Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about UK Independence Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Jonathan Freedland's op-ed

The Guardian article by Jonathan Freedland from 28 January 2013 is a response to an issue which keeps emerging, the reputedly eccentric comments of people elected as UKIP elected representatives such as Silvester and Bloom. That these gentleman and no longer connected with UKIP, or are suspended, is beside the point. This is an issue for the party, according to many commentators, and Farage evidently agrees. More than a straight factual account is therefore needed.

By the way Owl In The House, I cite negative material about article subjects regardless of my opinion of them. Wikipedia articles don't work properly if there is an obvious slant. Philip Cross (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is though, that the coverage of Bloom and indeed Silvester has already been made.(point of fact - Silvester has never been elected as UKIP - lets keep the comments page factual as well as the article its self shall we) We do not need to cite opinion piece after opinion piece and add more and more information for one event in the party's History, history being the optimum word. I have already made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a news outlet or a blog and so journalistic opinion is of total irrelevance. We're meant to cover the facts, this has already been done. I notice you have split the subsection from 2010-present because it is so large. It would not be so large if we did not put so much emphasis on individual events that have little relevance to the long term history of the party. By all means lets cover them (we have) but brevity for small events is necessary or we end up putting undue weight on a recent news worthy event, that may well turn out to historical insignificant. Looking at the party's 20+ years history, given the number of defections and what not, this is just one of many controversies and has little Historical relevance in its own right. That said I accept it may have some relevance historically (we don't know yet as not much time has passed), this is why I have not removed both Silvester and Bloom from the history section. In time, both may just be yet more controversies to the long list the party already has, non of which have significant Historical in their own right but require covering in a controversies & defections list (which is what we have rightfully done). Owl In The House (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have reverted to the status quo. Freedland is a highly-regarded commentator writing in a respected newspaper. The use of his article here a provides a useful insight into the issue. Emeraude (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The status quo is before it was added, why is this OK to add but not the opinion polls and his being "hailed as a hero" you guys removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

But User:Emeraude You have failed to explain why this opinion piece is historically relevant? As I said in my above comments, I fully accept that the Bloom and Silvester stories should be in the history section but do not understand why they merit such broad coverage in a history section? I thought it was you who said that you were against excessive/elaborate coverage of recent events, agreeing with me and wikipedia policy; that Wikipedia is not news?

Also User:Darkness Shines makes a very relevant point for comparison that highlights my point. The mention of UKIP's opinion poll position has only one line and yet this is unquestionably more historically significant than recent Gaffes as there is not only longevity to UKIP's claim of 3rd place in the polls but it is the first time a fourth party has ever made such headway and modern British Politics.

I will revert your reversion of the edit as it was done without seeking consensus, it was also done without a sound and reasoned explanation. This is not edit warring, as I am reverting your edit and not User:Philip Cross's. Owl In The House (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like someone beet me to it. Please don't edit war guys, keep it to the talk page.Owl In The House (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Owl in the House placed his comments out of sequence making a mess of the communications between those involved, then reverted my attempt to restore the chronology. Who is operating contrary to established practices on talk pages?

Back to the discussion. Silvester is a suspended councillor in Henley on Thames, not a candidate. Not many opinion pieces are cited here, yet UKIP receives strong reactions from most commentators. As we need to reflect reliable sources, that is a flaw in the article. I would suggest there are probably some usable pro-UKIP comments from people like Simon Heffer out there if it is feared that the use of comment pieces might turn into an opportunity to bash UKIP. Philip Cross (talk)

I put my first comment where it belonged because it was in response to your opening comment. There was an edit conflict so I didn't get my edit in on time. This why we sign comments because they have the exact date and time of the comment made.

This is not about pro-UKIP or anti-UKIP, I am not here to make either case. The last thing we need to do to a History section is over load it with sentences/paragraphs, multiple sources, multiple opinions/narratives for events that have very little historical relevance. Let's just say said thing happened and leave it as that, a brief statement of fact. If you want to elaborate using a variety of sources it may be more appropriate in the Controversies section. Obviously, even then we have to be careful about opinion. I don't really see why an encyclopaedia should quote an accusation of "Homophobia in its ranks" or anything else like that if we can not point this down to being a majority problem or anything dramatically more significant in other parties. Indeed there is homophobia, sexism, racism and all flavours of "Nuttyness"(for want of a better word) in other parties (mostly local level, as with UKIP) and there are endless reliable sources out there to prove so. If we are to follow the media narrative and give weight to this, we must also do so for other parties. I repeat Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Owl In The House (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think readers can distinguish between facts and opinions, as editors we only need to ensure they are identifiable as such. Sexism and homophobia in the other parties can be raised where there are sources for them. UKIP has been accused of having a problem with misogyny and homophobia by reliable sources in the light of various incidents, not only by Freedland. It is therefore valid to cite an opinion article on this theme. Anti-PC attitudes have been an issue since at least 1997 when Alan Sked left accusing the party of "racism", so the issue is not actually news, its a long-term issue. The article is too fragmented as it is, rather than being a coherent narrative. Some of the items in the controversies and sexism sections were significant incidents, and if I was being really cynical, might suggest it is a non-neutral way for UKIP supporters to bury their embarrassments. like Godfrey Bloom. A much publicised series of incidents involved the MEP and UKIP last year, but the '2013 to present' section itself contains only a passing mention. Philip Cross (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think (hope) one thing we can all agree on is that parts of this article are too fragmented. A clearer narrative linking the parts together would be helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Guns

I removed the section on guns because it is not official party policy (I also left a message on the editor in question's talk page). Indeed in the same interview Mr Farage said the UKIP manifesto was "a blank page". Need I remind editors that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, while this section is well sourced, it is not an ecyclopedic fact. User:Philip Cross has reverted the edit where I removed this section, which is why I have taken to the talk page. I shall revert this edit once (in compliance with Wiki rules on edit warring), I do not expect User:Philip Cross to revert my edit again without coming to the talk page as that would be edit warring.

To the point at hand: the party's website has no section on "guns", whereas it does on the other policy areas that are cited on this page. Philip Cross gave this reason for reverting my edit: (Undid revision 592955108 by Owl In The House (talk) as with anti-EU policies, looks pretty firm for a future manifesto). That is a speculative and not an encyclopedic comment. If and when the party add this to their official party policies, this can then be added (using 3rd party reliable sources). However, no such policy exists, so to say "looks pretty firm for a future manifesto", is merely speculative, this is not a statement of fact. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, it is UKIP's National Executive Committee that aproves policy and not the party leader, so even if he had said this was a firm comitment (which he didn't) and he hadn't made the "blank page comment (which he did) that this could not be interpreted as being UKIP policy without either this being officially made policy (which it isn't) or for there even to be a document on the party's website (which there isn't. There are precisely zero grounds for anything on "guns" to be in a policy section of an encyclopedia, when the party in question doesn't even have a policy on guns, or even put out an official document showing support for some form of liberalisation. In any case, the party's stance seems very up in the air at the moment, so it is difficult to find out what the facts are. Since wikipedia deals in facts, we can't really cover it.

I shall now revert the edit and refer Philip Cross to this page.Owl In The House (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some muddled arguing here. It's inconsistent to say it should be deleted because the party's website has no section on "guns" (it has no section on manifesto currently, I believe) and also to say it can in future be added (using 3rd party reliable sources). There are third party sources for everything in the paragraph you want deleted, including whether or not it is policy (see Daily Telegraph - "The Ukip leader has said it is party policy", and Daily Mirror - "Farage was asked for his party’s position on gun control".) But suppose they got the wrong end of the stick; suppose Nigel was talking and they just assumed that he was describing UKIP policy. Given that Farage is leader of UKIP, its main spokesman and its main policy developer, it's not unreasonable to assume that what he says is now UKIP policy. Regardless, if this is part of the policy development process, it's valid. However, I have argued consistently that Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories and, on that basis, I have no strong views about its inclusion one way or the other. Emeraude (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No muddled up arguing here at all, its merely a case that the reader has misread. However, you have spurred me into looking into this further so I get my facts right and it seems it is you who is slightly muddled User:Emeraude as you have said a a few things that are factually incorrect. Allow me to explain.

1. You misread the sentence where I put (using 3rd party reliable sources). I wrote that just incase anyone said "oh but we can't quote directly from their website, it has to be a third party source", I put that phrase in brackets for that specific reason. I was perfectly aware that the editor in question had used third party sources, I can actually read, something you seem to have had a little difficulty with.

2. In the same interview as the gun comments; Farage said "we have a blank sheet of paper", he did not give any firm commitment or even broad policy on what the gun policy would be. He described the situation in the US as "crazy", so it makes it unclear as to how far he would want to go in terms of lifting restrictions/gun "liberalization". The claim in the telegraph of "The Ukip leader has said it is party policy" is a politicised line and can be proved to be non factual by actually listening to both the BBC and LBC interviews,both of which can be considered to be reliable sources.

3. You incorrectly state that Farage is UKIP's "main policy developer" - wrong. I have found out that UKIP have a head of policy called Tim Aker and he has a team of so called "wise men". Any policy has to go through his team and get approved by him and then voted on by the National Executive Committee. Apparently the Leader has the right to veto a policy but it is utter rubbish to describe Farage as "the main policy developer". That might be your perception or opinion but in terms of factual realities Tim Aker is head of policy, fact.

4. You seem to suggest that this is part of the "policy development process", they haven't even got a discussion paper on their website about it. This didn't come from a UKIP initiative, it came from a caller on the phoneFarage show on LBC radio asking his view on the ban on hand guns...Farage then gave his view. He was then probed about it on the Daily Politics and he gave no firm commitment either way but he hinted at the party having a policy on it in its next manifesto. the point being the next manifesto...i.e. there is no policy on gun ownership as things stand. "blank sheet of paper"...no policy or discussion papers on their website.

5. Your final point about Wikipedia not being news is the only relevant (or indeed factually correct) input you've had in this discussion. You're right and since UKIP do not have a policy on gun ownership, such a subject has no place in the policy section of this page. Wikipedia, is an encyclopaedia that deals in solid facts. It is simply not factual to describe what was said as a personal view in response to a callers question as a solid policy when it has not been through the party's formal process for approving policy and when there is no official policy document.

Lets stick to the facts people.Owl In The House (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree, it seems very reasonable to include the short section on guns, particularly as no other party has a similar line and Farage will have thought it through. JRPG (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree, Wikipedia is not a democracy. What matters is whether it is a fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a newspaper and it is simply inappropriate to put something in a policy section of an encyclopedia when it is not policy.Owl In The House (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We all want an informative encyclopedic article and are trying to get a consensus. Therefore it does matter what people think. We ALL make mistakes but hopefully reasoned discussion will lead to a consensus with no loss of face. Farage was unequivocal & I suggest the policy statement should be attributed to him in Incidents in 2014 section, perhaps with the additional caveat that it was on a radio program. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel Farage making a statement can be noteworthy, notwithstanding whether this is official party policy yet. That said, I agree with Emeraude from a while back: it is unclear to me whether this is a sufficiently major issue to warrant much coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. However a single line is hardly wp:undue and it differentiates UKIP from any other party. JRPG (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the point though, it is not UKIP policy...it hasn't even had chance to go through the party's policy process yet. If this needs to go into Wikipedia, it should go on Nigel Farage's page under controversies, not on this page while ever there is no official party policy. Owl In The House (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical point ..but why is it at all controversial? It may be a popular policy, we don't know and shouldn't judge. The reason Farage was invited onto the program was surely because he is the UKIP leader and people want to know what he thinks the policies are. I'm not going to waste more time on this, policy board ready or not, EU elections are less than 4 months away and we could help people understand the issues. JRPG (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

we're not here to help people decide who to vote for, we're not a newspaper here to report up to the minute news on the latest goings on. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's controversial because of all of the hullabaloo it has attracted. Indeed the very desire of User:Philip Cross to add something to a policy section that is not even policy (in light of his other UKIP related edits elsewhere) kind of says that there is some form of controversy about it. That said, I have no objection to it going in that 2014 section provided it is reported in the true sense that it happened: i.e. he attracted criticism after answering a question regarding gun ownership by a caller on LBC Radio's PhoneFarage show. We also need to point out that his comments are not UKIP party policy because they're not. As an encyclopedia we need to report facts. If we omit certain points we end up with a piece that misleads readers. I'm open minded to adding a few lines in the 2014 section but its got to be done properly. Owl In The House (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather startled by this removal of sourced content. The fact that UKIP have yet to put out a manifesto does not mean they do not have policies. Part of the job of a party leader is to express those policies. We live in an age where policy is announced by parties not through official policy committees and manifestos but through press releases, media comments and even social media sites like Twitter. To give a non-UKIP example, take the Labour Party and the "cost of living crisis", and Ed Miliband's promise to put a price freeze on energy prices. Is it on the Labour website in a nice section called "policy" or "manifesto"? No. The Labour Party are still having a comprehensive Policy Review. Does this mean that an energy price freeze is not current Labour policy? No, that's silly. If the late Steve Jobs stood up and said "we're releasing a new iPhone next month that does this", you kind of have to take his word for it. Indeed: The Telegraph seem to think it is policy. Their article opens with: "The Ukip leader has said it is party policy for hand guns to be legalised and licensed in the UK despite being banned in the UK for the last 18 years."

WP:NOTNEWS is a distraction here: we're not reporting on Farage accidentally blowing off on national television, what is in contention is whether to include mention of his response when asked a direct question about handgun ownership. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comparison is invalid as Labour's price freeze pledge is actually party policy, Nigel Farage's gun comments have yet to go through the party's policy process, the party DO NOT have a policy on this yet, merely a suggestion that this is going to be looked into. What's more your example of the price freeze is actually on the party's website. UKIP do not have any such document to do with guns on their website, they do for all of the other policies that are listed in this policy section.

Different parties have different mechanisms for making policy. Farage's comments were the answer to a question that came out of the blue (with no previous mention by the party its self) asked by a caller on a radio show, which Farage has since been pressed on. The party and indeed Farage, has yet to confirm this as policy or indeed what it entails e.g. do they support total restrictions on pistols or just for sporting purposes or what, the point is we don't know what the policy is because neither Farage or the party its self (via official policy team) have said what it is.

As for the Telegraph source, this is clearly in contradiction with other sources, we can't pick and choose sources that suit a certain narrative, we need to report the truth and that means looking at a wider range of sources. Your argument relies on one source that can be proven to be incorrect and a comparison that does not hold. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or blog. Owl In The House (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So, can you give me a source for Labour's energy policy, since they don't seem to have an up-to-date policy section on their website? This seems to put them in the same place as UKIP... —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I'm assuming your question was rhetorical, in which case other stuff exists applies. I'm hoping wp:agf still applies, hence a suggestion for you. Normal Wikipedia rules allow a factual statement from WP:Suggested sources to be used without discussion. If it contradicts another source -as is often the case with military history articles I edit, then a simple statement citing that sources disagree is added as well. We would of course need to cite that Farage's statement was subject to policy review. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

By Emeraude, first this was a BLP vio by the IP, and now he is misrepresenting the source with this edit. Kindly stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Ukip public figure has been forced out of the party after expressing support for gay marriage, days after the party sacked their youth leader, who spoke out on the issue on national radio.

Richard Lowe, Ukip's prospective parliamentary candidate for Chester, says he was forced to resign after local party leaders said they would not campaign for "anyone who publicly supports same sex marriage"..........

Ukip spokesman Gawain Towler said Mr Lowe's resignation was his own choice.........

The Independent, 12 Jan 2013

"To say he was forced to resign is wrong. Three people in the local branch committee spoke to him and said 'would you resign?' No-one forced him to," he said. Reposted from (Darkness Shines's talk page:

"POV pushing, the local guys say he was not forced to resign, stop cherry picking shit from sources" is not the sort of comment I expect from a Wikipedia editor. Let's be clear: I have no POV to push whether on UKIP or same sex marriage. An editor added some text about January 2013. I tidied it and corrected the ref. It's not my POV; it may be his. Either way, it happened. You correctly (and rudely, I might add) pointed out that he "quit after pressure from local party leaders". You could have simply edited this, but instead you chose to add "gross misrepresentation of the source". It wasn't: the source says the youth leader was sacked (that's half of it taken care off) and the other was forced to resign, which in normal parlance means sacked. So I amended to reflect that. ''Mea culpa, my amendment was not quite 100% because further down a UKIP spokesman ("Local guys"? How do you know? Doesn't say so) contradicts him. So there we are. Before you accuse people of POV and use foul language, perhaps you should examine your own POV. Emeraude (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that both of you stop edit warring right away and allow some discussion here.

Firstly, I see no WP:BLP violation. The cite given states that the leader of the party's youth group was "stripped of his post", so that part of Emeraude's edit seems well supported. Whether the Chester PPC was forced to resign is less clear: that's what he says, but the article also has a UKIP spokesman denying that, so I think that could be phrased more carefully.

Whether this is WP:UNDUE is harder to say. Personally, given coverage in a national newspaper and a significant post (head of Young Independence) being involved, I would say a sentence on this is not undue, but what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Have you not even read the source? He claims he was forced to resign, that is not the same as "he was forced to" I know it was local guys, the source says so. "Mr Lowe said that local party leaders told him that they objected to his views on several matters including his lukewarm anti-EU stance and his support for immigration. However, Mr Lowe believes his position on gay marriage was "the straw that broke the camel's back"." So tell me how does this not violate UNDUE? One person makes a claim, which was refuted "To say he was forced to resign is wrong. Three people in the local branch committee spoke to him and said 'would you resign?' No-one forced him to,", notice you left that out in the edit, so ya, you are pushing a POV. ~

I would remind both of you of Wikipedia's three revert rule and, indeed, to assume good faith. This is a small edit pertaining to events some time ago. There is no need for such aggression, nor for an immediate resolution of this matter. I respectfully suggest you calm down or that you step away from Wikipedia for a period. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me. For the record, it's not my edit that put this text there. I have simply tidied it up ("their" -->"its") and made sure the text is accurate to the source. Emeraude (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The candidate's claim was most definitely not refuted - it was denied. There's a significant difference. Further: if what the ex-candidate says cannot be relied on, neither can Mr Lowe. If Mr Lowe can be relied on, so can the ex-candidate. That's why I added "claimed" to the text, but given that Lowe says three people in the local committee (that is, Lowe says so - the three are not interviewed or even identified) "spoke to him and said 'would you resign?'" it is fair to say that he was put in a position where he was forced to resign. "Had" to resign if you like, or "made" to resign or "had no option but" to resign. The net result is that he was the candidate, they (the three?) objected to his views on same sex marriage, they asked him to resign, he's no longer the candidate because of his views on same sex marriage. Emeraude (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What a pile of bollocks. It is not "fair to say he was put in a position", at all. What with the source not saying that. He was asked if he would, he could have said fuck off, he did not, he choose to quit. And it is obviously refuted given the local guys have said and I will quote it again, "To say he was forced to resign is wrong.", what part of that did you not get? BTW, Bondegezou, read BLP, we had an edit in this article which said a BLP was sacked, how is that not a BLP vio? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy requires a reliable citation. A reliable citation was given for the person being sacked. I see nothing to dispute that. I am in favour of that being in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You just said you support a BLP vio and source misrepresentation going into the article, well done you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, could you explain how you feel this would constitute a BLP violation? That would be helpful. Or, perhaps, if you feel strongly about the matter, you could take it to the relevant noticeboard, WP:BLPN. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So the inserted text is "UKIP began 2013 by firing the Chairman of their Youth Wing Young Independence as well as their PPC for Chester for supporting Same Sex Marriage" yet the Newspaper headline is "Another Ukip public figure leaves party amid same sex marriage row ". First of all straight off the bat the title of the newspaper article doesn't support the choice of words inserted into this article. I can also find no instance of the words "fire", "fired", "sack", "sacked" in the article in reference to this issue. (I searched for these alternate terms for "firing" just to be sure).

In regards to Richard Lower, the newspaper quotes him as saying "As such, I felt I had no choice but to resign". Also all I can see is alleged pressure to quit, which no matter what pressure is put on someone still equates to resigning not firing.

In regards to Olly Neville the newspaper article clearly states: "the leader of Young Independence, the Ukip youth group, was stripped of his post". He was stripped, in otherwords removed, from his post as leader of the Young Independence group. That does not equate to being fired from the party as the sentence in this article implies.

Thus the additions are gross distortions of the source used and the sentence should be removed from the article (or kept out) or reworded to reflect the source. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that "stripped of his post" is pretty synonymous with "fired". Calling these additions "gross distortions of the source" seems somewhat surprising language to me! However, I concur that the material could be better phrased. How do people feel about this version:

"UKIP began 2013 by removing the chairman of its youth wing (Young Independence) from his post for supporting same sex marriage, while its prospective candidate for Chester stepped down over the same issue."

That avoids the use of the word "firing" and clarifies that the Youth Independence chairman was not ejected from the party. It also does not say the Chester PPC was "forced to" do anything. Those were the key objections above. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually having another look at the source and I must correct myself, it does state "sacked" in regards to Olly Neville right in the first sentence (doh!), however looking for other sources it does appear that there may be WP:UNDUE weight citing same sex as the reason why.

BBC News - "Mr Crowther denied Mr Neville - who the party said had not been elected but was doing the job on a "caretaker" basis - had been removed specifically because of his views on gay marriage." That same person, Crowther, states that Neville was asked to stand down, whereas it is Neville himself stating he was sacked. So we have a contradiction here, which as we know with the press will pick up on whatever bit it wants to portray the image it wants to paint.

Daily Mail - also states asked to stand down but also fired. Also states that the official UKIP reason given was "UKIP insists Mr Neville was forced out after defying party policy on a range of subjects, including legalising drugs."

So if the addition is to be re-added into the article in a reworded form, it will need some seriously rewritting, yet it might fall into the pitfalls of recentism and undue. We also need to take into consideration the contradictory reasons given with both sides stating things completely different things which all need taken into account. Otherwise what was added into the article in light of further evidence of equal reliability is undoubtedly undue weight and biased. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see big contradictions here: Neville was either "sacked", "asked to stand down", "removed" or "fired" -- they all amount to the same thing. As for whether this is undue coverage, we've got three major media sources covering it. I realise this was not your intent(!), but you've persuaded me it should be included. So, what about this wording to cover what all those sources say...

"UKIP began 2013 by removing the chairman of its youth wing (Young Independence) from his post, while its prospective candidate for Chester stepped down. Both men gave their support for same sex marriage as the reason for their departures, but UKIP sources cited broader reasons." And then we cite all three sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that doesn't quite cover it. They didn't give their support to same sex marriage as their reasons, but UKIP's opposition to their support. Emeraude (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What about... "UKIP began 2013 by removing the chairman of its youth wing (Young Independence) from his post, while its prospective candidate for Chester stepped down. Both men gave the party's opposition to their support for same sex marriage as the reason for their departures, but UKIP sources cited broader reasons." Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Per UNDUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I appreciate your passion, but it would be of value to other editors if you could sometimes expand on your concerns. Why do you feel these 2 sentences would be undue coverage? We have articles from three major media sources, from different perspectives (BBC, Mail, Independent). Same-sex marriage is, broadly, a very significant policy area that has attracted huge attention in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. France, US). Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you have two. The Daily Fail is not RS, especially for BLPs. If it were that notable then why has not every broadsheet and news channel covered it? Hence UNDUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You have made several mentions to BLPs, but not really unpacked what you mean yet. I cannot see the people who resigned/were fired having any objections to the text suggested immediately above. WP:BLP requires reliable source citations and even you admit we have two, so I fail to see any BLP violation as being present. I don't see a problem with using the Mail citation in addition to the BBC and Independent, but if you strongly object to its inclusion, the text suggested still stands on those other two sources.

To require "every broadsheet and news channel" to cover something before it can be considered due coverage seems to me somewhat over-the-top and I can't see anything in WP:UNDUE that supports that position. We're talking about two sentences: this is a pretty small amount of coverage in the article. It cannot require "every broadsheet and news channel" to justify every pair of sentences. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your misinterpreting my comments Bongegezou, though you backed the thing's inclusion before I even posted here iirc. My mention of due and weight is in regards to the attempts at trying to give as much importance to the homosexual angle as possible when it is one mans word against anothers with typical press exaggerations. I'm still against the proposal at the moment on the same grounds as before. It is better but this is a controversial issue and inclusion. Maybe an RfC would help so we have more than just our 4 opinions? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial complaint was that the text did not represent the sources. With additional sources now supplied (thanks to Mabuska) and after debate over wording, can we agree that if this matter is to covered at all, the text I give above is appropriate? As far as I can see, 3/4 agree on that. If so, we can then move on to whether it should be included at all (where we're currently split 2/2). Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

3/4 agree? Where do you get that conclusion? Darkness Shines objects to the wording and as I made clear in my previous comment I also objected to its present form. You have failed to take into consideration or respond to my concerns over it. Clearly there is no consensus for its inclusion at present hence my suggestion of an RfC which I note you have also failed to respond on. Maybe as you put it if this matter is to covered at all. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if I have misunderstood your position, Mabuska. I accept that there is currently no clear consensus that this matter should be covered at all (whatever the precise wording). I support your suggestion of an RfC. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record: support inclusion, support wording. Emeraude (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Voter base

This is a possible new citation for the 'Voter base' section that, I think, explains some of the points being made well and brings in some solid psephological analysis. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Goodwin is an acknowledged academic expert in the field. It's an interesting article, and useful, but it is not as definitive as the book (Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)) he is publishing next month with Robert Ford will be, and on which this article has partly been based. Might be better to use the book as a source rather than this artice. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And there's this. Bondegezou (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section

It seems that a few months ago an editor introduced a "controversies" section in to the article. I question why this exists in such an article as this. By its very nature, any political party is controversial so it seems odd that this section exists at all. As far as I can tell no other UK party has such a section, including the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, and more fringe groups such as the Green party and BNP. All of these parties have a constant turnover of controversies, but rightly do not have a section for this as this is the nature of politics and any such section would quickly become bloated.

It seems to me that this section is just a dumping ground for recent and not terribly consequential stories about individuals with varying degrees of importance to UKIP. This information would probably be better put on the wiki pages of the individuals. There is already a timeline for significant events related to UKIP further up the page. What do people think? Atshal (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a danger with "controversies" sections, which do exist on many other articles, that they can become dumping grounds as you describe. That said, I see useful, relevant and well-cited material in that section that I don't think should be lost. So, I suggest either re-working that material elsewhere in the article, or continuing as we are and making sure that the material in this section sticks to basic Wikipedia principles. Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The material is already covered in the timeline section, and what is not covered and be put there. Almost every action of a political party may be described as controversial. No other party has this type of section. Atshal (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Membership section

Why does this section exist? I don't see how it adds much beyond the information already in the info box at the top, and is not backed by citations demonstrating why this information is significant. I suggest removing it and simply retaining current membership in the info box. Atshal (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The section has citations provided. It provides a historical context for the (rapid) growth of UKIP and seems useful to me as such. Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not the job of citations to demonstrate why information is significant. It is the job of citations to demonstrate that the information is verifiable.
If anything, this section needs to be expanded to describe the type of people who are members (and supporters) of UKIP: some good sources have been mentioned above but time is needed to digest these, particularly the book referred to. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is already a section for that type of material. I just feel that a section with yearly membership figures just represents bloat - in principle it could get indefinitely large over time, or we could start adding monthly membership figures and so on. Current membership is included in the info box, but I don't see what significance previous years does. Atshal (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Breakaway Parties

Sorry for this third section! But it seems that the only group that could even remotely be described as a breakaway party would be Veritas, which is already discussed in length in the article. The rest are simply founded by previous members and have very little relationship to UKIP. Again, this appears to just be bloating the article to me. I see no particular reason to keep the section, and if we do then it should be called something like "Parties founded by former UKIP members" Atshal (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As well as Veritas, two of the other parties were founded by former UKIP MEPs soon after they left the party (which seems to me to make them breakaway parties) and would seem very relevant as they will be competing with UKIP on similar policies at the forthcoming European elections. Alan Sked's new party is a different case and I accept might not be well described by the term "breakaway", although it seems notable given Sked founded UKIP and has deliberately positioned this new party in reaction to how UKIP developed. Bondegezou (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The SDP can be described as a breakaway party from Labour because they took a significant chunk of Labour with them. In contrast, these groups (bar Veritas which already has a substantial section) are just parties formed by people who used to be UKIP members, and are entirely independent and unrelated. I have not checked, but do the wiki pages of any of these groups say they are UKP breakaways? I doubt it. Atshal (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I notice that none of the citations claim these are breakaway parties, so lacks verifiability too. Atshal (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For reference... The Veritas article describes it, in its first sentence, as "a split from the UK Independence Party". The We Demand a Referendum mentions UKIP only in terms of the support of Roger Knapman. An Independence Party doesn't have an article. New Deal makes several mentions of UKIP in its lede. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

To call these parties "entirely independent and unrelated" seems strange to me. We Demand a Referendum and An Independence Party wouldn't exist if their founders hadn't been elected as UKIP MEPs and then fallen out with the party. They both are close in policies. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But I don't think they are verifiable as "breakaway" parties, in the way wikipedia requires. Certainly there are no citations for any of them as breakaways. Atshal (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Political position

It is inaccurate to describe UKIP as a right-wing political party. Although on social issues (such as the environment, immigration, women's and gay rights) the Party is on the right of political spectrum, but fiscally is even to the left of the Liberal Democrats (e.g., UKIP's support for the state-ownership of the Royal Mail). On foreign policy, however, its position is on the far left of the political spectrum—on a par with far left parties which oppose any sort of (including humanitarian) intervention. The best term to describe UKIP would be a "populist" party as it was demonstrated when they shifted their position on HS2 and now vehemently oppose it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.152.185 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Many UKIP policies are clearly right-wing (reducing immigration, increasing defence spending, opposing gay marriage, supporting a flat tax); others are clearly "small-c" conservative (as with the Royal Mail). But this has been discussed before (see above). The way Wikipedia deals with such questions is to look at what reliable sources say, and that's the approach we've taken here. While not every UKIP policy is necessarily right-wing, broadly speaking, for the purposes of a summary in the infobox, that's how reliable sources refer to the party. If that changes or if you have evidence to the contrary, then we can certainly re-visit the question. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have recently left UKIP because of its increasing paternalism. Its opposition to international free trade in the labour market, which it claims benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, may be the best example. The Flat Tax was abandoned the day after the May 2013 elections. Its "social conservatism" is just that, conservative not reactionary in Chesterton's language; that is, its only principle is to resist change, so it opposed but will not advocate reversing the New Westminster Definition of "marriage". The idea of a one-dimensional political spectrum is as daft as a one-dimensional spectrum of human characters, and I am sorry to find Wikipedia clinging to it. Even within economic policy redistribution and regulation are distinct dimensions. Sorry I am not Wikismart enough to suggest a Wikkurate solution, but I hope my comments are useful. --Vidauty (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I recognise your concerns. I think the key issue here is that this is a long article, with an opening paragraph and an infobox that are summaries. As summaries, the opening paragraph and infobox necessarily simplify the details. The rest of the article then expands on that and can describe UKIP's position, in details, going beyond a one-dimensional political spectrum. The best way to improve the article, then, is to find reliable sources that discuss these issues in depth and using them as the basis for text throughout the article. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Heseltine comments in intro

The presence of Heseltine's criticisms of UKIP in the introduction to the article is very unconventional, and lacks much in the way of balance. A criticism of that depth and a reliance on the words of a single source in the introductory section (which is primarily utilised for descriptive purposes, along with a balanced evaluation of any criticisms that a political party may face) breaks convention, and it also instantly may influence the opinions of readers who are newer to the subject. I'd recommend shifting Heseltine's comments to the controversies section, perhaps expanding that section to be "Controversies and Criticisms" or the like. The presence of that paragraph is both highly charged and indicates bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.174.120 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to a point. The question is did Heseltine make those comments about UKIP using evidence and for academic factors, or did he make them as member of a rival party that now feels threatened by UKIP. Clearly it was the later case, they read like digs and points made against other party for electoral reasons and to get votes/reduce the vote of a rival party. This happens all the time in the press, but they are not added to Wikipedia and used as a source of information. I recall the BNP article had lots of comments from members of rival parties making statements and the article was considered bias, until they were removed. Clearly, using comments from members of other parties is always going to an issue because the majority will not be impartial or for educational reasons. User talk: Truenature 12 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talk • contribs)

Having such comments in the lede does not seem inappropriate, although I'd like to see them preserved somewhere in the article. Criticism of a party (including by its rivals) has a place in an article about a party. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But the bigger bias, surely, is using comments from members and supporters of the party...... Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions

I am assuming the content currently being restored was removed with consensus beforehand? I recall bringing up issues with that content not so long ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It was removed without consensus hence why I added it back, not the other way round, check history and all can be seen. They weren't additions as such. I don't see what is special about Sinclair and Bloom that the context and reasons they quit/had the UKIP whip withdrawn is less important than the cases of all the others listed. Truenature12 (talk) 16.24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the far-right label has no place in the infobox

I notice that User:Autospark changed the infobox political position from “right-wing” to “right-wing to far-right” and April 8th, and something of an edit war has ensued thereafter. Regardless of whether there are citations for this assertion or not, it is clearly an extreme minority opinion of where the party lies on the Political spectrum. I have followed the rise of UKIP closely over the last 5 years and I see nothing in their politics which points to them being a far-right party. Their manifestos and rhetoric mainly relate to the belief that the UK would be economically better off if it left the European Union and was able to negotiate its own trade deals etc; that the EU is undemocratic since legislation is formed in the unelected EU commission and the elected European Parliament does not have the powers to initiate legislation; that the right of free movement and an open door to 485 million EU citizens is not the best policy and should be replaced with a system that retains control over quality and quantity of migrants; and that continued membership of the EU renders the UK parliament ineffectual since up to 75% of our laws are now made by the EU. I would personally describe this political position as centre-right to right-wing.

If you look at other parties labelled “right-wing to far-right” these include the Freedom Party of Austria who it is reasonable to claim are to the right of UKIP in their political position. The FPÖ have in the past campaigned for “no more mosques” [1] and used slogans such as “Love your neighbour – for me that means fellow Austrians” [2]. Since far-right is the furthest extreme as definied on the Political spectrum, and since UKIP as a political party are poles apart from the sentiments of the FPÖ etc I believe this cited claim in the infobox is wholly misleading to readers. Feel free to include it somewhere else in the article, but it’s certainly not a mainstream perception and has no place in the infobox. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "I would personally describe this..." In other words, YOUR opinion, but you are not a reliable source so it actually counts for nothing. Wikipedia has never been based on what editors think, it's based on what reliable sources say and we have three reliable sources that say that UKIP is far right wing. Your enumeration of a few (not all) UKIP policies makes no difference. In fact, the same could be said just as accurately, word-for-word, of the BNP and NF, though I am not suggesting by any means that UKIP is as far to the extreme right as them. As it happens, I've also followed the rise of UKIP closely, but over the last 21 years, but that means nothing either and neither do my views or what I think in this debate.

Far right is not the furthest extreme on the political spectrum (nor far left). Have you never heard of the extreme right, ultra left, etc. The Wikipedia coverage of this is not a good source!

As to mainstream perception, I hope you don't mean what most people think. This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity poll. I repeat that we depend on reliable sources - preferably published work by academic experts in their field, which these are.

Finally, let us look at your edit rationale from the history page: "This is almost certainly agenda editing. I have 17,000 edits and have always remained neutral. This is certainly an intended smear". Apart from the bad manners of pulling rank with your number of edits - a most definite Wikipedia no-no, but since you raised it I have something like 40,000 (so what?) - you are making thinly veiled accusations against other editors which have no place in a collaborative work.

And let me repeat what I said above. The infobox is not saying that UKIP is far right. It says "right to far right", which can only mean somewhere in between can't it? Emeraude (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, why did you remove "To me it looks a lot like POV pushing or an intended smear. Let's try to be neutral and honest, unlike the politicians." from your posting above? Emeraude (talk)

Encyclopaedia (and academic) writing is about objectively and rationality. If academic sources cite UKIP as "far right", then they should be included as such. Personal subjective feelings should not get in the way of that. Wikipedia is after all meant to be an objective encyclopaedic source.--Autospark (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Long story short: typical Wikipedia 'progressive'/PC/far-left agenda pushing as we see it everywhere. On Wikipedia, even the most hardcore communist parties like KKE can not be labelled as 'far-left' (if Stalinism is not far-left, I don't know what is). Just take a look at the respective page history with the endless reverts: mission impossible [3]! Far-left on Wikipedia does not exist. Another telltale sign is the attempt to censor detailed scholarly sources from the article Far-left politics, reducing the article to a harmless stub [4].
'Far-right', however, begins in the middle of the political spectrum - as we see here. As revealed by the diff, I made such a conclusion a month ago, and the recent attempt to smear even UKIP (in most issues well to the left of the US Republican Party) as 'far-right' is a complete confirmation that I was right. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Autospark: this edit [5] was obviously meant as WP:POINT and it indeed did make the point that it's possible to find one or two poor sources for whatever nonsensical statement. Like you've been doing here.Lokalkosmopolit

It's just as east to find citations calling them a centre-right party, such as: "UKIP is a relatively traditional centre–right party" (Usherwood, S. (2008) The dilemmas of a single‐issue party–The UK Independence Party. Representation.) and "On the centre–right, UKIP continued its demand for withdrawal from the European Union (EU). The far-right BNP, strongly opposed to multiculturalism." (Borisyuk, G. Rallings, C. Thrasher, M. and van der Kolk, H. (2007) Voter Support for Minor Parties Assessing the Social and Political Context of Voting at the 2004 European Elections in Greater London. Party Politics.) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Far-right

Numerous, reliable academic sources describe the party as far-right. Simply claiming that this is a communist plot and accusing others of acting in bad faith is not a legitimate reason to ignore academic sources. One editor has described Unite Against Fascism as 'communist' despite it being supported by David Cameron and made derogatory comments seemingly aimed at Islam. I believe that the Infobox should say 'Right-wing to far-right'. Describing it as 'libertarian' is utterly ludicrous. LordFixit (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

These are the comments I believe really cross a line, made by Lokalkosmopolit The idea that a libertarian (!) party could also be 'far-right' just reveals how insane the PC mafia have gone in their hopeless defense of Anjem Choudary, the communist UAF and the holy Sharia. LordFixit (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

″Numerous, reliable academic sources describe the party as far-right″ - it's not numerous, it's 2 or 3. Second, sources have been found that describe the party as 'center-right'. If you had a bit of decency, you'd have to agree that then the inxobox should read 'centre-right to right-wing to far-right'. Ridiculous? Sure, just underlines that we have to avoid giving undue weight to unsubstantiated minority views.
As for the UAF, then this was founded as a front organization of the Socialist Workers Party so I think this settles the issue. Daily Telegraph blog: 'Ken Livingstone's anti-fascist group appoints fascist as vice-chair'. I strongly suggest you read all of the piece, it highlights once again, where the real fascist threat lies these days. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece published on a right-wing newspaper website, not a neutral or reliable source. One of the UAF's founding signatories is David Cameron, the leader of the 'Conservative Party':http://uaf.org.uk/about/founding-signatories/

Regardless of this, I believe that numerous reliable academic sources describe UKIP as 'far-right'. LordFixit (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that numerous reliable academic sources describe UKIP as 'centre-right'. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone disputing the centre right tag. That is a straw man argument GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's remember some basic principles:

Be nice to each other; assume good faith. Equally, do not WP:EDITWAR: come to the Talk page rather than reverting and re-reverting. Similarly, general criticisms of Wikipedia as being politically biased are unhelpful and edit disputes about other articles can be left on those other articles and not dragged up here.
Political parties are broad churches and political parties may embrace a range of policies from different points on the political spectrum. So there is no easy answer to most parties' political position.
Wikipedia is based on third-party, independent, reliable sources. Edits cannot be sustained on the personal views of editors.
Reliable sources do not necessarily agree. If they do not, Wikipedia should cover major opposing views, but not give undue weight to fringe opinions. Thus, having one or a few reliable sources saying X does not necessarily mean that a Wikipedia article should say X if the large majority of reliable sources say not-X. We do have to consider the broad view across multiple sources. As part of that, we should also favour reliable source articles about the topic at hand rather than comments in passing. Remember the historical dimension too: we should prefer up-to-date citations.
The infobox is a summary, not a definitive description. The article text can go into the matter at hand in depth, discussing different views of UKIP's position, different aspects of UKIP's policies, citing a range of opinions (centre-right, far right, libertarian), while at the same time the infobox plumps for a brief or briefer summary. Bondegezou (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia MOS "Words to Avoid"

[6] states:

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter

Appears to be concise and accurate. Collect (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Critics call UKIP election campaign 'racist'

Would the current controversy concerning the UKIP party election campaign have due weight for inclusion? There are numerous sources noting this and discussing the argument by either side. I would propose text stating the racism controversy, and then the defense by Nigel Farage. Sources range from BBC News to the Guardian to Sky News and more, with some siding more with the critics, and others with the party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27105374 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/21/nigel-farage-ukip-election-campaign-racist-immigration-european-parliament http://news.sky.com/story/1246507/farage-defends-racist-ukip-poster-campaign http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4068914.ece http://news.sky.com/story/1246971/were-ukips-racist-posters-really-a-surprise http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10778066/Ukip-posters-are-hard-hitting-reflection-of-reality-says-Nigel-Farage-as-party-pledges-to-spend-3m-on-Euro-elections.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/22/ukip-poster-nicholas-soames-_n_5190388.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad that you include sources which say nothing of the sort.

The BBC one does not use "racist" or "racism" at all.

Guardian has "critics call ads racist" in a headline - but not in the actual article. Headlines are not "reliable sources" as they are written to get readers "hooked" and not to be accurate per se.

SkyNews attributes the words to a single Labour MP The ads are "racist", according to Labour MP Mike Gapes, spinning "dangerous fallacious nonsense".

Telegraph attributes the "racist" claim: it was attacked as 'racist' by some of his Labour opponents . Naming the same Labour MP by the bye.

HuffPo -- same Labout MP with it cited specifically as his words. So we have one Labour MP (who likely opposes UKIP on every imaginable issue) shouting "racism" and having no echoes.

Sorry -- your sources, at most, would support:

One Labour MP called the ads "racist."

Period. And I doubt Gapes is that major a personage to have his lone opinion notable here. Collect (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of Telegraph commentary as a fact source

First of all, material relating to specific living persons falls under WP:BLP. Thus any claims must be absolutely clearly supported by a fact-based source. The Telegraph blog is a commentary, and the entire article makes clear that "Farage wants to cut NHS" or the like is a misuse of the source.

The source states (we can not use the headline, as it is not part of the aritlce):

Between now and the May 22 elections the debate will obviously be about Europe: Mr Farage will do his best to tap in to voter anger with the Government. He hopes Ukip will come first as a result. But after that it gets serious. He and his party will come under sustained scrutiny for their economic policies. It’s here, in fact, that he hopes to cause maximum agony to David Cameron, by pressing the Tories harder on deficit reduction and spending cuts. In his interview today he specifically says domestic and economic policy will have to wait until after the Euros.

Is the relevant material.

His focus will be on spending cuts. The Coalition, he will argue, "has failed in its primary role to cut the annual deficit". The deficit is still vast, and overall debt continues to rise as a result. After May 22, therefore, Mr Farage intends to "outline the absolute necessity to cut government spending". And here he intends a flanking manoeuvre on the Tories.

Suggests that he is focused on all spending cuts. Saying he "wants to cut the NHS" is a poor reach here.

He will pledge to end the ring-fencing of particular spending: "ridiculous arguments" he told me, specifying the NHS and the triple-lock on pensions. "No, given the mess we're in everything needs to be on the table and thought about." If anything, it sounds a bit like Ed Balls’s "zero based" approach to spending that he announced recently.

Which rather suggests this is only a subsection of the UKIP seeking to reduce all deficit spending - sorry -- it is not primarily in any way about the NHS at all. And has nothing to do with reducing any services to anyone, either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Regions?

Is there an entity such as UKIP Scotland or UKIP Northern Ireland as given in the article? If there is, then is there an entity UKIP England and Wales, or is 'UKIP' specific to England and Wales? How is UKIP structured?--Flexdream (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There are UKIP members in Scotland and a UKIP MEP called David Coburn. As far as I know it is just UKIP. There isn't a "UKIP Scotland" or a "UKIP Northern Ireland" although there are members in all of these locations.(talk) 14:10, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

Defections

Bloom definitely isn't a 'defection', at all....and Natrass & Sinclair don't seem to be either. 92.15.61.7 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your point being...? Presumably renaming the section Notable defections & departures, for which they all qualify as departures is OK (though notable may be an issue). Emeraude (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what you said. I'd assumed...seemingly correctly...that my point was obvious. I was actually going to just delete those three (which sadly an IP can't get away with such GF edits these days), but this is okay too I guess, apart from Bloom...which I don't think is a 'departure' either as such, currently contradicts itself a little (whip was resigned or withdrawn?) and is somewhat inaccurate ('assault' 'audience'). I'mma rearrange them a little, & remove 'notable'. 92.15.61.7 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Removals seems a good word to group both removal of whip & sackings, so done that. Gonna look into non-MEP things too, eg movements in the lords are notable. 92.15.61.7 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

On third thoughts, the lord movements are already mentioned in the 'representatives' section....mebe some sorta merger is sensible. 92.15.61.7 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

How is Glasman not RS for his own opinions? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm sure Glasman is RS for his own opinion; I'm not suggesting he doesn't know what he thinks. But it is his opinion. That is a common wikipedia objection to content inclusion, just as you objected to The Guardian editoril as "opinion". 2. You are not quoting Glasman as a source for his opinion. You are quoting the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph is a RS for what Glasman told it; Glasman's opinion is not. That Glasman has given his opinion to the paper does not make his opinion reliable. 3. Regardless, what's the point in including it anyway? 4. If a source is reliable, it's reliable. There is no reason to label the source ("centre-left") by digging up a 10 year old piece just to make what appears to be your own political point. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems odd -- a newspaper reporting an opinion is a reliable source for what it printed -- that is the opinion of a person which can be used when ascribed as such. If we only allowed "self published opinions" the principle would be daft -- most opinions used in articles have been published by reliable sources because that is how WP:RS works. "Is the person notable enough to have their opinion cited?" is the only real issue, and, on its face, it appears Glasman is notable in the political sphere. Wikipedia has no standards for a "reliable opinion" that I can find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, does that not make your assertion earlier in the thread that "One Labour MP called the ads "racist." Period. And I doubt Gapes is that major a personage to have his lone opinion notable here." hugely hypocritical? Or is that because it is not a criticism of UKIP? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue then is Glasman's relative importance to the Labour Party and his relative significance nationally. Gapes appears quite non-notable within the Labour Party (decidedly not "front bencher" material). Glasman appears to be a nationally known figure and Labour Life Peer (which outranks local back-benchers). Though we could discuss whether this makes him "notable" I suppose. Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Gapes comment was certainly picked up by the press though. How exactly should we define which Labour MPs comments are notable and which are not notable? I agree that Glasman outranked Gapes, but I also think that, as he is an active MP, it is difficult to judge these sorts of things, and we have to turn to what it is they are saying, and whether it is relevant to the article itself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"a newspaper reporting an opinion is a reliable source for what it printed" That's not what I was saying. I've no doubt Glasman has expressed his opinion to the Telegraph - a reliable source - and they reported it, but that is not the same as saying that Glasman himself is a reliable source. He has given no reliable grounds for his opinion - he himself is not a reliable soucre. To take an analogy, if I tell the Telegraph that the earth is flat and they print "Emeraude says that the earth is flat", then what they have written is reliable. What I said is a load of bollocks! Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

One does not need to have "reliable grounds" for an opinion. As long as it is ascribed as an opinion, and is from a person notable in the field, it is simply an opinion. If we required all opinions to be "reliable" I do not know how we could ever decide on that "reliability" at all. Collect (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, but that's not the issue. It has been declared that Glasman is notable - there is no source for that and it didn't appear the first time this text was added. (Quote: "Lord Glasman, an advisor to Labour leader Ed Milliband". This became, in your later edit "Lord Glasman, a noted Labour politician".) Actually, a life peer is rather lacking in notability within the general scheme of things, and I'd be willing to bet that most people reading this have never heard of him. The key question is this: Why should this text be added to the article. I can only conclude that is to somehow give a gloss to UKIP; it is a fact that UKIP's current strategy is to target Labour supporters, knowing that if they only attract Tories UKIP won't win a general election, and if they attract enough Tory voters, Labour will. I must confess to being suspicious of the motives for including this and this feeling is not helped by your later edits. You deleted a whole paragraph from the lead. The rationale you gave was "the lead is a SUMMARY of the body of the article -- not a coatrack for allegations of racism which includes non-RS sourcing". The first part may be right, but the answer to that is to place the text in the article where it belongs, not to obliterate it. You then refer to it as a "coatrack" for "allegations" (they're NOT allegation) which includes "non-RS sourcing", which can only mean it includes RS sourcing (and it does: BBC News, Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News, CBC News, poliitics.co.uk plus several books and journals), rather defeating the point. The deleted text could be seen as critical of UKIP; is that why you removed it, because it does not present the image of UKIp that you want? Is that why you want this Glasman stuff in? It doesn't look right, does it? Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

""Life Peers" are not just ordinary party members. Collect (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true. Neither are Hereditary Peers. Or elected MPs. Or MEPs. Or the General Secretary. Or constutuency secretaries. Or candidates. Or the National Executive Committee. The point is, being a life peer is not necessarily a reflection of power or influence within the party and they vary greatly. Emeraude (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

More important re. Lord Glasman is who he *is* and has done, rather than what his "rank" is. He's been described as "guru, leading policy adviser and Ed Miliband's magus", and more recently as Ed Miliband's "close ally". All that said, I'm not sure the quote belongs in "Policies"; wouldn't it fit more logically somewhere in UK Independence Party#Voter base? Alfietucker (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Leads of articles are summaries of the content of the article. Use of the lead for any other purpose is contrary to guidelines and policies. This includes use of non-RS sources to make allegations not dealt with in the body of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See above. If the place is not the lead, you should have moved to where it belonged, not obliterate. Explain how you think that BBC News, Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News, CBC News, poliitics.co.uk plus several books and journals are not reliable sources. (I'm in two minds on Huffington post.) 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. The fact is that on all other articles for controversial parties, like Jobbik, BNP, and Svoboda, all their criticisms as "racist" or "far-right" or whatever are listed right out of the box out the lead. You'll say: "But UKIP is not like these 3 parties! It's just a normal party!" The fact, however, is that would simply be your opinion. I used at least 20 sources for just one paragraph (although they later were all combined into one reference), and included for example scholar sources which name UKIP as far-right. Although I agree with the consensus that was reached about not putting in "far-right" in the infobox, what I added to the lead clearly belongs there. The fact is that after something becomes "normal" people lose sight of any biases. For example, the English article about Jobbik neutrally lists all criticisms as "Neo-Nazi", etc. in the lead. However, the Hungarian article about Jobbik is totally devoid of any such information. Why? Because there Jobbik got accepted as a "normal" party and a high proportion of Hungarians support that party so they edit out any information which goes against it, producing a completely biased article which does not contain highly sourced information. The same thing is happening with the English version of the UKIP article - a high proportion of UK people now support UKIP so any controversy is edited out, no matter if half the articles about UKIP accuse it of what has been named. Therefore I believe I have made irrefutable points (except from a biased point of view) and proceed to revert to my neutral version. Zozs (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

One problem was the sources did not back up the claims made. There were two actual claims made - a group led by a Labour minister made a charge of a "racist campaign" and there was a poll saying that 27% of voters thought the UKIP was "racist". The editorial commentary etc. from non-RS sources was of no use. The asides about "far right" do not belong in the lead at all. As I have not the slightest connection to UK politics, I suggest that I may have a clear view of what belongs and what does not belong here. Collect (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So one of the 20 sources was mixed up, and what you do is remove the whole thing. Far right does not belong there? So can you please explain why in all articles for all similar parties, such claims always are in the lead? Zozs (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that burying information can fundamentally be the same as removal of information. And you don't even bother to move it, you just completely delete. I seriously doubt you are not biased in this topic. Zozs (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Right wing populism

Right-wing populism is the same thing as centre right, far right populism does not exist.86.136.58.132 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That is nonsense on so many levels. Populism can appear anywhere on the political spectrum; it is, in itself, neither left nor right not centre. The key issue is whether UKIP is right or centre right and given that sources in the article do not say it is centre right - the position usually ascribed to the Tories - and UKIP is to the right of the Tories, UKIP cannot be centre right. Emeraude (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting one, I think just "populism" would be more accurate. After all some of their positions are in line with left-wing populism, ie no Tax (inc NI) on the National Minimum Wage, scrap tuition fees completely and campaigning against the "snoopers charter". I'm obviously not saying that they are a left wing party but what I am saying is that the label "right-wing populism" isn't an accurate one, in light of these distinctive left-wing populist policies. All in all as far as "populism" goes, UKIP a mixed bag, a bit of everything, so I think it would be more accurate to change the label to just "populism". After all, it already says the party is "right-wing" under political position.Owl In The House (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The only bench mark we should use is what reliable 3rd party sources call them. I would point out that tabloids and comment pieces are not really considered strong sources for this kind of information. As far as I can see most sources describe them as Right-wing, if they also describe them as populist them Right-wing populist is a fair enough term to use. We should not however label them as Centre-right unless that can be reliably sourced to 3rd parties. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Having one or two policies (though it's hard to say - they deny having a manifesto!!) that are generally considered to lie to the left doesn't change their overall position. No party is 100% right wing (or left for that matter) and we need to consider the full party programme. We must also consider not just the UK position but the wider field of politics. For example, I cannot think of a single party in the UK that opposes the National Health Service, including extreme fascist groups. In the US, support for a NHS is most definitely a left position, but it doesn't make the BNP left wing! Emeraude (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with GimliDotNet. We follow what reliable 3rd party sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I take on board what GimliDotNet said, reliable sources is always the way forward. With respect, I'm afraid I shall disregard the comments made by Emeraude as they haven't really added anything to this discussion and ignored the point I was making. I once again restate that the party has both left and right wing populist policies but I also acknowledge that the overall categorization of the party's political position is "rightwing". Emeraude makes the point about overall position, that is reflected in the article by the political position label. What is not reflected is that the party has both left and right populist policies, UKIP can not claim to be a leftwing party, so it seems to make sense to just call them "populist". The BBC acknowledge their tuition fee stance here as a policy abandoned by the left What does UKIP stand for?. Owl In The House (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Have allowed plenty of time for further responses and not received any, so I shall WP:be bold. I shall change "right-wing populism" to "populism" as the party does have a number of left-wing populist policies as stated. Emeraude's argument is covered by the party's overall political position. Emeraude's argument is that "UKIP is to the right of the Tories", in the specific instance of "populism", that case is difficult to make when UKIP has some populist policies that are to the left of the Tories (eg: Tuition Fees). Just in case anyone chooses to assume bad faith and take my last sentence out of context, I am not arguing to change the party's over all political position, merely the populist part. No one has provided sufficient evidence to say that they do not have left wing populist policies, so I am being bold and making the edit. Owl In The House (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Slow down there. Having "allowed plenty of time for further responses" you might have noticed that there are none to support what you are doing: Wikipedia works on consensus and you have not demonstrated any for your proposal. Emeraude (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Owl, there is clearly no consensus for this change. It is not "being bold" to make a change after a discussion has clearly opposed it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you both give a response to my additional source? Also I have an alternative proposal: As opposed to labelling the party "right-wing", why not label it Big tent/catch all. The research of Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford certainly points to this, i.e. UKIP appeals to a wide variety/big contrast of sections of the population. From what Farage calls: "retired half colonels living on the edge of Salisbury plane" (Those on the right of the Tory party) whilst also appealing to the "left behind" working class voter who hasn't voted for over 20 years, often exLabour voters, as well as ex-LibDem voters. To me the current labelling situation does not bare resemblance to the reality, the sources used and the description do not reflect a variety of analysis out there, what they do is follow a specific media narrative.

Big Tent/Catch all, not Right-wing

If we are unwilling to simply change the ideology from "right-wing populism" to just "populism", then we should change political position from "right-wing" to "Big tent" or "Big tent/catch all" to best reflect the reliable sources that are available. Thinking about it, it is best to drop "righ-wing" and adopt "Big tent" because it seems more accurate and it can be much better sourced, especially considering the Goodwin/Ford research, among other sources, even the BBC are acknowledging this. Owl In The House (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Big tent is not a term widely accepted within the academic field of political science. Note that none of the references given in that article are from political science academics. It has about as much meaning as fascists describing themselves as "nationalist" just to hide their true nature. What you are proposing is that we accept your own view for the simple reason that it is your view. Wikipedia does not and will not do that - we depend on what reliable sources say, and it has been pointed out again and again that those sources (including Ford and Goodwin) agree that UKIP is right wing populist. They do NOT use the phrase "big tent"; they do NOT say it is left wing; they do NOT say it is not populist. There is really no point in prolonging this. Emeraude (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also worth noting that of the online sources quoted on the Big tent page, only one mentions the phrase, and then in inverted commas, and that the non-BBC sources are not exactly neutral.) Emeraude (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "neutral" in this context. BBC are certainly not at all neutral. It's farcical for any to suggest otherwise -- they're one of the most brazenly selective and biased sources of "news" there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for change. We have sources supporting the current wording. Most editors are happy with the current wording. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I do not have the time to give a full response to this or compile the sourcing but I will say that I have never encountered such an abrupt, discourteous and down right rude manner from an editor on a talk page, than I have yourself Emeraude. I am not as you suggest trying to force my view on to wikipedia, I am merely saying that the selection of sources is very selective. Indeed, it doesn't actually include Goodwin&Ford's book! Not sure if you've read any of it yet but it has actually been released and it is not currently sourced. Also you make a comment about sources not being "impartial", I have noticed some of the sources that you yourself have used for certain edits are far from impartial, so I will take no lectures from you on that but aren't most if not all sources in some way partial. May I remind you, that you are obliged to assume good faith and remain courteous, you haven't done either, I therefore dismiss your comment.

I will provide a proper sourced response when I can find the time to do so but for now, I'll leave you to address your poor manners. Owl In The House (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote - I have not been rude at all. You, on the other hand, have assumed that whatever you think goes, despite the weight of evidence and a clear consensus against your personal views. To pick me out for abuse is totally unfair and reflects the blinkered view that you have demonstrated throughout this debate, that, to be honest, should have ended ages ago if you had not repeatedly attemtped to introduce new irrelevance into a discusssion that has consensus, bar one participant, yourself. You are right - the article does not include Goodwin/Ford as a a source - no one said it does - you raised them as a source, I responded. Have I read their new book yet? No, not yet, and I never claimed otherwise (but I have read numerous reviews and articles they have published about the book). You may dismiss as many of my comments as you like - it remains the case that you have lost the argument and are clearly a bad loser and Wiki time waster. Emeraude (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)