are able to find and provide a reference yourself, this would be preferable. 86.145.213.115 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

From the lead 'Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP).'[4]. I can't see any reference to the British National Party (BNP) in the source. Should this claim be deleted now? I know UKIP is seen as fair game for attack by its opponents, so is this an example? Ditto ignoring the many comparisons made between the SNP and UKIP --Flexdream (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is discussed elsewhere on this talk page - please do not open multiple threads ----Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So do we have any consensus to remove the un-referenced information or not ? Now that the page seems to be frozen from editing indefinitely we can't do anything without having a very clear consensus, so we need responses or this frustrating deadlock continues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we need consensus to remove un-referenced information? Especially when it is unsupported by the given reference? --Flexdream (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but given that an administrator has locked this page indefinitely, meaning that only administrators can edit it, we seem to have to be able to show that we have a consensus before any alteration can be made, including this one. Which is frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 July 2015

Could you please add the following academically referenced information to the "Domestic" situation. Thank you.

UKIP have emphasised the need to correct the perceived imbalance resulting from the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula, thus tapping in to English grievances regarding national devolution in the UK. Although the party had previously opposed the existence of the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, in September 2011, Farage and the NEC announced its support for the establishment of an English Parliament to accompany the other devolved governments.

Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A more neutral wording would be "In 2011 UKIP announced its support for the establishment of an [English Parliament]] to accompany the other devolved governments, seeking to tap into grievances regarding national devolution in the UK", if that is what the reference says. Can you provide a direct quote to support this? Todate when I have pulled down copies of the papers that are being referenced they seem to be used out of context so I'm not inclined to accept without checking. The number of requests seems to be creating a need to read a paper a day at least. So you might want to think about providing that information up front. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A fair point. I shall try and include quotations in future, but I shall not do so extensively lest I find myself in violation of copyright restrictions.

Abedi and Lundberg: "UKIP, in recent election manifestos, calls for abolition of the Welsh Assembly and the replacement of the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament with the 59 ‘underemployed’ Scottish (Westminster) MPs.".

Mycock and Hayton, p. 265: "In September 2011 party Leader Nigel Farage told his party conference that the UKIP national executive now supported an English Parliament as ‘the only way of saving the Union’ by addressing ‘English resentment’ over the West Lothian Question and Barnett formula (Farage 2011)."

I'm happy if Snowded (or anyone else) wants to change my proposed wording, but I think that this information is important and warrants inclusion in the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK so compare the tone and context of the Mycock and Hayton quote with the way you phrased the first draft. Not only that it is a quote from 2011 not an assessment of a position by the academic source. One way forward is to draft one section at a time in a sandbox, invite other editors to first agree core points, then draft the text, then bring it here. There are far far too many edit requests and if anything it will make the article more fragmented. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that Mycock and Hayton added quotation remarks around "English resentment", thus showing that they were directly quoting Farage, while my proposed addition did not adopt this direct quotation approach. But aside from that, I'd say that my proposed wording is a pretty fair reflection of what the sources actually stipulate. My proposed wording also specifically refers to the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula whereas the alternative that Snowded has presented does not; I believe that both referring to and linking to these is important, for not only does the source itself do so but readers unfamiliar with the issues surrounding UK devolution will not properly understand the section without them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to a wording including those if we add in the 'only way of saving the Union’ with the West Lothian and Barnett following it as his explanation ----Snowded ^TALK 14:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Although the party had previously opposed the existence of the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, in September 2011, Farage and the NEC announced its support for the establishment of an English Parliament to accompany the other devolved governments, claiming it to be the "only way of saving the Union" amid English grievances surrounding the West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two problems with that (i) the opposition to the Welsh and Scottish bodies is a statement that then seeks to explain the statement, that is synthesis unless the source says it; (ii) English grievances is I think a claim not a statement from that source. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this, Snowded: "UKIP initially opposed opposed the existence of the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament. In September 2011, Farage and the NEC announced its support for the establishment of an English Parliament to accompany the other devolved governments, claiming it to be the "only way of saving the Union" amid what they described as "English resentment" surrounding the West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded writes "A more neutral wording would be "In 2011 UKIP announced its support for the establishment of an [English Parliament]] to accompany the other devolved governments, seeking to tap into grievances regarding national devolution in the UK"". If that's 'neutral' then what would 'bias' look like?--Flexdream (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA I was working from the sources ----Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Not done for now: consensus needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Including "far right" and BNP comparison in "Ideology and policies" section

At present we (controversially) refer to the comparisons between the BNP and UKIP in the lede, but don't actually mention this within the main part of the article itself. To correct this, I propose the addition of the following information, which makes use of academic sources, into the "Ideology and policies" section.

In a few instances, political scientists have labelled UKIP as a part of the UK's "far right", in doing so citing it alongside the BNP.

The following two citations would then have to be added to the "Sources" section.

Lavelle, Ashley (2008). The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century. Ashgate. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Margetts, Helen (2011). "Single Seat". Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems. Josep M. Coloner (ed.). Colchester: ECPR Press. pp. 37–54. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The quotations that I am using as the basis for this information are as following:

Lavelle, p. 104: "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 politics."

Margetts p. 2011: "In the 2010 election the two far-right parties, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the British National Party (BNP) both..."

I am happy for other editors to propose alternate versions of my wording if they feel that that would better reflect the sources, but think that this is something that at least warrants a mention within the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that UKIP has been called far right is misleading unless we tell readers what the authors mean. What they mean, whether they use the term extreme right, radical right or right-wing, is that UKIP is seen as further right than the traditional mainstream parties. Why not just say that? TFD (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A fair point. Looking at Lavelle's work, on pages 43-44 she states that "I have sought to avoid the definitional minefield about what constitutes 'Far Right'... I adopt the term Far Right in part for the same reason Ignazi uses 'Extreme Right', namely because it locates the parties at the furthest right part of the spectrum. The Far Right parties examined in Britain, Germany, and Sweden are in fact close to being fascist or neo-fascist parties. All of the parties arguably share most, if not all, the five traits identified as common to Far Right parties: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy, and support for a strong state." I would personally be hesitant about placing UKIP squarely within this trend, for terms like "racism", "anti-democracy", and "strong state" do not sit particularly comfortably within their ideological framework, but I am reporting that Lavelle said nonetheless. It is noteworthy that she published those statements before UKIP had properly articulated a wider platform beyond hard Euroscepticism so it would perhaps be fair to say that her assessment is dated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This attempt to link UKIP with the BNP seems to me a result of having a POV then looking for sources to support it. What about the comparisons made of UKIP with the SNP and the Conservatives? Many parties are compared to other parties. You have Lavelle's gender wrong and I don't see any substance to his claims. To say that UKIP is 'close to being fascist or neo-fascist' is risible, and says more about Lavelle's ignorance than about UKIP.--Flexdream (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's just possible Lavelle is partisan "This book argues that social democracy is dead for very different reasons. From a Marxist perspective, it nominates as chief cause of the death the collapse of the postwar economic boom."[5]. While some here will share that perspective it's irreconcilable with impartiality.--Flexdream (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Independent of the merits of the suggested edit or this source, it is not "irreconcilable with impartiality" for an author to favour a particular political position or for a source to be arguing for such. Authors, as Wikipedia editors, are allowed to have opinions while their writings are still unbiased. Bondegezou (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And we take the view of a referenced paper rather than accusations of bias from an individual editor ----Snowded ^TALK 02:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Midnightblueowl, your source uses Ignazi's definition of the far right which is different from how the term is normally used. Ignazi drew a distinction between the traditional "far right" which derived from fascism and the new "far right" that had no historical connection with it. Most writers reserve the term far right for the former. I do not want to imply to readers that UKIP members celebrate Hitler's birthday and deny the holocaust, or that it derived from the British Union of Fascists and the National Front. Do we want to say "UKIP has been described as far right [a middle class BNP]" or do we want to accurately reflect what sources say? TFD (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

TFD, could you expand on your thesis with supporting citations? Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not my "thesis", it's merely how these terms are normally used. Your quote says "I adopt the term Far Right in part for the same reason Ignazi uses 'Extreme Right', namely because it locates the parties at the furthest right part of the spectrum." But "far right" is usually used to describe racist groups. (See Webb, p. 10)[6] No one questions that UKIP is more right-wing than the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour. It is tendentious however to use sources that say that to imply that they are the same as the BNP. Note too btw that Ignazi does not even use the term "far right", but "extreme right", which he takes from Klaus von Beyme's political families. TFD (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So, a marxist academic claims without evidence that UKIP are fascist/neo-fascist and that merits it appearing in the lead as a reliable source? No wonder people despair of wikipedia at times. This reeks of bias. Marxism is a belief system not a science and its believers support its goals. It's clear a group of editors here are determined that this article should emphasise that UKIP is fascist/neo-fascist and are looking for left wing sources to support that claim. Margetts is a Labour voter who was considering voting tactically LibDem to defeat the Conservative candidate.--Flexdream (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You won't get far attacking academic sources as Marxist. Furthermore, what Marxist are you claiming says that UKIP is fascist/neofacist? TFD (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Lavelle - 'The Far Right parties examined in Britain, Germany, and Sweden are in fact close to being fascist or neo-fascist parties.' --Flexdream (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You make a very fair point TFD. If we were to include the information that I proposed, we would need to make it very clear what was meant with the term "far right" in that instance. I don't think that that's an impossible task per se, even if it might be a difficult one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a long-established problem - and clearly from place to place and from time to time any definition of "far right" varies greatly. There is no single "one size fits all" definition of the term - Russia's "right" is not the same as the UK's "right" nor are either the same as China's "right wing" etc. Collect (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request July 23

Whilst the endless debate about whether, where and how to compare UKIP to the BNP rambles on, the actual WP:NOTINSOURCE statement whose recent insertion provoked the edit war that got this page locked survives unscathed. Could an administrator please remove the statement "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)" per WP:BURDEN until, as a bare minimum, it has a source which doesn't actively undermine the original editor's claim. Dtellett (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is already a section on this above, please move your comments there rather than asking for repetition. But for the Guardian is a valid source so I fail to see how it can undermine anything ----Snowded ^TALK 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This request is not a contribution to that discussion, but a simple policy-based request that administrators remove a inaccurately-sourced statement pending any consensus over whether, where and how it should be restored and sourced, per the standard Wikipedia policy of putting the burden of proof for unsourced disputed content on those wishing to include it. An article which compares UKIP with several organisations which are not the BNP (or similar far-right movements) is not a valid source for the claim that "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)" ; this is not a point which requires any further debate. Irrespective of other ongoing discussions aiming to reach a broader consensus view on whether and how comparisons with other movements should be reported, Wikipedia's policies on unsourced contentious content should be followed. Dtellett (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully support and second Dtelletts reasoning on this. The statement should be removed immediately.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Then replace the reference with Mycock and Hayton "The Party Politics of Englishness" which is more explicit. As I pointed out in the discussion above a very simple search of google scholar will find you several more. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of material from Mycock and Hayton that can be discussed above and worked into the article, but I don't think an article comparing the positions of six, mostly mainstream, political parties on an issue is any better as a source for the statement "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)", especially since it classifies UKIP as "right wing populist" (already in the text) and notes differences as well as similarities in UKIP's position on that issue vs the far right. Since the still-unsourced statement was introduced amidst several somewhat inflammatory contributions which the responsible editor has graciously apologised for and "search Google" is also not a valid source, it should be removed unless and until a more acceptable version can be agreed upon in the discussions above. Personally I'd lean towards discussing overlaps with far right positions/rhetoric and voter support at greater length and with greater emphasis on fact rather than commentator's opinions in the body rather than the lede, but that's irrelevant to my simple request that Wikipedia's policies on unsourced contentious material are followed. Dtellett (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Best practice is to rely on statements of simple fact rather than of opinion. I am sure a great many opinion comparisons have been made in a great many sources, but if we are to abide by the non-negotiable WP:NPOV, we should avoid adding contentious "comparisons." (Per Godwin, I can even find "comparisons" of Margaret Thatcher to Hitler, but that does not mean we ought to include such comparisons in any article.) If a specific notable source expresses such an opinion, then such a fully-sourced opinion can be cited, but only as an opinion of the person holding it. The sentence presented here is "right out" as it presents opinions of unnamed "others." And the request should be handled only by an editorially uninvolved admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Also note the use of "although" in a sentence that then implies the claim by the UKIP is wrong, is contrary on its face to WP:NPOV and "although" is a well known "word to avoid" in any Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to place my support behind the comments of Dtellett and Gaius Octavius Princeps here. I'm happy to continue discussing the merits of references to the BNP within the lede, but the current wording should never have been retained given how massively contentious it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote says, "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)." But the source does not mention the BNP or use the term far right. TFD (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mycock and Hayton one does though and there are lots of links on a Goggle Scholar Search. TFD, you have a lot more experience of this, would you suggest something? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to a draft copy of a 2013 paper, "Comparing the support bases of UKIP and the BNP," which discusses the issue. It says that Cas Mudde in 2007 did not consider UKIP to be a far right party, and this year Mudde said it was borderline.[7] But this paper argues it is. (Just to confuse things, it uses the term extreme right for what Mudde calls far right and far right for what Mudde calls extreme right.) I think this could provide useful information for the article. The article should not say the two parties have been compared without explaining the comparison. It implies they are similar, without actually saying that. TFD (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Widfeldt and Brandenburg's draft of the paper they presented states "The argument here is not that UKIP can straightforwardly be equated with BNP. They have completely different origins, and serious scholarly work does not label UKIP as “fascist”, which quite frequently is the case with BNP (e.g. Goodwin 2011; Copsey 2008)." I think associating UKIP with the BNP in the lead is bias and mischief. Collect's point that 'Per Godwin, I can even find "comparisons" of Margaret Thatcher to Hitler, but that does not mean we ought to include such comparisons in any article' is well made and to me sums up why comparisons are out of place here.--Flexdream (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is making the suggestion that we say in Wikipedia's voice that UKIP=BNP. There are how ever two points (i) some sources have made the comparison (ii) more importantly UKIP has taken at least part of the space occupied by the BNP in recent times contributing to its reduction to a rump. The later points means that the overlaps in constituency and also populist appeal are significant. I think TFD is suggesting something in that space----Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this an attempt to suggest UKIP~BNP. I think defections of Labour and Conservative voters to UKIP are far more significant than any shift of BNP voters. I also think UKIP has more in common with Old Labour than with the BNP. I don't think selecting the most unfavourable comparison and pushing it in the lead is NPOV.--Flexdream (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed that: "I also think UKIP has more in common with Old Labour than with the BNP." Incredible! So UKIP wants to nationalise the major industries and the banks, adheres to Clause 4, wants to join the Common Market, supports strong trade unions...... Unbelievable. Emeraude (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Labour favoured protectionism, and was anti-immigration[8]. Collect (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The operative word here is more. I remember when Old Labour had a manifesto commitment to leave the Common Market. I think saying UKIP has more in common with the BNP than with Old Labour is more incredible.--Flexdream (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Flexdream I don't think selecting the most unfavourable comparison and pushing it in the lead is NPOV either, here is imo a npov article https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/ukip-and-bnp-%E2%80%93-two-kind-or-different-planets that perhaps can be quoted. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That appears to be a condensed version of the article I presented. Flexdream, certainly UKIP does not equal BNP, which is why I objected to the wording that suggested it did. I think it is sufficient to say in the lead that they are often seen as a right-wing populist party, which the BNP btw is not, and discuss their classification later in the article. TFD (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @TFD. Nice to hear from the original source :) My objection is to comparing UKIP with the BNP in the lead. Maybe you share that objection? I think that any genuine attempt to be nuanced would fail, while any attempt at guilt by association of such a prominent and leading comparison would succeed and would point the casual reader to the idea that UKIP~BNP. It's a misleading impression to give in the introduction to the article.Flexdream (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • But ... doesn't a piece by a political scientist or political scientists, on its own, likely to fall under WP:NOR#PRIMARY?! When was political science an exact, incontrovertible science anyway?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be rough consensus to remove this sentence, which I have now done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removal from the lead because it is accurate it is misleading. Urquhartnite, while social sciences are not as exact as natural sciences, that does not mean we do not ignore them. In this case they say that UKIP is perceived to be to the right of the main parties. TFD (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call MSGJ. Thank you. The lede looks much nicer now with the contentious and incorrectly referenced sentence removed from it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)