Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Far-right under Batten?

There seems to be a growing consensus that UKIP under Gerard Batten is shifting towards the far-right, particularly since some new members closely associated with the alt-right were welcomed into the party, as well as Batten’s support for Tommy Robinson. Should the article reflect this, perhaps listing their political position as “right wing to far-right”? Tsjmcgrath (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should wait a bit - these are fresh newspaper reports -----Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the sources provided are anywhere near sufficient for that change in the article. The first is an opinion article, which isn't good enough for a statement of fact. The second only describes the high-profile new members as far-right, but not the party as a whole. The third article is more of a start, but personally I'd expect a lot more than that to justify making the change you've described. Ralbegen (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Before worrying about the infobox label, think whether you can add some prose to the article using these sources to the party's recent history. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

500 new members assertion

Under the Membership section, it says "This caused the party to gain five hundred members.", whereas Carl Benjamin (also known as Sargon of Akkad) states they received five hundred members on the first day of their joining, as he talks about here. Can someone change it to "over five hundred members." --1.136.104.193 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

another source. --1.136.104.193 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Kipper Central is a reliable source for this information, as it has UKIP Chairman Tony McIntyre and Nathan Ryding, the Chairman of UKIP’s Youth Wing talking exclusively to the news site on this topic of a surge in membership. --1.136.104.192 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

more reliable than the independent article, that falsely says they are far right and alt right. --1.136.104.192 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS describes what Wikipedia considers as a reliable source. Those sources do not meet the community's agreed criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

how is it not a reliable source? "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." The source states that over 500 joined, and quotes members of UKIP itself. --1.136.104.192 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Members of UKIP itself have a vested interest in how the party is reported, so they are not an independent source. Independent, secondary sources are strongly preferred: see WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SECONDARY. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

thats not true, because that then would mean no politicians are allowed to be used as sources, because they "have a vested interest in how the party is reported, so they are not an independent source". Speaking of identifying and using independent sources, could you remove the independent citation then, because the article is "from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind" per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources --1.136.104.192 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs, and no we cannot use politicians (or anyone one else for that matter) for statements of facts about themselves or their organisations. We can say "X has claimed" not "X is true".Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you use the Kipper Central source and write that UKIP state they received over 500 members on the first day? I cannot because the page is locked from IP's. --1.136.104.192 (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

and how is the article from the independent a reliables source (not the independent as an entire newspaper, but this specific article by them)? It labels them all far right and alt right, both statements false. --1.136.104.192 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS the answers are all there-----Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

June increase in membership

"UKIP’s membership overall increased by over 1,000 in June, with 616 members joining within just days of three prominent online social media activists; Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson and Count Dankula joining the party." Could someone add this info under the membership header? --2001:8003:4023:D900:68BD:1E2A:8445:8B02 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No. That is not a reliable source. See WP:RS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

membership citation

Can someone add this source of UKIP politician Neil Hamilton talking of several social media personalities joining the party --2001:8003:4023:D900:3863:997:5E9A:4799 (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Twitter is not a reliable source – see WP:TWITTER. This is also not something that should be immortalised in an encyclopaedia IMHO. See also WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

This party is better classified as right-wing to hard-right, or just right-wing, certainly not far-right. I say this as someone who opposes the party, for whatever that is worth, I would simply ask that it is classified properly for those informing themselves about UKIP and British politics. Woodahooda (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - by another - at 14.27 on 24 Aug - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

UKIP's chairman has just resigned and I wish to update this to the new chairman, Kirstan Herriot CringeyButtclench (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

OK I have made the change - but for future reference please provide a link to a reliable source rather than make monitoring editors hunt it down for themselves -----Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that there's not been any reliable source coverage of the change in chair to include in the body of the page, is it valuable to include in the infobox? WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the infobox should cover key facts that appear in the article, and contain as little information as necessary. I'd also be happy to see the deputy chairman and international affiliation fields gone, for the same reason. Ralbegen (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tim Aker

Is Tim Aker still in UKIP? As a councillor, he left UKIP to sit with a breakaway group, but said he would stay as a UKIP MEP. However, UKIP then stood against him at subsequent local elections, and there were rows over whether he could do remain in UKIP, see [1]. I can't find citations with a clear answer on how that was concluded, but Aker's only current web presence, his Twitter page, doesn't mention UKIP in his description. This recent article doesn't refer to him as a UKIP MEP, but doesn't clearly say he's anything else. This recent article notably does not refer to him as a UKIP MEP either, merely calling him a "Brexiteer MEP". So, that looks to me like he's not in UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A source not committing is not a source not supporting. As far as I can tell he is till a UKIP MEP, at least according to sources that actually talk about his party affiliation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Aker's party affiliation has not been changed on the European Parliament website which has carried all definite departures from Ukip bar the ones in the last ten days. It's a very confused situation - there was talk of him sitting for both parties simultaneously (not dissimilar to the Nathan Gill arrangement), talk of expelling him and then not much talk about his party status at all. I think we'd need a clear source that he's gone (not some random passing mention in a broader article). Timrollpickering 14:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

He has quit, confirmed by BBC here: https://twitter.com/CharlotteGRose/status/1067438521198100480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd then that his twitter feed makes no mention of this, the BBC news page makes no mention of this, BBC Essex makes no mention of this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really, he clearly just decided to go quietly without making a song and dance about it. He has also been removed from the UKIP website: https://www.ukip.org/ukip-representatives_cat-2.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It lists Farage as a amber and he has explicitly said he has resigned, so not sure how reliable that is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Also odd that his EU parliamentary page still lists him as UKIP [[2]]Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a word on his Facebook page either, so where and when was this "official" statement of his resignation made?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

EU Parliament page also still lists O'Flynn and Farage as UKIP and we know for certain they've gone. In regards to the UKIP website it is being updated, only slowly and badly. Hence why O'Flynn has been removed. That Farage's picture has vanished show's the website people are trying to remove his profile, albeit cack-handedly.

Which means it is not clear at all what is going on. So until we have an official stance we cannot be sure what his status is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

More confirmation by former colleague Patrick O'Flynn: https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/1070240389683122176 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Still not an official statement by the party, Aker or the parliament. We are not a news paper and we can wait for clear confirmation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There are two sources for Aker leaving UKIP: the quote given to BBC Essex and mentioned in this article from Sky. I think the UKIP website, which inexplicably doesn't list Raymond Finch as an MEP of theirs, doesn't really help one way or another. It looks to me like he probably isn't a member of UKIP any more, but are the two sources we have enough? I don't see the harm in waiting for something more definitive. We are after verifiability rather than truth, after all. This discussion could be revisited if nothing else crops up. Ralbegen (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven suggests that in the absence of an official statement by the party, Aker or the EP, we should conclude Aker remains in UKIP. However, those would all be primary sources and Wikipedia explicitly favours secondary sources over primary sources. BBC Essex and Sky are both good secondary sources.

In terms of primary sources, the UKIP website has an inaccuracy (not mentioning Finch), but I don't think that should mean we ignore it completely, so it does matter that it doesn't list Aker. Aker may not have released a statement, but I remain of the view that it is notable that his one online presence, his Twitter, does not describe him as being in/of UKIP. So UKIP and Aker aren't clear that he's left, but nor are they clear that he remains in the party. The only source clearly stating he is in the party is the Parliament one, and we know that can be slow to update.

Therefore, with inconsistent primary sources and putting more weight on secondary sources, I say there is more than sufficient sourcing that he is ex-UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The primary sources are not in consistent, only the UKIP page can be seen as supporting his non membership, and that does not actually say hew is not a member. We have two (the EU and UK government websites) that say he is explicitly still a member. As I said we lose nothing by waiting until the ambiguity is cleared up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If one primary source supports he is not a member and others say he is, then they are inconsistent. More to the point, as per WP:PRIMARY, secondary sources are preferred. This is core Wikipedia policy. We have secondary sources saying he's out, ergo he's out.

If you feel there is still ambiguity, then you should apply WP:BALANCE, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." The solution to ambiguity is not to stick to the old position. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure a Twitter post counts as a reputable source, not when it the organisation the person works for has still not made the claim. We also are not a new paper, we do not need to rush to include every bit of clock bait.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Its been over a week since that twitter post, and not one news agency (not even the one she works for) has confirmed this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling a report by a BBC journalist "click bait" is unhelpful. A tweet as part of someone's regular reporting is fine. More importantly, you appear to be ignoring the Sky News piece. A news agency does confirm this in its regular reporting.

We are indeed not a newspaper. That's why I presented a rationale based on Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nov ember is not early in the year, and this refers to the events of January [[3]], but he remained a member of the party [[4]]. Yes I would agree that if the tweet was party of normal reporting I would agree, the problem is no report has occurred in over a week related to this. This is why we need to be careful it is clear that Aker likes to play silly buggers and this may be no exception. He may (as he has been in the past) both a member and not a member. But we need to know what the actual situation is in order to write an encyclopedic entry on this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

More confirmation from Sky that Aker has gone. Think it's time to end this charade now. https://news.sky.com/story/ex-ukip-leader-paul-nuttall-quits-party-over-tommy-robinson-role-11573773 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That is enough for us to include it, I am still unsure over the fact that there has been no confirmation from the BBC about the story their reported posted, but this is an RS clearly saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Since I posted earlier, Aker's profile on the European Parliament website has been updated to now list his party as Thurrock Independents. It was the website change that told the world that Bours had left so this is clear confirmation. Timrollpickering 13:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential EFDD departure

Gerard Batten has resigned from the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group in the European Parliament, which is still led by Farage. [5] There's a history of various national party MEPs having different group arrangements so this may just be a continuation of the personal battle between Batten & Farage or it may be a prelude to Ukip realigning itself. One to watch. Timrollpickering 13:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

Political Position: Centre-left UKIP promotes democracy and liberty for the people of the UK, see populist argument. No stance UKIP makes is authoritarian in nature. It has firm conservative/libertarian values and promotes individual freedoms. Multiple references to articles throughout miss-labling the parties political position.

Reference to three far right activists for joining the party, Sargon of Akkad, Count Dankula & Tommy Robinson. Sargon & Count Dankula do not represent any far right views, they never have. See either of their Youtube's for content for video evidence of their actual views. Mention the names of the individuals without miss-characterising their view-points. As this clearly shows bias with whomever wrote the content of this wiki page. WildWeeBear (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources that support a proposed amendment. Arguing a political case on the talk page is not what Wikipedia is about -----Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect the assessments made in mainstream reliable sources, according to policy. Those sources routinely describe these people as far right. Whether or not their assessment is correct is another issue. TFD (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

UKIP: far-right

There are several academics who consider this party far-right, not to mention the vast amounts of media sharing this view. It is misleading to not label this a far-right party, or at least a "right-wing to far-right party".

Academic sources:

• Title: "Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain; Journal: Extremism and Democracy; Authors: Robert Ford, Matthew J Goodwin; Publisher: Routledge, 2014; ISBN:1317938542, 9781317938545
• Authors: Peter John Helen Margetts; New Statesman January 2005 & West European Politics 32(3): 496-513 (2009).
• Title: Political Ideology in Britain; Journal: Contemporary Political Studies; Author: Robert Leach; Edition; Edition 3, revised; Publisher: Macmillan International Higher Education, 2015; ISBN: 1137332565, 9781137332561; Page: 276
• Title: English Uprising: Brexit and the Mainstreaming of the Far-right; Author: Paul Stocker; Publisher: Melville House UK, 2017; ISBN: 1911545108, 9781911545101
• Title: Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe: Into the Mainstream?; Journal: Extremism and Democracy; Editors: Tjitske Akkerman, Sarah L. de Lange, Matthijs Rooduijn; Publisher: Routledge, 2016; ISBN: 1317419782, 9781317419785
• Title: Angry White People: Coming Face-to-Face with the British Far Right; Author: Hsiao-Hung Pai; Contributor: Benjamin Zephaniah; Edition: illustrated; Publisher: Zed Books Ltd., 2016; ISBN: 1783606940, 9781783606948; Chapter: 7.

Media sources:

• http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/01/10/is-it-fair-to-call-ukip-a-far-right-party
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/28/ukip-far-right-brexit-vote-migrant
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/ukip-far-right-extremists-bill-etheridge-gerard-batten
• https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-party-conference_uk_5ba51c0ae4b0181540dc98dd?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=4z6VWcZxIidPEFcM1W1stw
• https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/nigel-farage-has-himself-to-blame-for-ukips-drift-to-the-far-right/
• https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/politics/726820/UKIP-civi-war-Nigel-Farage-far-right-Tommy-Robinson-Sargon-of-Akkad-Dankula
• https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/06/ukip-s-turn-alt-right-warning-sign-we-need-fight-back
• http://uk.businessinsider.com/ukip-to-join-steve-bannon-far-right-propaganda-movement-in-europe-the-independent-report-2018-7
• https://www.itv.com/news/2018-09-21/were-coming-for-you-ukip-leader-tells-remain-mps-after-far-right-row/

To me this looks more than enough to label this as a potentially far-right ideologically, at least for half of its program Abcmaxx (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A few people have raised this on this Talk page before, most recently in June 2018, January 2018 and September 2017. From what I could tell in January, the most common description of the party is "right-wing", with some "radical right" and "populist right". These three descriptions are all used at the top of the "Ideology and policies" section in the prose of the article.

That said, the way the party has been described has definitely changed under Batten so there could be a case to re-evaluate. Looking at the sources you've offered, I can't find the description "far-right" in Revolt on the Right except as a paraphrase of the New Statesman coverage. In Political Ideology in Britain I can only find the description of UKIP as "somewhere to the right of the Conservatives". I can't search the text of English Uprising on Google Books, but reading the introduction through Amazon I can see UKIP described as "radical right-wing". Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe doesn't use the designator "far-right" of UKIP that I can see, though the inclusion of a chapter on it in the book supports the use of "radical right-wing" and "populist". Angry White People is a good source on support from the far-right for UKIP but doesn't describe UKIP as being far-right.

Of the media sources, the first is a blogpost, the Guardian pieces are both opinion pieces (" Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"). The Huffington Post and Spectator pieces are also blogposts. The Daily Star does describe the party's platform as far-right but it's a tabloid source. Paul Mason's piece in the New Statesman also falls near the opinion end of the spectrum rather than reporting. The Business Insider piece talks about Ukip joining a far-right movement but doesn't describe UKIP as far-right. The ITV article talks about Farage warning the party against moving to the far-right.

There are RS descriptions of UKIP as far-right that I think have more weight. The Washington Post and The Times, for instance, as well as a former leader of the party in the Welsh Assembly. I still think a clear majority of descriptions of the party describe it as "right wing", "radical right" or "populist right". It's worth keeping an eye on, though, because RS coverage could not unreasonably be expected to move more towards a description of the party as "far-right" as time goes on. Especially if the party votes to admit Tommy Robinson.

The sources you've listed though, could be used to make fantastic additions to the body of the article. The character of the party has been changing and the article doesn't reflect that as well as it could, throughout. Ralbegen (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have seen a few sources saying that now they are more far right then they used to be.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ralbegen is correct about Revolt on the Right not actually referring to UKIP as "far-right"; that seems to be an error. That being the case, I also have concerns about whether the other academic sources listed refer to UKIP as "far-right" or not either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As per Ralbegen, I think the article should describe the party's move further right under Batten. That's more important than worrying about the infobox label. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The ideological spectrum of the radical right extends from right-wing populism to white nationalism and neo-fascism, so perhaps UKIP should have the term radical right in the lead rather than "right-wing populist", or perhaps "radical right populist". Right-wing populist to me sounds a bit "soft" given their manifesto and ideology and the amount of far-right elements even if it is just a small proportion. As for the far-right label even though they are not a far-right party outright / the situation is slightly more complex than that, the academic sources do point out that they do have lots of far-right elements. Similarly the English Democrats are not far-right perhaps in themselves, but a huge number of their members are ex-BNP and also have incorporated a large amount far-right views, so they are viewed as a fringe far-right party by most of the electorate, even if they are technically incorrect. My point about the media sources is that even though there might be no academic consensus as to them being far-right, it is a very common accusation and I would say a large amount of people would view them as such. I think it would be undue to omit this in itself Abcmaxx (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much 'radical right' is really understood, while 'far-right'is, but its not clear there are reliable sources that support that. Also its not clear how much the Tommy Robinson is an idiosyncrasy of the leader (noted that in other items Farage has condemned it) and there may be changes - we don't have the sources really to change things -----Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that ABCmaxx feels entitled to break WP:BRD I've tagged the article for the moment. Its not clear from the above contributions if there is agreement to the change or not - so can we please have some comments -----Snowded ^TALK 10:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am very much in two minds, it has been called far right, it has also be said it is now (implying it did not used to be) far right. It (therefore) means we should not put this in the info box (as it is not clear) but should be discussed in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Radical right? - the recent change? I don't think we are there with far right yet, we might be. Radical right has a very specific meaning in the US that I'm not sure is appropriate. Right-wing populist maybe ...-----Snowded ^TALK 11:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing populist is the best so far. Thatcherite might be better, but we need RS for that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Just plain "right wing" is the most common description of the party I've been able to find. The descriptions "radical right" and "right-wing populist" are used in the first sentence of the "ideology and policies" section, and I feel like that's the appropriate place for them rather than the infobox. The body of the article would benefit more from change than the lead, and it's also too mild to say that "critics of the party" describe it as far-right when a former Welsh Assembly leader of the party has described it as far-right. Ralbegen (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But right wing is slightly misleading isn't it because it is not just a normal right-wing party like the conservatives. All the academic sources state radical right, which is a term used by academics, and with all due respect, the US connotation are completely irrelevant in this context. Everything I have added is reliably sourced. Had I broken WP:BRD I would have called them a "far-right extremist party" or similar, which I have not; all I have is added reliably sourced material, both academic and from other WP:RS. Objection only on the ground that it has supposedly not been discussed is flawed because fundamentally a) I have merely added to not changed anything and b) only included what was already concluded within the sources given and in line with the above discussion anyway Abcmaxx (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You broke WP:BRD when you reverted a second time - you have to discuss. There isn't a consensus to use radical right and it is not used al ALL academics, it has been used by some. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to stick with "Right-Wing" or "Right-Wing to Far-Right" or "Far-Right" in the Political Position section in the interests of upholding Wikipedia convention? Yes academic sources prefer to use the term "radical" for Ukip, as they do for all populist parties. In spite of Wikipedia editors calling National Rally 'right-wing to far-right' for example, some academic sources prefer to call it Radical Right. See eg "Goodliffe, Gabriel, (2012). The Resurgence of the Radical Right in France: From Boulangisme to the Front National. Cambridge University Press, 2012." However, they also prefer not to use Wikipedia's/the media's political position terminology at all. That is why the Lord gave us the Ideology section in Wikipedia articles - the perfect home for academic terms - which is separate from the political position section. What one could debate is whether articles should have a 'political position' section at all. Wikipedia Deutsch for example doesn't have them. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_für_Deutschland But that is beyond the scope of this discussion. So I'd just recommend sticking to Wikipedia convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.181.122 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I was the editor who created and expanded the Radical right (Europe) article but I must admit that it is not a widely used term in the political science literature, and its meaning seems to vary greatly depending on which writer is using it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent changes as we really need consensus first. Might I propose that we change "It subsequently faced several leadership crises" to "It subsequently faced several leadership crises, and under Gerard Batten was widely described as moving into far-right territory"? That seems to summarise the issue fairly well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And it's entirely accurate and relibaly sourced. Emeraude (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. That's an accurate summation of the political positioning of UKIP, supported by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espatie (talk • contribs) 15:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we restore my sourced addition please too edit ? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Also radical right may not be the most well known label, but it is the most accurate, especially as it encompasses right-wing to far-right spectrum when neither quite applies on its own Abcmaxx (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

On that basis, "radical right" is totally useless; if "it encompasses right-wing to far-right" it includes everything from the Tories to Adolf Hitler! Emeraude (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Emeraude. If "radical right" is conceptualised to include everything from the centre-right to the far-right, then surely it's a superfluous term as we already have "right-wing" anyway. Also, I can't get behind re-adding that "sourced addition" I'm afraid. It adds an unnecessary additional paragraph to the lede and the sourcing isn't precise enough; whole books are included without page references, and it looks a little too much like WP:Synthesis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the sources say there is consensus that UKIP is a radical right party. I note in The Populist Radical Right: a Reader, the editor Cas Mudde says it is contentious whether UKIP should be included. (Sorry no page nos., but search for "UKIP".) It could be that since the election it has transformed as mentioned in the next discussion thread but would want to see a good source for that. TFD (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would be concerned about labeling UKIP far-right given the connotations that the label gives out. While I can certainly agree with the political label "Right-wing", anything more than that could give off the "at-a-glance" impression that UKIP is a White Nationalist and/or Neo-Fascist party; and I don't think the sources can justify such an assertion (though I'm willing to be corrected on that front). Alssa1 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I note from your user page Alssa1 that you identify as right wing. So what does that make you? A Conservative? A "wet" conservative or "Monday Club" type conservative? Both are right wing, one more so than the other. Or are you UKIP? Is that more right wing than Tories, or less? Or are you BNP? (I'm asking rhetorical questions; no need to identify your position further.) The point is, "right wing" is so imprecise as to be often unhelpful so qualifying adjectives are needed (e.g centre right, far right, extreme right etc.). Without this, as I wrote above, there is nothing to separate the least right wing of the Tories from out-and-out Nazis, and that would be ridiculous. It is not the case that far right equates to "white nationalist and/or neo-fascist", and no one is suggesting that UKIP has reached that position, though recent developments do raise the question of where it will be in the future. One should always read carefully rather than go for an "at-a-glance" impression. One has to be as precise in one's reading as in one's writing. Emeraude (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why I used the "at-a-glance" terminology is because we are talking fundamentally about a political position in UKIP's infobox, and "at-a-glance" information just happens to be what the proclaimed purpose of an infobox is, and I therefore believe we should approach this topic with that in mind. Secondly, I must disagree with your assertion that the term "right-wing" is imprecise, I think Wikipedia's terminology implies quite a clear distinction between the centre-right Tories, right-wing DUP and far-right Britain First. Finally, I disagree with you on your understanding of the term "far-right"; in common parlance far-right is frequently used to describe white nationalist and/or neo-fascist movements (or at the very least to evoke the thought of such organisations). Furthermore, Wikipedia itself introduces as "The term is often used to describe Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism..." Alssa1 (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Er, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Regardles of "common parlance" and "frequently used", this is an encyclopaedia and we use precision. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the formatting, I wrote this in a chat due to an ongoing discussion about Wikipedia's neutrality. I am focusing mainly on the proposed evidence from media outlets, they will be in chronological order downwards.

• This media source does NOT give a definitive answer. Rather it's an argument from 4 years ago considering the morality of labelling a party far-right as this has fascist implications, as well as to label left wing parties communist would diminish support.

• It's The Guardian, a news blog rather than factually sourced evidence of your proposal.

• Read above.

• This article labels UKIP as far-right due to recent proposals for Muslim prisons and extra screening for Muslims. Although this is already in effect in the USA the Republican party is not regarded as a far-right party. Further into the article it uses the leftist rhetoric of "50 year old white man" and loses all passive credibility by resorting to the skin colour and sex of the party leader as a weapon against his ideas. They mention "social barriers" of black and Muslims which in recent years is debatable due to the real advent of shortlisting for women and ethnic minorities to promote aggressive diversity tactics in the workplace. It goes on to mention "privilege" and this is likely a nod to his "white skin". This pivots around to the argument that if one person in a party has further left or right wing views does this drag the party as a whole into that faction? To wrap this up the article was created by someone who appears to be of an ethnic minority who would hold bias toward a populist party in a country he is not historically from.

• The Spectator takes a different angle to the situation and moves to the parties former and if not most iconic leader of recent times: Nigel Farage. Made by a "Owen Bennett" who only has authored two articles, both pertaining to the disdain of UKIP and Tommy Robinson, so we have implanted bias already in this article. The language in the article is venom toward UKIP and Nigel using claims like "throwing rocks from the sidelines" as an attack rather than a balanced article. The article as a whole is an attack on the characters of the party rather than factual evidence presented that the party is in fact a far-right party.

• The article breaks out with a fear-mongering headline followed by the incorrect use of the alt-right term for YouTubers. In fact one of them consistently speaks out as a neutral voice and allows both sides to speak and his political affiliation does not fall onto the far or "alt-right" which has turned into a term to negatively impact the performance of right-wing emerging parties. The article tears itself between two sides, one quoting Batten as saying conservatives viewing UKIP as an "alternative to the Conservatives" which we know are a centre-right party in the current political climate. While he supports the disambiguation of UKIP and the Conservatives he does not reflect the fact that they are taking measures of that to bring the party into far-right politics as seen associated through fascist and strong authoritarian views.

• Newstatesman brings the title to a damning judgement that "we need to fight back" losing most if not all of its credibility as a neutral voice in political news. The author of this article shows to be a left-wing supporter by his articles being wholly centred around banning the "alt-right" and silencing their voices. Skimming the article I can see it is full of leftist rhetoric mentioning Tommy Robinson and social media right-wing speakers, coating them with the same brush and overall generalising those who support UKIP as "young, white working class men" and demonstrate through "drunken rampage". This article is not credible and should not be considered for the placing of any political party with such venomous bias.

• Business Insider, the article spearheaded by a writer of the Independent a Corbyn supporter as seen by his tweets already reeks of political bias and the reinforced view of buzzwords "alt" and "far" being pushed by these authors are wholly used as an attack on a political party they don't agree with. Anyone who thinks of far-right thinks of fascism as I have stated earlier and the push of this on UKIP will only serve to further shun people who are in support of the party. He uses wholly one sided quotes from Liberal speakers who are pro-EU to push the agenda that UKIP politicians and supports are racists and far-right.

• ITV were relatively tame with the article, I assume it to be done by more than one editor as there is no singular name only "ITV report". The article focuses on the allowing of Tommy Robinson in the party and doesn't necessarily reflect the shift to far-right as mentioned in the proposal. In fact it implicates that the party has not moved to far-wing politics, at least not yet. The statement mentions "if it [UKIP] moves to the far right." Overall the article is a push at the argument Farage and Batten have had over allowing Tommy to join the party.

The "Academic Sources" are also disputable when one of them is literally TITLED "Angry White People" the fact that most if not all of these references are sources and created by people with centrist or left-ring positions on the political spectrum have reason to skew and again use the terms far and alt as an attack of the party as the media have weaponised these terms to be used against parties that stray from centrist policies.

• I haven't had the time immediately to view the academic material although I have done BGC's on the authors and again found most to be bias to push their own political views to the readers rather than plating a neutral ground. Reading one "Matthew J Goodwin from the first cited book I can see his support for centrist pro-EU policies by opening supporting on Twitter a "Macron for Britain"

• Reading the personal account for Helen Margetts shows an individual who is also a pro-EU individual using personal hashtags such as "BrexitChaos" in relation to the referendum result as well as retweeting pro-EU pages and tweets expressing a second referendum.

I've spent the last couple hours doing some checking on this and I can deduce to relative accuracy most if not all of these cited materials are authored by those of centrist to left wing ideas and thus use the veil of alt and far as a weapon against the right-wing. Also to add, the Conservatives are centre-right and I saw a comment mentioning them to be wholly right-wing so that must mean UKIP is far-right, does that also mean not that UKIP is just right-wing due to the increasing move to central policies under the Conservatives? KyleDinny (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We are led by what reliable sources say. Wikipedia summarises secondary and tertiary sources: it follows, it does not lead in such debates. It is not up to editors to engage in original research. If you feel that reliable sources are mischaracterising UKIP, you can seek to get your thesis published in a reliable source or you can find reliable sources laying out the same argument as you. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the party should be described as far-right. The current description, right-wing, is definitely misleading, as it's not a right-wing party as that term is generally understood. The term right-wing is hopelessly ambiguous and could mean anything from normal conservatives like Jacques Chirac to white supremacists. Now even Nigel Farage has said the party has become far-right and that "the party’s direction has changed fundamentally"[6] --Tataral (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

When a party holds a rally organised and led by a prominent far-right individual(s), alongside other groups described as far right, adopts far-right policies, is criticised by it's former leaders and elected politicians for moving to the far right and is described in multiple reliable sources as having moved in that direction, it's probably time to describe it as such. There seems to have been a clear break with the right-wing populism of the Farage era, and the page will likely need updating to reflect this in future. Jw2036 (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We could have a lead sentence saying something like "is a far-right, and formerly right-wing populist, political party"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful and avoid WP:RECENTISM. Most UKIP elected representatives were elected under a different leadership. While many have since left, others haven't. There is, thus, an ongoing debate within UKIP about its direction. UKIP are a party moving rightwards and I'm happy for the article to acknowledge that, but I changed the text in the lede to "is a Eurosceptic, right wing to far-right political party" as I think that better represents the current state of play. Obviously, as events continue to unfold, that may shift further. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy to UKIP and Far right?

In the template Template:UK far right UKIP has now been listed as part of it, I noticed there has been a discussion on the UKIP page about if they should be listed as far right and at the moment for the Infobox on the UKIP page its not listed as Far-right. Should UKIP therefore be removed from the Far right template as well? C. 22468 Talk to me 23:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here. All inclusions within templates and categories should come from what is cited on the relevant Wikipedia page. The party is not currently cited on this page as far-right and should not be included in the template until it is cited here. All claims on Wikipedia should be verifiable by at least one reliable source. Helper201 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Far-right is improperly sourced

The current claim on the page of the party being far-right is incorrectly sourced. Nowhere in the citation by the New Statesman does it label the party far-right and clearly fails Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH rule. All claims should be supported by reliable sources that explicitly state what is being written on Wikipedia. Helper201 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Now Ukip has become a party that is offering an explicit far right message".Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving a far-right message is not the same as calling the party itself far-right and therefore fails WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Does it, so you are saying that if they say far right things that does not mean they are far right?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what you are taking from the source, your own implication, it is not fact, nor explicitly stated. As per the rule noted above, the source should explicitly state the position of the party, not allude to it, or require implication, or for it to need to be drawn to by the reader. I'm not against the party being labelled this way, it is just important that all claims on Wikipedia come from reliable sources that explicitly state what is being claimed, as per Wikipedia's rules. Helper201 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The source says they are offering a far-right message.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A message is not the same as a statement for where the party itself stands on the political spectrum, nor is this a statement of the party's policies or where they stand. Helper201 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need more input.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, this clearly does not meet that rule. Helper201 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for starters:

"Ukip’s transformation into a far-right party is complete", Financial Times, 23 November 2018

"Ukip has become too vile even for its own extremists", David Lawrence in The Guardian says that UKIP has "has driven hard into far-right territory under leader Gerard Batten"

Ukip isn’t dead. It’s alive and embracing the far right", Nesrine Malik in The Guardian, 28 June 2018

"Ukip Are Now Truly A Far-Right Party", HuffPost, 21 September 2018

"UKIP’s war to win back working class voters: Far Right manifesto ‘nightmare’ REVEALED", Daily Star 2 September 2018 Emeraude (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Financial Times piece is an opinion piece, so not a source of evidence. The Huffpost article a blog, again, not a source of evidence. The Daily Star is far from regarded as a reliable source to use on Wikipedia. While the rest all still fail the SYNTH issue. I am well aware of the shift in the party and the narrative of its move. I myself have searched for sources to include the label far-right but none are from reliable sources that aren't opinion pieces and meet the SYNTH rule. Helper201 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And:

"the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), a far-right, anti-immigration populist party" Graham Macklin, "Patterns of Far-Right and Anti-Muslim Mobilization in the United Kingdom" in Maik Fielitz, Laura Lotte Laloire (eds) Trouble on the Far Right: Contemporary Right-Wing Strategies and Practices in Europe, Verlag 2016, p 155

But I suppose you'll object that, despite being a respected academic and leader in his field, Macklin is just giving an opinion?? Emeraude (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's what the source states (the preview does not extend to that page so I can't comment) then I see no problem with that. It is from an academic source, which if quoted accurately is more than acceptable. Please do not assume bias from my side, I'm simply stating what Wikipedia's rules say. If you're going to start ignoring rules and improperly sourcing then what's the point? Everything should be verifiable and accurate according to reliable sources. I'm shocked that two editors that have made as many edits as this and been on Wikipedia this long are not aware of basic rules for citing sources in relation to what are reliable sources, opinion pieces, blogs and the SYNTH rule. Helper201 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You can access the appropriate page from that link - click on Next a few times. Also:

UKIP "is the first and only far right political group to have won a British EU election", Matthew G. Martinez, A EUROPEAN IDENTITY: TOO MUCH TO HOPE FOR?", US Dept of Defense, 2015, p 35 (Note: The paper's abstract also refers to UKIP as "extreme right-wing" Emeraude (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The quote from the first source showed on page 165 for me, not 155, just to note. With the second source I'd not add it being it also states extreme right-wing. Many people may say this is the same as far-right but it is somewhat ambiguous. The first source seems fine to replace the current New Statesman source in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, 165 is correct. If you have access to journals or JSTOR :

Alina Polyakova begins, "There's love in the air between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western Europe's far-right political parties" and goes on "..others of the Europeaan far right, including... Britain's UKP." ("STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: Putin and Europe's Far Right" in World Affairs, Vol. 177, No. 3 (September/October 2014), pp. 36-40)

Emma Flaherty and Laura Roselle, "One of the far-right parties that has been vocal in its support of Putin is UKIP..." ("Contentious narratives and Europe: Conspiracy theories and strategic narratives surrounding RT's Brexit news coverage" in Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 71, No. 1.5, 2018) Emeraude (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the first academic source by Graham Macklin for now because its easily verifiable. If anyone rejects they can come here and look into these other two sources you mention. I was never trying to deny any label, only that was added was evidenced according to Wikipedia's citing rules. Helper201 (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Polyakova's article in World Affairs is freely online here and Flaherty and Roselle's article in Journal of International Affairs is freely online here. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add a source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I see nothing wrong with adding these academic sources, preferably with the online links so they can be independently verified. The only one I'd leave out would be the second one by Matthew G. Martinez, because of potential extreme right issue. Helper201 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that we should be very cautious before using the aforementioned two academic articles to cite the claim that UKIP is "far-right". First, neither of the articles are actually focused on UKIP at all; they seem to mention it in passing, nothing more. Second, the Polyakova article was published in 2014, by which point there was already an established academic literature on UKIP, none of which considered UKIP to be "far-right". What the various press sources and op-eds mentioned earlier attest to is the fact that UKIP only begun to be widely regarded as "far-right" after Gerard Batten took over in 2018 and began shifting the party's approach to various issues. Thus, we would be in error citing a 2014 article to bolster a claim about an event that only took place in 2018. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

But it seems to have been argued earlier that press reports are not sufficient. (I don't agree, as it happens.) What is equally likely is that UKIP was always far right, but the press have only just noticed since it started embracing the extreme right! Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The terms "far-right" and "extreme-right" are usually synonymous, at least in much of the political science literature I have read (although I accept that different individuals may use the same terms differently). Personally, I agree with you that the press reports are sufficient, at the very least in allowing us to say that "In 2018, mainstream media sources and former senior UKIP members began characterising the party as far-right." Otherwise I think that we just have to wait and see what forthcoming academic publications on UKIP have to say. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

More than sufficient - restoring the text -----Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A source should be agreed upon and added to the infobox. All claims should be cited where given, especially ones likely to be challanged like this. WP:CITE. Helper201 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukip, not UKIP

UKIP is the stylised way of writing Ukip. But throughout this article, the party should be referred to as Ukip. There is consensus for this across both the Guardian and the Telegraph.

82.34.100.31 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)ZZ82.34.100.31 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style which is different to those used by those newspapers. The subsection MOS:CAPSACRS advises "Do not write acronyms that are pronounced as if they were a word with an initial capital letter only, e.g. do not write UNESCO as Unesco, or NASA as Nasa". So "UKIP" is correct for Wikipedia purposes. I wouldn't describe it as "stylised" either – it's a straightforward acronym of the party's full name. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This issue was previously discussed in 2014. See Styling of Ukip v. UKIP in the talk page archive. Emeraude (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I note also that the BBC use "UKIP", as do academic papers (e.g. doi:10.1093/pa/gsv005 and [7]), although Goodwin & Milazzo (2015) do use "Ukip". Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The BBC is increasingly an outlier on this. Most of the British press use "Ukip" not "UKIP" as part of a more general practice of writing acronyms pronounced as words as words and only going for all capitals when it's usually pronounced as letters. Ukip was actually sometimes pronounced You-Kay-Eye-Pea in the early years - there's a 1997 Party Election Broadcast on YouTube in which they use it themselves - but in recent years I've only heard it used in result declarations from Northern Ireland (where party acronyms abound).

The Manual of Style seems to have followed US practice where uppercasing it all is still predominant. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent changes

@Slatersteven: You have requested that I "get consensus" for adding three WP:RS references which support a parameter which already appeared (and continues to appear) on the page, and which is not disputed by any other contributors. Can you please explain yourself. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

While I am not the person named above I'd just like to point out here that two of the articles you added were opinion pieces, which are not sources of evidence (WP:RSOPINION). The Times article was also discussing the position of the party's membership and not the position of the party itself and therefore broke the WP:SYNTH rule. Adding reliable sources does not require a consensus, but opinion pieces are not to be used to attempt to support any claim as a fact and all citations must comply with all other rules, such as synth. Helper201 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The Times article discussed an increase in membership in response to a tack to the right by UKIP; for you to claim that the article doesn't discus the position of the party is patently false. Opinion pieces are acceptable to supplement other sources. I will therefore restore the references. Endymion.12 (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't need four references there. Why not just stick to the best one or two? If the additional references have further useful information, they can be considered for elsewhere in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not without getting consensus. A 4 year old source cannot be used to demonstrate what is now the case if more modern sources say something else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Endymion.12, if two different people have reverted an edit, then it behooves you to seek consensus on that edit before re-inserting it, whatever the edit is about. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

And you have now reverted again without consensus. You are trying to make a change, thus you have to make the case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: That isn't what has happened here. In this edit, User:Slatersteven removed three references without explanation, requesting that I "get consensus", which I clearly don't need for adding references. In this edit, Slatersteven removed a longstanding parameter, for which he will definitely need consensus, while implying in the edit summary that I had added/restored it, which I had not (nor had anyone). I.e., Slatersteven isn't bothering to review the changes he and other users are making. At this point I'm not sure whether this is just extremely negligent or deliberate. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I am not making changes without consensus, you are. All I have done here so far is add three references to support an uncontroversial claim, which you then removed without explanation, and to revert a change you made without first seeking consensus. Your sloppy editing at this point is time-wasting and borderline disruptive. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not need that many sources for an item in the info box (in fact we should need none). I should not have removed right wing you are correct. But I stand by the revert of an over cite issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Endymion.12, Helper201 and Slatersteven have both removed citations you added. You then re-added in both cases. That is pushing the limits of appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. If there is debate, you come to Talk and get consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou Here Slatersteven removed long-standing cited content, while falsely suggesting that he was reverting my changes. He will need consensus for this. I assumed in the instance in which Slatersteven removed the references that he had made an error, and had assumed that I had removed the "far-right" parameter because the edit was tagged as an "undo" (and because I wasn't sure why someone would remove references without explanation while requesting the other user "get consensus". Endymion.12 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Fine, thank you. Next time please explain your changes in the edit summary to avoid this kind of confusion. In my edits I was simply replacing a reference to an unpublished thesis with references to newspaper articles. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Primary YouTube Video 'Isn't Acceptable Source?'

Why not? If you say Carl Benjamin said racist terms and don't provide the extremely important fact--or at least claim--that it was directed towards white nationalists and NOT minority groups, then it's really misleading. The YouTube video is in no way biased because the sentence I wrote which cited it said that Carl Benjamin CLAIMED that it was used to insult white nationalists, not that it was true, certain fact. Is this not an inherently important point to bring up? If a white guy used the n-word, whether or not the white guy used it against minority groups or against white supremacists to 'compare them to something they hate' seems like a very important thing to say. This is not to mention that it is a primary source, and primary sources are, in most cases, some of the most reliable.

I have not been involved in these edits but the rule WP:YTREF is probably being applied here. Hope that helps. Also, please sign your talk page posts using the characters shown at the bottom of the editing page (see WP:SIGNHERE for more information). Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Even more basically, I was referring to WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE. Wikipedia strongly prefers reliable secondary sources. Ralbegen (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still firmly believe that this should remain in the article. Not only is it reliable-- it's Carl Benjamin defending his racist statements in a video on his own channel that he himself wrote, edited, and uploaded-- but it's really important context. Using the n-word against racists in order to compare them to something they hate is entirely different from using it against people of color in order to demean them. Leaving this out of the article is like criticizing American soldiers for insulting a wounded war veteran in numerous war songs, but forgetting to mention that said wounded war veteran was Adolf Hitler. I mean, really! "Lmao check out this old war veteran, he got his testicle shot off, what a puss" sounds really bad if you don't mention that it's being used against a genuinely horrible person. The same goes for using the n-word in a way that demeans white supremacists, other genuinely horrible people.

This might be relevant on an article about Benjamin himself. Not so sure it warrants inclusion on the UKIP article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If we mention this, then it is only fair to include any rebuttals, as long as the sources (in this case youtube) is his (or UKIPS, officially and it actually includes the denial. IN this case no, there is a clear jump where it has been edited. Nor does it appear to be an official video channel, just another youtuber.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2019

Change "right-wing" to "centre-right". Proofowl (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

based upon which sources?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

In the 2001 book The Government and Politics of France, Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright say that the main factor dividing the left and right wings in Western Europe is class. The left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism. The nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development Knapp, Andrew. Wright, Vincent. The government and politics of France. New York: Routledge, 2001 p.7 UKIP favour the National Health service and are critical of rampant capitalism so that can't be far right! Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. Beyme was able to arrange seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist. UKIP does not fiot into this right wing extreme. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JHfbCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA197#v=onepage&q&f=false Leach, Robert (2015). Political ideology in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 197. describes UKIP as not racist not fascist and only moderately nationalist. 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): 147. supports the idea that UKIP are not far right.Isaw (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Isaw

Your source on British politics says UKIP is perceived to be to the right of the conservatives, and it says it is populist, which Von Beyme grouped in the extreme right. As you say, the nature of the split depends on circumstances and no party in the developed world (except the U.S.) opposes universal health care. That does not mean that there are no left-wing parties outside the U.S., but that the Left and Right divide on other issues. TFD (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WHERE do my sources say ( as you claim) UKIP is right of the conservatives? Under what particular metric is this made? Supply citations please as I have done. the Conservative Party are not "extreme right" under any perception. the Labour Party which is meant to be left under Blair was about the same asa the Conservatives. Fairly much centre to centre right. The current Leader is as Marxist as tony Benn was before Kinnock took the Leadership. So you can't really say "right of the conservatives" makes anyone "extreme/alt/far" right. Furthermore 2. "populiast" is also NOT a sufficient descriptor of alt/far right. In fact most descriptors of Right tens to individualism whereas Populist movements like Left wing movements favour group identity. So to categorize UKIP as "populist"= extreme right is a misnomer. are you going to suggest that Marcon's Party in France "La République en marche" (LREM), together with its ally the Democratic Movement (MoDem), are Extreme Right? 3. Where does Von Beyme categorize anything like UKIP as "extreme right"? It seems you are employing argument "ad hitlerium" ie Hitler was a vegetarian and liked dogs and was an art collector so all they types of art he liked and vegetarians and pets are to be despised. 3. You then offer a definition of extreme right as any " party in the developed world (except the U.S.) [which] opposes universal health care." First of all you are incorrect in this assertion. There are parties that oppose State Health Care funded by the tax payer which one might not classify as "extreme right" but Gerard Batten ( reference needed but it is something I personally say in an interview in the last month) the leader of UKIP said he personally supports the idea of a National Health System so this metric does not apply to UKIP. Isaw (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Isaw

We do not need sources saying they are more right wing then anyone else, just that they are right wing.12:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

YES you do! You need sources saying they are more right wing than the conservatives and the Conservatives have to be classified as soundly right and you have to say under what metric e.g. populism; economic theory; racial prejudice; in order to classify ANYTHING as being "FAR Right". The whole issue here is UKIP (and it seems anyone else who goes against a cadre of left leaning editors in wikipedia and other on opther platforms ) is being classified as FAR right. The same is true of a variety of people Tommy Robinson, Ben Shapiro ( a Jew), Gaat Saad, Lauren southern, Jordan Perterson, ( Carl Benjimin) Sargon of Akkad, Adi Yemini ( another Jew), Count Dankula. There is a long list of people who may have some right leaning tendencies although some are left leaning who are bein reclassified as "nazi" and ostracised.Their channels of expression are being taken from them and even Wikipedia is relying on a small number of questionable sources such as biased media or the Southern Poverty Law Centre. Isaw (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No we do not, if a source says they are right wing so can we, the sources does not have to say "more right wing then X" just "right wing". Also shouting is not going to make your case stronger, we can all read. As to far right, again we can go with what RS say, they do not have to compare it to any one else. And (by the way) this page is about UKIP, not anyone I(or anything) else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Isaw: I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that UKIP is "extreme-right". Some sources have begun to refer to it as "far-right" (which some people use synonymously with "extreme right", granted) since Batten took over in 2018. This is because under his leadership, it has increasingly embraced ideas and personnel from the counter-jihad movement, and thus has placed growing focus on encouraging prejudice against a particular ethno-cultural/religious group, in this case Muslims. There's no point citing sources like Tournier-Sol in this context because they were writing about UKIP as it existed pre-2018, and thus in a form that, while regarded as right-wing (and specifically as right-wing populist) was not regarded by most political scientists as "far-right". Lots of parties shift ideologies over the course of their history: you mention the British Labour Party, which is a classic example of a party that has oscillated from the left-of-centre to the centre (and, some have argued, centre-right) over the course of its history. Moreover, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is based on what the WP:Reliable Sources say. It's not up to us to decide how UKIP should be classified; its up to us to report how political scientists and commentators actually classify it, whether we agree with them or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

People ARE claiming UKIP and Tommy Robinson are "extreme Right " and "far Right". That is the central point of this discussion. If they are not alt/extreme/far Right then the article should not say so. Do you disagree with that? Your waffle about Batten saying he has a problem with Islamic Sharia does not make him or his Party "Far Right". Baten has never said he has anything against Muslims and I challenge you to produce any evidence of him saying that as you claimed. You also claim " Wikipedia is based on what the WP:Reliable Sources say." what sources say UKIP is far right?Isaw (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Source 7 Unfounded "Far Right" claim

There are two sources linked under #7.

The first is from The Guardian, a newspaper that has repeatedly labeled anyone who isn't on the left as being far right, including UKIP member Carl Benjamin - a man who has consistently scored as a centrist on political compass tests. The second is from The Times, much fairer source, but the article is locked behind a subscription fee so can't be verified.

Further down the page, a better source is used for "Popular stereotypes have framed it as a far-right party" (source 277), but as you can see, this is a politically neutral assertion and does not outright specify the party as actually being "far right".

It could also be argued that the term "far right" is only ever used with the purpose of drawing a false association to fascism via being anti-communist. (see the wikipedia page Far-right politics).

The Guardian is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia: see WP:RSP. As is The Times: citations do not have to be freely available to be used. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Councillors resigned the whip?

There was an edit on the 7th July 2019, saying that 11 councillors resigned from the party. Is there a source for this? Farleysmaster (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source. --SVTCobra 23:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"older, working-class white Britons"

Why is this the ideal and, apparently, only acceptable wording? It is imprecise and potentially misleading, since Welsh and Scottish people are also Britons. More problematically, it is not what the rest of the article and the cited source say. Why is this imprecise and unattributed wording preferable to, say, "older, working-class white men", which corresponds to UK Independence Party#Voter base and the source directly quoted there? Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it does not, "57% of UKIP supporters were male",. which means that almost 50% are women. Thus your wording (which states only men support it) is not in fact true.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentence describes the primary voting base, not every single voter. The sentence does not state that only men support UKIP. It states that working class white men are the primary voting base. That much is made perfectly clear in UK Independence Party#Voter base. The article says: "Their electoral base is old, male, working class, white and less educated." This is a direct quotation of Ford and Goodwin. The sentence you only partially quoted says: "57% of UKIP supporters were male, which Ford and Goodwin suggested was due to women voters being put off by a number of high-profile sexist remarks made by UKIP candidates." Ford and Goodwin clearly find that a significant disparity. The lead section should reflect what the body of the article says (per MOS:LEAD) and, obviously, what the cited source says (per WP:V). Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, there are 52% females vs 48% males in UK. So having 57% male of voters is probably the consequence of a primary voting base of males. This does not exclude women voting for it of course, but i think the source is about the core electoral base. Barjimoa (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and so is the sentence itself. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Ford & Goodwin source, but I find the inclusion of race rather curious. England is 80% white and the UK 87% white, so it stands to reason every party has a majority white voter base. Did Ford & Goodwin find exceptional statistical divergence? I do not know how they present their data, but perhaps we should rely on their statistics rather than their descriptors. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Presumably they did find exceptional statistical divergence and are not referring to a mere majority. They are supposed to be the experts. Either way, if we are quoting them in a section, we should paraphrase that in the lead, not say something entirely different. The reverts by Slatersteven are perplexing, to say the least. I could not imagine that this could be controversial. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

As a side comment - it really needs to be in the past tense -----Snowded ^TALK 13:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your first edit did not change it to men, thus I was not sure what you wanted to say, as you changed what you were trying to say. Thus I felt it needed ore and deeper discussion then an edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, almost anything is better than the catch-all "Britons". So do you agree with replacing "Britons" with "men"? Surtsicna (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree. We have one source really, and we have no idea if this is the current situation or not (especially given the fact UKIPs support has in fact collapsed no source more then a year old can really be said to reflect the current situation). But I will not oppose the change, if that is the change you are suggesting. So if we want to be precise we must make it clear this is historical, and not current.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I will also add that if we want to be precise it is Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford, so this claim should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

UKIP is not far right, this is dangerous and needs to be edited

Under Source 7, and the Political position section it claims that Ukip has been far right since 2018 till present. This is simply UNTRUE UKIP hasn't, and never will be far right. It is only right wing, I made this wikipedia account just because I was so disgusted that someone could smear a group of people like this to claim they are under THAT ideology. UKIP is a right wing populist party, not a far right party. I highly suggest someone corrects this with an edit.

If you can provide a reliable source from 2018 to present that refers to the party as right-wing then please provide it. It is labelled this way because reliable sources have referred to it as far-right since 2018. If a reliable source from 2018 to present refers to it as right-wing then this label can be restored. Helper201 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Politico 3 months ago described UKIP under right wing populist parties to have big gains

Reliable sources have used both "far-right" and "right-wing" to refer to the party recently. The party's move to the far-right, inclusion of far-right people, and far-right character is routinely described ([8], [9], [10], [11]). There are still RS descriptions of the party as right-wing though, such as [12]. The description of the party as "Right-wing to far-right", as it has been recently, seems a reasonable summary of reliable source coverage. Either way, the infobox should be a summary of the article contents, and the current set up summarising the party's shift under Batten is something that reflects the prose material in the article as a whole. I think it'd be reasonable to either keep it as is, or use "right-wing to far-right". Ralbegen (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the right-wing label due to the Spiegel source. However, it must be noted that the Metro piece is an opinion article and therefore cannot be used in any way to support any factual claim (please see WP:RSOPINION). Also, on a general note, the Metro is not regarded as a reliable source to use on Wikipedia, per its listing here - WP:RSP. Helper201 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If the metro was the only source for the claim you might have a valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider the Guardian unbiased, but left wing. What in the France 24 article actually refers to any political position that UKIP holds?Flexdream (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It may not be unbiased, but its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So 3 sources, one a comic for commuters, one a biased left wing outlet, and finally a content free piece from a State organ. Well, I'm convinced.Flexdream (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Financial Times article: "Ukip’s transformation into a far-right party is complete", "The hiring of Tommy Robinson is proof that it is focused on cultural issues, not Brexit"

Hi guys, I am new to editing but I will try my best to be concise in my contribution here. Ukip's Wikipedia page has in the past categorised Ukip as "Right Wing", and currently "Radical Right". I would agree that historically Ukip has not been a far-right party (this label in the past a bit of journalistic exaggeration as far as I am concerned). However, the financial times reports that Ukip has recently become a far-right party. (The financial times is concise, logical, restrained, credible and centrist in my opinion, more so than the other british newspapers, and I would say this specifically about Sebastian Payne, the author of the article.)

From this article https://www.ft.com/content/c43857ca-ef16-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0

"Under Mr Batten, Ukip has welcomed alt-right “social media activists” into the fold — including an editor at InfoWars, the conspiracy theory website"

"What Ukip now stands for can be seen in Mr Batten’s new big-name hire. By bringing Tommy Robinson into the fold, the party’s transformation into a far-right force is complete. Mr Robinson — real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon — is a convicted criminal and former leader of the English Defence League street campaign and the UK branch of anti-Islam movement Pegida."

"Mr Farage too sees Mr Robinson’s appointment as a step too far. He has called for his successor Mr Batten to be fired and will be pursuing a confidence vote at the party’s ruling council."

So, Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist (who focuses on religion and culture, not just immigration) is now a paid advisor at Ukip.

(My issue with the academic source which categorises Ukip as 'Radical Right' is that it is out if date (published in 2015). Aside from that, 'Radical Right' is an unconventional term for Wikipedia in my opinion: as far as I can tell it usually uses the terms "right wing" or "right-wing to far-right" for this sort of populist party.)

So would it not be sensible to categorise Ukip as what it is most currently, ie right wing to far right (or failing that "radical right" to far-right)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.181.122 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is not paid by UKIP, nor is he an advisor to UKIP. That's entirely untrue. 92.5.15.202 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What would be most useful when it comes to editing is to add to the text, using this citation. Get that right and any useful infobox changes can follow later. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also one source is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd leave the categorisation intact until there is general agreement that the party has a far right focus, but certainly comments from the article (and comments from the likes of Farage) about UKIP leaders' embrace of far right figures and the effect that might have on the party's position are valid for inclusion in the article body, and arguably ought to be in the lead section too. Dtellett (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not in the lead, at least in part because Farage is hardly a disinterested party. As I also said we need more then none sources, and really I think we should wait until we see if this is a long term trend or just a flash in the pan.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Farage has been disinterested with UKIP since the referendum, seems like he has cut his losses. 92.5.15.202 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

UKIP didnt hire any far right people. Farage did it seems hire BNP memers but he isnt classified as "far right". How is Tommy Robinson far right? He is critical of Islamic rape gangs and of 25,000 ex ISIL members being allowed in the UK. Most of his friends since childhood are black and he opposes the throwing of homosexuals off of buildings. Hardly far right? Robinson isnt running as a UKIP candidate in any case but as an Independent and he is not paid anything by UKIP. See several peer reviewed sources on how far right is classified and how academics disagree with classifying them as far right below under Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2019Isaw (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Isaw

Hello, I am the user who originally posted under the title ""Ukip’s transformation into a far-right party is complete", "The hiring of Tommy Robinson is proof that it is focused on cultural issues, not Brexit"". I am just checking back here, and it has occurred to me that the Financial Times article is behind a paywall, which would be understandably frustrating to some editors. In future, would it help to copy and paste the entire article into the talk page if it behind a paywall? Or would this breach copyright? What is the largest percentage of an article you are allowed to paste into the talk page (eg 100 word-portions perhaps)? Thanks

That would breach copyright. One could paste a few relevant sentences. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalism

It's ultra-nationalist. https://ansionnachfionn.com/2018/12/10/ukips-brexit-betrayal-march-in-london-a-far-right-rally-by-any-other-name/ 79.77.192.85 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the headline?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

How on earth does the opinion piece of an Irish republican outlet mean that UKIP is ultranationalist? They're clearly nationalist, but there is a clear distinction between ultranationalism and nationalism. It's not like hyperbole isn't used in political hitpieces. 92.5.15.202 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We go wit what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

UKIP isn't ultra nationalist either. they are even running coloured muslims candidates.See the peer reviewed academic sources on that belowIsaw (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Isaw

Does UKIP actually have any far right policies? I know my view on this is old fashioned. Labour might be riddled with Communists and anti-Semites, the and Lib Dems led by an anti-democrat, but the characters they attract don't change their policies. Flexdream (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)