Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 13

Far-right
Why are the several scholarly sources which label this party as "far-right" completely ignored in this article? It seems the UKIP followers have won again, through veto-ing rather than the following the guidelines and through creating ad hoc rules for this specific article. Zozs (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Namely:
 * Dr Ashley Lavelle (28 March 2013). The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-1-4094-9872-8.
 * Arthur B. Gunlicks (25 October 2011). Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union. iUniverse. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-1-4620-5725-2.
 * Helen Margetts, "Single Seat" in Josep M. Colomer (ed) Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, 1 August 2013, ECPR Press, ISBN 978-1-907301-57-5, pages 51

Zozs (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You do know that iUniverse is a print on demand publisher? So fails SPS. And as this has been done to death just recently one might think you ought to drop the stick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it's far right, but as suggested above, the UKIP followers have managed to veto this. Never mind - "right-wing" lumps them in with everyone from the Tories to the BNP to Hitler!! Emeraude (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the mass of literature that deals with UKIP (or political parties in the UK in general, or Eurosceptic parties) these references look rather "cherry-picked" as none of them deals with UKIP in detail, they only mention the party in passing. Therefore, it does not look like they were representative of the mainstream literature opinion about UKIP's place in the political spectrum. Why should we choose a book about "the Death of Social Democracy" or a chapter about "Single Seats" when trying to determine UKIP's political position? --RJFF (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally think UKIP contains far right elements, attracts far right support and has some policies/positions that are farther to the right. However, I don't think it is accurate to broadly call the party "far right" and I think most reliable sources back that up. As per RJFF, the citations offered above are not ideal and we have to consider the range of what different sources say. (I would rather call UKIP populist, anti-modernist or even Poujadist.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because an article or book is by an academic doesn't mean it doesn't have a political bias, you know. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Just because some academics have called UKIP a far-right party doesn't mean it is. Does it attract some far-right supporters? Yes. Does the Conservative Party? Yes. Does the Labour Party still attract some far-left supporters? Yes. Does that make any of them extremist parties? No, of course it doesn't. UKIP's opponents attempt to label it pejoratively in order to discourage people from voting for it. It's a common political tactic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On p. 43, Lavelle explains that there are different terms used to mean the same same thing and why she uses the term "Far Right." We call UKIP "right-wing populist" in the article, which conveys the same meaning as Lavelle's description.  It would be wrong to call it "Far Right" without explaining what we mean by that term.  In most sources, the term "far right" is used exclusively to refer to neo-fascist groups, and it would be wrong to imply that UKIP is neo-fascist when sources do not say that.  It occupies the ideological space between the Conservatives (moderate right) and the BNP (far right).  TFD (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again it needs to be pointed out that "I personally think..." and "I don't think it is accurate..." are not the way we do things in Wikipedia. We go with the reliable sources, and the gold standard of such is peer-reviewed academic journals. Of course academics have personal views - they are human beings and entitled to them - but the whole process of peer-review is to ensure that these are not included, as if any academic would need reminding.
 * The key issue about UKIP's political position (or any other party for that matter) is not what support it attracts, but what its programme/policies/philosophy are. Thus, UKIP is undoubtedly on the right, but it is not far right because it has attracted ex-BNP voters. (Which is not to say it not far right.) Neither are any of the other parties mentioned "extremist" just because some extremists vote for them. Besides, there is nothing pejorative about being right or far right.
 * I can't fully agree with TFD that "In most sources, the term "far right" is used exclusively to refer to neo-fascist groups", simply because there is no evidence that most sources actually do that. Neither is far right synonymous with fascist ("extreme right"). [Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin in their work on UKIP, Revolt on the Right, distinguish UKIP from "the extreme right-wing BNP". (p.13)]
 * Regardless, the sources above (which, generally, are reliable) do not reflect the mainstream of academic opinion at this time and we have already decided (see archive, ad nauseam) that they are not sufficient to justify the use of "far right" at this time. Emeraude (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See Clive Webb, Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, p. 10. " [T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."  Or do a google search.  "far right" returns mostly books about neo-fascists, while "right-wing populism" returns books mostly about parties like UKIP and neo-fascists.  Although I have no problem with saying both UKIP and the BNP are to the right of the mainstream parties, it is misleading to say that the BNP and UKIP are generally seen as the same.  Or do you not notice any difference, superficial or otherwise between the two?  Would you rather find youself in a pub full of BNP or UKIP?  TFD (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Who's buying? You're right, of course, that it is misleading to say that BNP and UKIP are generally seen as the same - they clearly are not - and I hope that nothing I have written here suggests I think otherwise.Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would also be quite easy to select acceptable sources that describe UKIP as centre right. For this reason "right wing" is the best description. It is the most accurate way, although not the most precise way, of describing the position of UKIP on the political spectrum. Atshal (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that there are sufficient reliable sources describing UKIP as centre right for our purposes, just as there do not seem to be sufficient for far right. However, as I suggested earlier, simply calling them right wing lumps them with everyone from Cameron to Hitler; it is certainly not precise and I would suggest not at all accurate. It's the political equivalent of having only two colours in the electromagnetic spectrum, say yellow and blue, to cover everything from radio waves, infrared, ultra violet and gamma rays. Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. It is easy to cherry pick sources - Phillip Lynch of Leicester University, for example, repeatedly describes UKIP as centre right. Rightfully, nobody is suggesting we describe UKIP as centre right and, for similar reasons, it would be wrong to describe UKIP as far right. Also - you need to learn the difference between 'precise' and 'accurate'. 'Right wing' is highly accurate, but not precise. Atshal (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. Here's one for you: something is either accurate or it is not; it cannot be 'highly accurate'. My point is - and I don't think we seriously disagree here - that it is so accurate as to be totally meaningless within the context. Whatever, this discussion is really all rather pointless, since previous archived efforts have already ruled on this and nothing has changed since to materially alter that decision. Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that we do not agree - you said that calling UKIP right wing is "not at all accurate", when it clearly is highly accurate. By the way, highly accurate means there is a high probability of the description being correct - the addition of the word "highly" is a comment on the likelihood of the term "accurate" being appropriate. And no need to thank me for the vocabulary lesson - always happy to inform and educate! Atshal (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oxford English Dictionary:
 * accurate, adj.
 * 2. Of a person: careful, precise; tending not to make mistakes or errors; correct. 3. Esp. of information, measurements, or predictions: exact, precise; conforming exactly with the truth or with a given standard; free from error. 4. Of an instrument or method: producing, or capable of producing, precise or correct results.
 * Emeraude (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"UKIP proposes to allow EU citizens who have been domiciled in the UK for seven years to apply for citizenship"
That would be actually an increase from the current 5 years actually.It would also mean immigrants from EU would have to wait longer than non-EU immigrants for citizenship. Which seems to be in line with UKIP policies. Overall, the line probably needs a short note that this is an increase from the current limit.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anti-immigration not their core policy?
Strange how the opening lines of the page and the infobox does not say that this is a party that is against mass immigration? 58.178.104.178 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not strange because their primary goal is for the UK to leave the EU. TFD (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD above - UKIP are certainly, at least until recently, a one issue party concerned with leaving the EU. Immigration policy is one facet of this, and UKIP definitely want to cut immigration - but I imagine this is better dealt with by inserting cited material in the appropriate policy section in the body of the article. Please feel free to do so. Atshal (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * UKIP is not anti immigration. It believes in controlled immigration. Zenostar (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Should Libertarianism be added to the ideology section in the infobox

 * support I believe it should. Zenostar (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote on contents. You need to provide arguments for your idea, namely reliable sources that would establish that UKIP is usually described as a libertarian party by third-party analysts (preferably political scientists). We have had this discussion before (e.g. Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 12, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 8, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 5, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 5, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 3) The necessary references have never been provided. --RJFF (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support There are plenty sources, from UKIP's own descriptions of itself, to political scientists. From UKIP's own webpage: ''2.5 The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party and will espouse policies which:
 * promote and encourage those who aspire to improve their personal situation and those who seek to be self-reliant, whilst providing protection for those genuinely in need;
 * favour the ability of individuals to make decisions in respect of themselves;
 * seek to diminish the role of the State;
 * lower the burden of taxation on individuals and businesses;
 * ensure proper control over the United Kingdom’s borders;
 * strengthen and guarantee the essential, traditional freedoms and liberties of all people in the United Kingdom.''
 * Ed Rooksby teaches politics at Ruskin College, Oxford. Here is his Guardian article that cannot really be much clearer in its title; UKIP are true Libetarians. Perhaps it makes some uncomfortable that UKIP is Libertarian, but it shouldn't really. Reaper7 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm with RJFF on this. The issue has been discussed before and evidence for describing UKIP as libertarian has been found lacking. True, UKIP described itself as libertarian, but the Nazis called themselves socialist and most major fascist groups in post-war Britain (eg, NF, BNP) have described themselves as democratic. Self-description doesn't count for much. We do not and should not accept something is so, just because the subject says it is. Besides, much of what you have quoted from UKIP above is nothing to do with libertarianism so much as simple right wing policy and dogma. I notice you have given just one source from an academic, which is a newspaper comment piece and not an academic paper, so no deal there. (But, as an aside, interesting to note that Rooksby comments that "libertarianism and fascism have long been bedfellows" and describes UKIP in his conclusion as far right.) Emeraude (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No. The purpose of info-boxes is not to list every possible beleif system a supporter of a party can have, or all the possible ideologies that influence them, but to provide a concise, uncontroversial description of the party type.  TFD (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The party describes itself in its constitution as a 'democratic, libertarian party'." is in the opening paragraph and in my opinion is sufficient. I don't think UKIP are widely described as libertarian. Atshal (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Atshal and Emeraude. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Membership section
The membership numbers graph in that section appears somewhat unbalanced with the text appearing above it as opposed to beside it as with other infoboxes. I don't have enough experience with editing to make this change, could someone with the requisite skills please see what they could do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBFCPresident (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd question whether the table is of any real value. There is enough narrative in the preceding text - more than enough - I would have thought. There's a real danger that every time a new figure is announced it gets added to the table (and text) and the whole thing becomes unwieldy. I think we had this problem a year or so back. Emeraude (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I also do not see a point in having a table with historic membership numbers. I think the article would be better with the table removed, but retaining a brief description of the general trend of membership (as already exists). Atshal (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox should read centre-right, not right wing
The party clearly states it believes in immigration based on a points system like in Canada, free treatment on the NHS, etc. Zenostar (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is easy to find reliable sources that describe UKIP as "centre right and others as "far right". For this reason "right wing" is the best description of the broad position of UKIP on the political spectrum. Atshal (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, what the party states is rarely that clear and the whole of its 2010 manifesto has been repudiated while it works on new policies; regardless the two policies mentioned on their own do not make UKIP centre right. (The BNP advocates free treatment on the NHS; and I'm not aware that any UK political party, right or left, suggests otherwise.) In answer to Atshal, it is not easy to find reliable sources that describe UKIP as centre right. About the only ones to do so you have mentioned before - Phillip Lynch "Explaining support for the UK Independence Party at the 2009 European Parliament elections" (2011) and "The UK Independence Party: analysing its candidates and supporters1" (2011) in which he says that UKIP is centre right, but gives no reason for this assertion. The articles are, in any case, concerned with the self-ascribed positions of its supporters in 2009 and not its policies or leaders. That is not, I would suggest, sufficient to pin UKIP's position down to anything more vague than right wing. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is easy actually - 5 minutes and Google is all you need! 'Right wing' is definitely better than either 'centre-right' or 'far-right'. Atshal (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And then several hours sorting out that most of them are pretty poor - that's Google for you. But you're right: with the sources we have right wing is the only acceptable wording. Emeraude (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would remove the field which is not in the template anyway. It only causes us to argue across hundreds of articles whether the type of party that UKIP is should be considered right-wing or whatever, and the same types of arguments occur for the other types of parties.  Incidentally the source provided did not say that UKIP is center-right, but that Ukippers placed themselves on average slightly to the right of center.  They placed the Conservatives slightly to the left of center.  So they generally agree about their relative position in the spectrum, they just disagree about where the center lies.
 * And while it sounds moderate to say that they only want to adopt policies that a relatively tolerant country like Canada has, 20.7% of people in Canada are immigrants, compared with 12.4% in the UK, according to the UN as quoted in List of countries by foreign-born population. I do not think they want to see those levels in the UK.
 * TFD (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Another case of the right wing not wanting to admit to being right wing. If you are too ashamed to admit that you support a right wing party, perhaps you shouldn't suport a right wing party. Nothing about the ukipper's policies, bar a few populist bones thrown to Sun readers, suggests that the party is anything but what the whole world understands, and encyclopedias define, as right wing. Pollythewasp (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014
Please correct apostrophe error in the final sentence of the introductory section, which should have 'its' rather than 'it's'.

Thanks!

147.114.44.208 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

✅ - by another - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Page notice
Both by-elections have been contested, the page notice can be removed by an admin &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Local government
UKIP has 600 councillors now? That's not what the source states. LeopoldMarsh (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. The number increase was slipped in by User:SleepCovo at 00:00 on 22 November 2014‎ (when everyone else was asleep I expect). Restored and access date updated. Emeraude (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten lead section
I feel that the current lead is bloated and fairly incoherent in structure and the choice of content. I have had a go at rewriting it in order to make it concise and include only broad material pertaining to the significance and position of UIP in the UK political scene, and very brief history. Mainly, I have removed things like the dates that Nigel Farage got elected, and material that sounded like UKIP blowing its own horn a little too much e.g. "biggest surge for a fourth party" etc.

Opinions appreciated - perhaps we can do a few revisions of this before adding it to make sure we have a consensus.

Atshal (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not bad. I'd suggest that "UKIP" is used throughout after the first para. Also, in para 3, might be better to mention representation in Commons and Lords before EP. Emeraude (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Is "UKIP" really a colloquialism or merely an acronym? It's clearly different to the Republicans being called the "GOP", because that isn't their own abbreviation &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed: remove "colloquially". Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Should it be put that UKIP is an acronym, as opposed to being referred to as U K I P? Or does the phonetic make sure of that? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "colloquially" is not the best choice of word here. I have changed the phrase "colloquially known as" to "commonly known as", which I think is better. New version below. Atshal (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer keeping "right-wing populist" rather than changing to right-wing because it has a clear meaning. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. (I mean, correct.) Emeraude (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have made a few adjustments given the feedback. For the initial description I have retained "right-wing", following the style of Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK), as this is the most broad and uncontroversial description of their position -and as with the articles for the other two parties, the lead goes on to mention how the party view themselves, and how others often view the party's position. Comments, of course, appreciated. Atshal (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right-wing can mean different things - it could refer to parties like the BNP or it could include the Tories or even the Liberal Democrats. Since the words we chose should be unambiguous, you would need to explain what you meant by right-wing.  I presume you mean right-wing populist.  TFD (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Justification for "right wing" over "right wing populist" in opening sentence.
 * There are a number of reasons right-wing is better for the opening sentence. In particular, there are a number of possible descriptions of UKIP that can and have argued for - far-right, centre-right, right-wing populist, libertarian, radical right etc. Right-wing is just a general catch all phrase, that is accurate but not very precise, and encompasses most possible descriptions. Secondly, and importantly, the lead should be a general description as it is the first thing that people read, and right-wing populist is rather a niche term and not widely understood, while everyone has an idea what right wing means. Thirdly, while right-wing populism may describe partly describe what UKIP, there are almost certainly aspects of there politics that are not right-wing populist. Fourthly, not everyone would agree UKIP is right-wing popullist - for example UKIP itself. Fifthly, the description of 'right-wing populist' is still included in the lead, and accurately described that this is how the party is often viewed. Sixthly, 'right wing' is much more widely used than "right wing populist" as a description for Ukip - a Google search for the exact phrase "UKIP is right wing" returns 7660 results while a search for "UKIP is right wing populist" returns 9 results. Seventhly, 'right-wing' is just a less controversial term than 'right-wing populist' and less likely to invoke endless edit wars. Atshal (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Version 2

 * Looks fantastically concise, nothing out of place at all and removed the airy-fairy over-egging of the version currently on the article. Has my support &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's still the old bugbear about "come first in a United Kingdom-wide election" as opposed to gained most votes/seats, the point being that a EP election is not the same as a race for a general election. However, I seem to remember this was discussed some time ago with no clear decision on better wording. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that that phrase is problematic. What do you think about replacing the end of the final sentence with "...and in the 2014 European elections when UKIP won 24 seats, making it the largest UK party in the European Parliament" and deleting the "making it the largest UK party in the European Parliament" from the second paragraph? Or possibly instead of "largest party", "most represented party", or something else? Atshal (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that would do it. It makes sense to keep the 24 with the other figures for representatives in the second para. UKIP's achievement in 2014 was to get the most votes, so how about "....when UKIP became the only party for over a century other than Labour or the Conservatives to receive most votes in a United Kingdom-wide election." ? Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Building on, what about "when UKIP received the most votes, the first time in modern history that a party other than Labour or the Conservatives has won a British national election." This quite closely follows the lead in this Guardian article from after that election: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-european-elections-political-earthquake. Atshal (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because they didn't "win" the elction, and neither was it a "national" election. That was the point of the previous discussion. "Modern history" is too vague - "century" is at least a definite time frame. I suggest "...when UKIP received the most votes, the first time for more than a century that a party other than Labour or the Conservatives has won most votes in a British election."Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I adapted the wording directly from an article in The Guardian. They did win the election, and it was a national election, I don't really understand the problem with this. UKIP were reported to have won the election in every major publication - I could provide links to The Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Mail etc. if you like. Agree with the comment about 'modern history'. 82.45.44.45 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC) < This comment was made by me Atshal (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 11 for previous discussion. Regardless of what some newspapers wrote at the time, if UKIP had won a "national election" then Farage would currently be residing in Downing Street. He isn't. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about we change "national" to "nationwide" to clarify the meaning? Atshal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

TWO Mp's in the House of Commons!
Reckless won, they now have two, get editing lads. 146.199.20.118 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume we all have penises! RomanSpa (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Editnotice
The Template:Editnotices/Page/UK Independence Party containing:

Has been deleted following this request on Template talk:Editnotices/Page/UK Independence Party:

Template-protected edit request on 6 December 2014
The byelection for Mark Reckless' seat has now passed, so this notice can be removed. Atshal (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Atshal (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * any objections to deleting this? — xaosflux  Talk 16:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. — xaosflux  Talk 15:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

UKIP should be referred to as drawing support from across the political spectrum
UKIP's support has changed substantially during 2014 and the term "right wing" should either become more qualified, as it no longer is not a true reflection of the party drawing it's support across the political spectrum, or due consideration given to it being removed. Polling by YouGov and commentary from the Guardian in November 2014 has shown that UKIP support has doubled since January 2013 from former Labour voters (7% to 13%) and grown from former Lib Dem supporters (15% to 17%) with former Conservatives down from 60% to 48% being less than half of all support now.

My two suggestions are that:

a) in the opening introduction the reference to being a "right wing political party" is simply changed to being "a political party" as it goes on to say it is "regarded as ... right wing populist" b) "regarded as ... right wing populist"  is also changed to  "regarded as ... right wing populist, although support is now being drawn from across the political spectrum".

This better reflects the changing shape of the party.

Neilpatrickwhelan (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that UKIP draws support from parties across the political spectrum has no bearing on where it is placed on the political spectrum. More importantly, the term "right-wing populism" refers to a family of parties.  Whether they are truly right-wing is beside the point.  But all these parties have in fact succeeded in attracting disillusioned socialist voters, many of whom would never vote conservative.  TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. The purpose of raising this topic is precisely the point about whether they are truly right wing and classified as such given the shift in support for the party, as per the citations given. Although the term "right-wing populism" is itself a disputed categorisation, I don't object to it as such, however, my suggestions stand that the page needs to reflect the change in support to incorporate the significant rise of left-leaning voters. One might also observe that a better term would be libertarianism or even anti-establishment as UKIP is ranged against all three main parties plus many parts of the media and state-sponsored BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpatrickwhelan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Neil. It was me who reverted the edit you made. I think the opening sentence of any article should be broad and uncontroversial and allow a completely uniformed reader to learn in an instant what the subject of the article is. So, for example, a reader from Australia who has never heard of UKIP can read the first sentence and know that UKIP is a right-wing political party from the UK. That is succinct and accurate without superfluous information obfuscating the information that person really wants get from the lead. If they want to know a bit more about the type of people who support UKIP, they would probably go to the section called "Voter Base", which is where I would suggest you add this information. I would not be totally averse to removing "right wing" from the first sentence completely, but the inclusion of a broad term describing the alignment of the party is in line with how the articles for other major parties - e.g. Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems - are written. Atshal (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Atshal, thank you for your comment which makes perfect sense. I would be happy to write this into the Voter Base section if there is no objection and expand on the libertarian nature of the party if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpatrickwhelan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm all for that. Atshal (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article says, "an adviser to Labour leader Ed Miliband, said that in his opinion Labour voters who defected to UKIP may never return because the party is failing to address concerns on welfare and immigration." There should be more about that.  But the gist of right-wing populism is that the old parties are all the same, they are a corrupt part of the establishment, the real issues are quite simple, and the left-right spectrum is meaningless,  Nonetheless, the only parties they have any possibility of aligning with is the traditional Right, such as Tories in the UK.  TFD (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD, thank you for your comment which raises an interesting point about whether aligning with a right-wing party means you should more likely be classified as right wing yourself. This is certainly counter to the current coalition of course, but I do understand your sentiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpatrickwhelan (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The right-left spectrum refers to policies, i.e to parties themselves, and not to individual voters. People change their views all the time (several studies in the past, for example, have found that people become more right wing as they age, but this is, of course, in relation to their original position) or we wouldn't actually need elections other than for new voters! That UKIP is attracting support from voters who previously voted Labour says a lot about those voters but absolutely nothing about UKIP. It may be, for example, that they were always to the right of Labour supporters anyway. This is an issue for voter base, not the lead or anywhere that is describing UKIP policy or position, which has not signficantly changed. Incidentally, what evidence there is is even stronger for what happened to the BNP vote - it went to UKIP - but no one is suggesting we should now classify UKIP as fascist. Are they? Emeraude (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Membership up to 42,057 as of Dec 2014
Source is Patrick O'Flynn, worked for last membership update. - https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/545211056038363136 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.161.154 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

See previous discussions on membership figures. It is not necessary to keep updating figures every time a new member joins and we need an independent source, not a Twitter note. Emeraude (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So the twitter source used for the current figures are somehow more credible than these ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.161.154 (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Equally unreliable. Emeraude (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Powell conection
Should the proven correspondence between UKIP and Enoch Powell in the 1990s be included in its early history? He endorsed three candidates and turned down running for the party twice. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11291406/Revealed-how-Nigel-Farage-and-Ukip-begged-for-Enoch-Powells-support.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11290715/The-Ukip-letters-to-Enoch-Powell.html


 * Maybe if there was dedicated page to Ukip's history but seeing as the main article is already getting too long, I'd say its not really worth putting in trivial information such as the party courting a retired politician for support. Tomh903 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on those links no. You need to establish that it is significant, which will come with other papers repeating the story, UKIP replying, politicians commenting, etc.  My guess is that will come, but I would wait a couple of days.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And even then, it's probably not worth more than a sentence or two. Emeraude (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pound Shop Enoch Powell

As well as highlighting the links between Powell and UKIP, might not Wikipedia use a sentence to mention that - on BBC Question Time - the UKIP leader has been called a "Pound Shop Enoch Powell"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.86 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In the world of politics, ad hominem insults are ten-a-penny, and Wikipedia would look a frightful mess if we included every single one of them (on balance, we would need to insert the equally vibrant insults directed at Russell Brand). I really don't think that one quote by a comedian the other day weighs that heavy on a political party founded 21 years ago. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

“Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Wikipedia

Given this section highlights links between Powell and UKIP, it could be called practical reasoning to mention the quote about Farage being a 'Pound Shop Enoch Powell'. A ten-a-penny empty insult, or a degree of truth about a party that had links with the hard-right MP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.83.149 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Brand didn't know of this connection, nor did he even imply knowledge of Farage's broadcast admiration for Powell. That particular insult would be misplaced ib such a section. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While it is unlikely that Russell Brand was aware of this connection - or Farage's admiration for Powell - is not the point that the Powell link and Pound Shop Enoch Powell comment came together in a way that is interesting/reportable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.230.229 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

'Nicholas Fromage' kicking immigrants off White Cliffs of Dover
"Ukip fury over phone app designed by school kids featuring 'Nicholas Fromage' kicking immigrants off white cliffs of Dover"

+ UKIP leader said game was 'risible and pathetic' and 'crosses the line'

+ The phone app was developed by students at Canterbury Academy

+ Called 'Ukik', the game aims to 'make a mockery of extremist views'

Mail Online, 22 December 2014

Given concerns that UKIP might be using crude tactics to raise its' profile, should not the high level media overage about the Ukik phone app be reported/reflected in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.86 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you're trying to imply that this will add to the article. What "crude tactics to raise their profile" are you on about? If there are enough sources, make an article for the game, but I can't see how much this minor tiff adds to the article &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This "minor tiff" (high level of media overage) adds to the article in that it highlights how the phone app story has something to say about the real nature of UKIP. Is not mentioning the "crude tactics to raise their profile" another way of saying that Ukik (sorry, UKIP) are a racist party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.83.149 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pitifully trivial and you sound as if you want to push an agenda for what you call their "real nature" &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

But you would say that, anyway! Others might consider that a phone app - featuring 'Nicholas Fromage' kicking immigrants off white cliffs of Dover - has something to say about the underlying nature of this party. Does not this, plus the high-level of media attention, make it an issue worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.230.229 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been no sustained coverage of this issue. There was a bunch of similar reports on 22/3 December and almost nothing since. Many things get a few media reports but are not worthy of coverage by an encyclopaedia: I don't this really warrants attention (unless we see it still being talked about over the next few months). Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As above. If it caused resignations or other notable effects on the party, go ahead. But it's of minute impact. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Richard Desmond
The Independent source features no reference to pornography - only to his newspapers, as that's what promotes political parties. I'm not denying that he is a pornographer - the same as other donors to other parties may have other vices - but it's not relevant to the story. The source doesn't think so, so why should we? It's the same as stories about David Gold usually refer to him as a football owner, rather than the pornographer that he is as well. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil, look at Talk:David Gold. Indeed, just like him, Desmond is more involved in other media than just porn, in the words of the user "Unless sensationalism is your aim!!??" &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Article looks ripe for rearrangement and aggressive pruning
Do we really need such a thorough rundown of the manifesto? Most of it is completely unsourced and it's not the wiki's job to publicise it for them. Is Young Independence even that notable? Also, there are several minor scandal-of-the-week paragraphs. Not everything that tips Twitter upside down and provokes a bunch of attack articles in the anti-UKIP Guardian newspaper is relevant.

Too many "On ..." type statements, such statements are often bolted on when they are topical but become irrelevent over time. Could need pruning?

The History section is a bit on the long side and the overall thrust of the article is somewhat lost scrolling through the early years and the Kilroy-Silk era. Perhaps it should be moved further down and more the more topical aspects of the modern party moved up?

Parties created by former UKIP members seems to be a random collection of little-known and failed parties. Maybe this section could be purged in its entirety?

The section on Media Coverage seems to be little more than a whinge about the BBC. Purge?

Just suggestions for someone knowledgable about politics and the subject. I dont know know enough about the subject to feel comfortable doing this myself without discussing it here first. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've been bold and purged the latter two sections as suggested. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation 164
Formatting is causing the page width to protrude beyond the regular width, tried editing but caused a further error. Can someone with more referencing experience deal with this?

-wph 22:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walpurgishacked (talk • contribs)

Young Independence Merge
Young Independence was merged into this article on the 27th of December 2014. This was due to the fact it contains unreferenced content or content where the sole reference is the organisations own website. It is also worth nothing that the previous AfD page had a result which was delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to remake the YI article as it has over 3000 members and as such merits a wiki article. I can find plenty of other media references to YI too. Williambatesuk (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot do it as I am not senior enough on wikipedia but YI is notable. I can find a number of media citations for it and I dispute the fact that it is non-notable given it has more members than Liberal Youth which merits an article. A much superior article can be written with reference to a number of impartial sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambatesuk (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also dispute the relevance of the 'controversies' section as if Young Independence does not merit an article how can a county deputy chairman leaving it possibly be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambatesuk (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Party membership
This looked useful for here and the article on the Greens. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is also useful for the official figures for January 17th — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kparky (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015
Membership (January 2015)	Increase 40,094 (party estimate)[2] This is out of date Please see: https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/545211326076059648 UKIP membership as of today: 42,057. A new all-time record.

Kirk kus (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  02:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated information
A paragraph within 'Removals and suspensions' talks about Olly Neville and Richard Lowe. The exact same information is repeated in the Young Independence 'controversies' part at the bottom. Can we remove the former? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.162.250 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Policies Section
The Policies section here is substantially larger than those of other political parties including even the UK Conservative Party's entry. It looks like a copy and paste job from a UKIP website and given that the party is not going to be forming a govt it seems illogical for it to need a greater section devoted to this than the Liberal Democrats or other fringe parties. Many of the subsidiary points are less salient than the principal point in each section and I think would be best cut or lessened, however the actual doing so would, I believe, require debate as to what goes and what stays rather than 1 person rushing in and butchering everything. Neither do I think it should stay as it is though it is cumbersome and looks like a Party Political Broadcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roterbaron (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the policy section is bloated. I think it is important to have something on UKIP policies, as policy represents something fundamental to any party, but as things stands the section seems more like a manifesto than encyclopaedic article. Ironic as well, since UKIP does not even have a proper manifesto. I think it might be hard to find a balance. I would suggest deciding on a small number of general headings, and put some detail in each about significant policies. The headings I recommend would be something like - "Economy", "Domestic", "Foreign" - and we only include the most significant (and importantly current) information. Atshal (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Democratic, libertarian
Why has the long standing line "The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party" (with reference), been removed from the opening paragraph? Where is the reasoning for this? 87.113.191.151 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the lead that was agreed by consensus late last year. I believe a single editor reverted it at the start of January. Atshal (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukip
The British press uses Ukip as the UK Independence Party's acronym, not UKIP, as can be seen on the websites of the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Times, Scotsman, Spectator, and New Statesman. I suggest Wikipedia, in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, do the same. Rothorpe (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at some point last year about this, and the consensus was to leave it as it currently is. Perhaps look up the discussion in the archive and if you have something new to add then reopen the discussion? Atshal (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Political spectrum
Isn't UKIP 'far-right' as opposed to "right-wing"? Or at the very least "right-wing/far-right"? Doc H e u h (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We should not use that field for the infobox. We know where in the UK political spectrum UKIP lies - to the right of the traditional parties, and what type of party it is, but whether that is right-wing, center-right etc. just creates pointless arguments in articles about hundreds of articles about political parties. TFD (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. There is an established spectrum, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so it belongs. UKIP obviously lies to the right of the 'traditional' parties, but it is not a pointless argument at all. UKIP is somewhere between right-wing and far-right, it therefore would be as wrong to say right-wing as it is to say far-right. Doc H e u h (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is an established political spectrum then you should be able to tell me the name of one political party that is dead center and show that that there is consistency in its being described as such. Far right btw usually refers to fascist, neo-fascist parties and related groups such as the BNP.  TFD (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC):
 * Liberal Democrats are self-desribred radical centrists. Doc H e u h (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What we think is irrelevant: we must follow what reliable sources say in an unbiased manner. Prior discussion using that approach yielded the current wording. If you want to change that, show the weight of reliable sources supporting your proposal. Bondegezou (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Self-description is not necessarily reliable. But if it were, that would mean that every other party in the world could be described as left-wing or right-wing based on whether they were to the left or right of the Liberal Democrats.  U.S. Democrats and Canadian Liberals for example would be right-wing parties.  TFD (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. "Right-wing" is very general but is accurate - UKIP are most definitely right wing. The problem with trying to be more specific is that "far-right" means different things to different people and multiple different right wing categorisations have been used to describe UKIP - "populist right", "radical right", "far right", "centre right", "libertarian right" etc. Which one should we choose? "far right" is not particularly commonly used in academic articles on UKIP. Right-wing is an accurate catch all, and the broad terminology is also in line with how other leads have been written for major parties Atshal (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The most authoritative work on UKIP is Ford & Goodwin, Revolt on the Right (Routledge, 2014), which refers to UKIP throughout as "radical right". This helps to explain where UKIP has emerged from and sets it in the same context as other radical right groupings in Europe with which they deal, but, unfortuately, nowhere is radical itself sufficiently well-defined to make an accurate placing on a left-right spectrum. The only certainty is that UKIP is to the right of the Tories but not as right as BNP which, all in all, is pretty vague. Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What does this map show?
The map in the "Local government" section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Local_government) is not well explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.161.28 (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Odd wording
"widely regarded as Eurosceptic" reads oddly here, as if this was a matter of interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.161.28 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unlike some designations which can be considered epithets and disputable, I don't think there's any doubt that UKIP is Eurosceptic and proud of it. A party which exists for EU exit and uses every opportunity to criticise that entity can not honestly be called anything else. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but that makes the wording even more odd: "widely regarded as". Who regards it otherwise? Emeraude (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, that's exactly the point. "widely regarded" is used to describe opinion, not fact. I would say it is an undisputed fact that UKIP are Eurosceptic. 109.145.180.92 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevant sentence ends: ".. is widely regarded as Eurosceptic and right-wing populist"; the "widely regarded" also applies to right-wing populist. Now, I'd say that that is also undisputed. My solution would be to simply delete "widely regarded". Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has been changed to reflect this, and it seems a good change to me. Atshal (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help with condensing
I moved the history section to a new article. Please help condense the remaining History section, I have done quite a bit but more must still be done. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Good changes. I think the representatives section and the defection to/from UKIP section both need trimming too and can both probably be moved to the new page as they both read like continuations of the history section. I may get round to doing this at some point, unless someone else gets there first. Atshal (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Green arrow
I have noticed before, I think, at other articles too, the green upwards-pointing or red downwards-pointing triangles next to infobox membership numbers. I think these are inherently confusing. On mouseover the green triangle here reads "Increase"; at worst this could be understood to mean that the figure given is an increase rather than the total (I assume it doesn't mean that), and at best it is too vague about what the increase is measured against. Increase since when, and by how much? In the case of fluctuating membership numbers, you could make it red or green as you choose, just by taking different intervals. 31.51.1.15 (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about the little triangles, too confusing as to what they mean, taken from what date? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

civic nationalism
Should this be added to the ideology box:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/bnp-ukip-voters-politics-immigration

"Ukip is a "civic" nationalist party, rejects "blood and soil" nationalism and claims to be "open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background". The BNP subscribes to an ethnic conception of nationalism that defines British identity by race and ancestry, and stems from an openly fascist, race-based ideology." GarrettTemplar (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why? Your source simply reports UKIP statements.   We require third party material to include it here  Snowded  TALK 20:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GarretTemplar. Which is a valid third party material? For example, British Unionism is citted from a NO third party material, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10945216/Nigel-Farage-to-stage-anti-independence-rally-days-before-Scottish-referendum.html

press media, I thing the same source as for Civic Nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY are clear that we are allowed to use UKIP's statements about itself, with care. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And with care does not mean accepting their statements at face value.  If included it would have to be qualified with "claims" or similar and I don;t see that this is notable or relevant  Snowded  TALK 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Primary sources should only be used if they are non-controversial or there are secondary sources to interpret them. No reliable source would call UKIP a civic nationalist party, unlike SNP or Welsh nationalists.  TFD (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It will generally be non-controversial to say something like, "UKIP describe themselves as..." Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But not in the infobox where any elaboration is not possible. And beware an article that is full of "describe themselves as" rather than what is given in reliable third party sources. Emeraude (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Trimming of article
The article is (correctly) tagged as being too long and in need of cleaning up. I have streamlined much of the post 2013 history and defections sections, removing what I consider to be unnecessary and unhelpful information and cutting it down to a more informative and clear version. I've made quite a few changes, and plan to continue this, so perhaps people can discuss the trimming of various sections here if there are disagreements. Atshal (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good changes to the Policies section today, but there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of UKIP's well-known policies on immigration. Since this is one of UKIP's flagship hobby horses, this is quite an omission. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. There was something on immigration before, but it consisted of a comment from Farage a couple of years ago about Syrian refugees, that didn't seem relevant or to be actual policy, and then a direct copy and paste of a chunk from the UKIP website, which I don't think is allowed. I agree there should be something in here about the immigration policy. Atshal (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any more "trimming" and you'll cut the scalp off...
I'm extremely concerned by the mass removal of a large quantity of sourced material in this diff from User:Atshal. UKIP is known for its opposition to immigration. Thanks to this ruthless cull of sourced data, the Policies section now contains no mention of their policies on immigration, on what they propose to do to replace the current system of immigration. How is that an improvement?

Detailed views on health, the environment, agriculture, culture/multiculturalism, same-sex marriage, business and education are now left out. How exactly is this helping readers? One of the whole points of a political party is that it has some policies and points of view. We owe the readers a comprehensive treatment of a parties policies and views.

I intend to restore a lot of the material that has been removed and I'd warn that bulk removal of well-sourced information is completely unacceptable. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of the material in the policy section was copy and pasted directly from the UKIP manifesto. As well this practise not being allowed on wikipedia, the page is not an advert for UKIP policy. I am not the only editor to point out the excessive length of this section, and others - indeed, the article is tagged correctly with an excessive length tag. By all means include succinct summaries of main policy points, appropriately sourced, but please do not reinsert the previous section, which were clearly excessive in length and just copied directly from the manifesto. The immigration material in particular was very poorly sourced and correctly removed. Atshal (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015
Per the comments at Talk:UK Independence Party above, please delete the confusing green arrow next to the membership figure in the box at the top right of the article.

86.152.163.58 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion on this first! I agree it's probably confusing, and without objections in the referenced discussion have gone ahead and removed the arrow from the infobox. Yes check.svg Done, thanks! -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Domestic - health policy
In the article the domestic section starts "On health, Farage has spoken in favour of an insurance-based health care system, UKIP's policy is to keep the National Health Service (NHS) and GP visits free at the point of use, as opposed to privatisation." This para should start with UKIP's current policy, not with an idea which its current leader used to support once in the past but no longer promotes. For those interested in what Farage said once but which was never UKIP policy it's repeated in the next sentence anyway. Snowded disagrees and thinks that Farage's previous opinion should take precedence over UKIP's policy and lead the paragraph, and should then be restated. What do other's think? --Flexdream (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Until last night, Farage's own most recent views on the NHS were put into the article by me. They can be summed up as advocating private insurance for certain cases and reform of the public system (because of Labour and unlimited immigration, as you would never expect him to suggest). At the moment, the line in this article suggests Farage wants a total scrap of the public system. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And perhaps he does! It is never clear whether NF's pronouncements are his own or UKIP's but since he claims to be the spokesman for UKIP we can assume that they are identical, can't we? To be honest, as a keen follower of politics, I can't say for certain what UKIP's position is for the NHS (or some other areas of policy, come to that). It would not be inconsistent for a "libertarian" party to scrap any state provision for health. Emeraude (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem in putting Farage's views as representative of UKIP as a whole. Of the seven parties in the debate, none of them come close to UKIP in the centralisation of the party to one individual. Then again, I am as in the dark as you on their policies apart from on Brussels. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm very dubious about changing the article based on reported statements during an general election campaign.  A published manifesto can be referenced as such I suppose  Snowded  TALK 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that Farage's statements belong in there, but also that the section should open with official party policy rather than Farage's previously expressed personal views. Farage is influential enough to warrant mentioning in the second and third sentences, but not the first clause of the first sentence of the section, especially when the party line - repeatedly stated by Farage himself - is that they had a debate and his ideas were rejected by the rest of the party. (FWIW I think rival parties have done a remarkably poor job in highlighting Farage's personal doubts over a universal and publicly-run NHS access, but it's not Wikipedia's job to put undue weight on it in the UKIP article for them)Dtellett (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As this article is about UKIP I think the section on health policy should lead with UKIP policy on health. I don't think that should be a controversial position. Farage's previously expressed personal views which he no longer supports don't seem to me to be that important or relevant. --Flexdream (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Or rather, "Farage's previously expressed personal views which UKIP no longer support". We can't be sure. Either way, if the views of a party and its leader diverge that is momentous and ought to be mentioned. Emeraude (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "if the views of a party and its leader diverge that is momentous and ought to be mentioned" sounds to me like you are trying to fabricate a disagreement. "UKIP leader Nigel Farage has clarified his party's position on the NHS after admitting he had once advocated a form of NHS privatisation... Mr Farage said it was an idea he "threw out for debate" two years ago. But he told the BBC that it was rejected and there is "no more debate, no more argument"" seems pretty clear to me, has there been something happened since? Why would anyone want to use this wikipedia article to pretend there is disagreement on UKIP health policy between the party and its leader?--Flexdream (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * With Dtellett's edit that's more NPOV of view now with the section on UKIP health policy actually leading with UKIP health policy. Did it really need all this discussion to satisfy those with a different view and who wanted to promote Farage's previous view and even to suggest there was a split? I guess so. --Flexdream (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

New article on UKIP support base
Matthew Goodwin tweeted a link to an analysis of UKIP supporters by Geoffery Evans and Jon Mellon. A response from Messrs Goodwin and Ford. Last word from Messrs Evans and Mellon.

It doesn't seem to be possible to add these to the Wikipedia article, but I think they are relevant.86.2.12.245 (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you make an account, you will be able to edit the article. What you are asking is that another editor spends considerable time reading the numerous articles you are citing, and then spend more time making additions to the UKIP page. I suggest you do this yourself, rather than ask other people to spend considerable time doing this. Alternatively, make a request for a specific change you want made to the article - for example, create an alternative or additional paragraph for that section, post it here and ask another editor to add it. Atshal (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly thanks 86.2.12.245 for really interesting academic sources though I'm just in the process of reading the first one. My initial thoughts are probably similar to yours i.e that they have a much broader scope than just a Ukip article and do deserve to be in Wikipedia.   Atshal is right in saying you should create an account simply so that your contributions can be recognized.  I'll make further comments about how to progess when I've finished reading. Regards JRPG (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

2012 Guardian leaked memo about hedge funds.
I'm struggling to find the alleged problem with this wp:rs edit. It's properly attributed, isn't wp:UNDUE and hasn't been followed as far as I can see by a denial. WP:OSE of course applies and I will happily support addition of any source which adds information to any political party on their web pages. I'm here as I hope we all are to help write an encyclopedia. Please operate as per wp:BRD and discuss before reverting.

Regards JRPG (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur Snowded  TALK 10:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'm struggling to see much notability to it: whilst it's likely true and appropriately sourced, it's unremarkable that UKIP think organisations with a lot of their money changing their attitude towards donating is critical. Given the evidence suggests the largest contributors to UKIP thus far are not associated with hedge funds, I'm not sure this one passes WP:undue at this stage, though the "strategy" reportedly coming from Farage and not some low-level functionary helps. For contrast, the Conservative Party has a sourced statement that "In the year after the 2010 general election, half the Tories' funding came from the financial sector" which is a far more obviously representative indication of strong links with the financial sector. That said, I'm also not inclined to revert without consensus. Dtellett (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a helpful and -as always -courteous response. Finance is a crucial aspect of all political parties, hence it's of interest to see an explicit reference to Farage aiming, albeit unsuccessfully, for hedge fund support. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dtellett. In fact, I think having a funding section at all is unnecessary - especially given that funders to parties are constantly changing.  We all know the major parties are funded by individuals and organisations - why do the details need to be included here?  The other UK political parties don't have similar sections - the Tories for example have a very brief section detailing the total amount of funding that that is it. Another example is the recent coverage of Labour courting a hedge fund manager - the story itself was clearly politically motivated in order to attempt to tarnish Labour's image and it is correctly not included in the Labour wiki page, despite front page appearances of the story in the UK media. The same is true of the information linking UKIP to hedge funds. The danger in having this section is that it will become a dumping ground for the numerous trivial media stories linking parties to funders. I say we just ditch this section totally. Atshal (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How any party is financed is of great importance. The editor who removed this seems concerned that it somehow expresses a bias, a slur or embarrassment against UKIP, which is unsustainable. It all depends on how one feels about hedge funds. You could say the same about accepting money from newspaper proprietors! They also claim that no such detail appears in the Labour Pary article. Maybe so (I haven't checked), but that is a fault with that article, not this. Emeraude (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a sad fact about British politics that money either buys disproportionate influence ..or appears to do so. The Electoral reform society has campaigned against large donations but until they succeed, parties need to be completely open and able to refute claims of bribery. The public is therefore entitled to know who is donating to whom so that claims that it hasn't influenced policy can be examined. JRPG (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Emeraude writes "How any party is financed is of great importance" but then goes on to say they haven't checked if the Labour article has a note on hedge fund donations. So the Conservatives get £1.5M from a single hedge fund manager, Labour get £600k and UKIP get £50k, but it's only the UKIP article which mentions funding from the hedge fund industry. How is that NPOV? JRPG states it's important to know if funding has an influence on policy. Aren't the much larger donations to the only two parties with a realistic prospect of forming a government more worthy of mention than what UKIP received? Why uniquely try to link UKIP with the hedge fund industry?--Flexdream (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You know what? I still haven't checked the Labour Party article. Nor the Conservatives. And I won't, because I do not edit those pages. If you think there are some deficiencies there, go and address them, but a lack of detail there does not mean we should lack detail here! Emeraude (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you know I don't think the Labour or Conservative articles are deficient, I think the same standards applied to those articles should apply to UKIP. You are determined that the UKIP article uniquely is edited to a different standard so as to link it with the hedge fund industry and you have no interest in applying that standard elsewhere.--Flexdream (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you think unless you say it. But you are not talking about standards so much as content: just because something is not mentioned elsewhere is totally irrelevant. I have no interest in editing Labour or Conservative Party articles; personally, I think any major sources of finance should be in those articles, but I'm not going to do it. And, presumably, you don't want UKIP to be seen as linked to hedge funds. Why not? Emeraude (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Question - Economic Policies
I notice it says UKIP would allow employers to discrimate against immigrants in favour of "young British workers". Is there an age range given in the manifesto? (Older British workers may argue it could be discriminatory against themselves!)Cloptonson (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A good question, and the answer is no (though it's worth noting that UKIP's youth wing was originally for everyone under 35!). In fact,, the manifesto says no such thing. What it actually says is that, for "small businesses", UKIP will "Allow employers to prioritise British citizens for jobs." (page 45). So the article appears to be wrong and I will edit it to reflect this. Emeraude (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Acting Leader
There has to my knowledge been no official mention of Suzanne Evans taking over as acting leader. I would recommend it be listed merely as vacant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.139.31 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * article currently lists paul nuttall in intro para, but Suzanne Evans in the sidebar, contradicting itself. -- 92.239.119.144 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request and requested edit on 9 May 2015
1. It was reported that Nigel Farage had only announced, either in or near Margate, in Thanet South, in Kent, that he would "recommend", in writing, presumably as part of his letter of resignation, to the UKIP National Executive Committee, that Suzanne Evans, UKIP Deputy Party Chairwoman, to be appointed to become UKIP Acting Party Leader. Nigel Farage did not announce that he had "appointed" Suzanne Evans, in his own name and by his own authority, independent of and bypassing the UKIP NEC. 

2. As far as I know, UKIP are not currently "led" by Paul Nuttall, as UKIP Deputy Leader, automatically, or by default, as if he were the Vice President of the United States of America; I am personally not aware of reports, official announcements from UKIP or personal semi-official announcements for UKIP to that effect.

3. There are TWO UKIP Deputy Party Chairmen: Suzanne Evans and Neil Hamilton. 

4. I personally feel that both Suzanne Evans and Neil Hamilton, as UKIP Deputy Party Chairmen, are both important and senior enough in the senior UKIP leadership or hierarchy, that their names should also be listed inside the Infobox, immediately underneath the name of Steven Crowther, UKIP Party Chairman.

5. UKIP HQ is most definitely NOT in Newton Abbot in Devon. It is (probably) ONLY the Postal Address for correspondence only. Quite possibly it is only a hired one under contract from a third-party mail-holding, OCR (document-scanning) and clerical company with their own external staff and employees, and with their own rented office space in an office unit within one of the buildings in a business park (King Charles Business Park) within an industrial estate (Heathfield (Heathfield Industrial Estate), TQ12), on Dartmoor, near the National Park (Dartmoor National Park) but also near Newton Abbot (Newton Abbot Town (proper)), separated by the A38 highway (although dated circa November 2008). The actual and current UKIP HQ was reported recently to be somewhere in Mayfair, in the City of Westminster, in [London Underground] Zone One of Central London, W.1. . -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (talk), Newton Abbott is their Main HQ. If you believe it to only be a Postal Address then I suggest you phone UKIP,

Lexdrum House, King Charles Business Park, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6UT

Telephone: 01626 831290. I have rung them on many occasions and their departments for running the party are there.User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 13:02, 4 July 2015 (GMT)

NEC
Who sits on this mysterious National Executive Committee that seems to me more powerful than the great man himself?137.205.183.86 (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015
On what grounds/proof do you base the comment 'Less educated voters'. I find the comment out of character for Wikipedia and a little prosaic. I also find it disturbing when insults like this - about the public - are published on your pages, after all this is not Facebook??? 87.114.42.105 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Already discussed above. It is a reported fact based on demographic data  Snowded  TALK 05:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I second Snowded's view here. Describing someone as "less educated" is not necessarily an insult in this context; rather, it is a statement of fact. Truth is, in the U.K. today, we have increasing numbers of younger people who have graduate degrees, while many in the older generation barely had a secondary school education and as a result had far fewer economic prospects in life. This is a sociologically observable fact, and it is also apparent that UKIP's support base primarily consists of this older, less educated and working-class sector of society, which is exactly what we state in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. Well-documented and adequately sourced. Emeraude (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)