Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 17

UKIP's comparative positioning within the left–right political spectrum
The word "right" appears 37 times in the UK Independence Party article with the wording "right-wing" being used on 12 of those occasions.

In comparison the word "right" appears 22 times in the article on the Conservative Party (UK) with the wording cenrtre-right" appearing 6 times in that article.  I am not sure that this comparative presentation is supported by reality.

However, in actual comparisons of the parties, Ukip was found to be considerably to the left of the conservatives to the extent that I think that there may be a fairly extreme case of WP:UNDUE in operation here.

Strikingly The Guardian, of all sources, commented (via headline) that Ukip has divided the left, not the right, and cut Labour off from its 'old' support while, towards the other end of the media spectruum, the Telegraph similarly commented [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11642724/Ukip-isnt-Left-wing-or-Right-wing.-Its-just-sensible.html Ukip isn't Left-wing or Right-wing. It's just sensible.]

Having said all this perhaps I can express my personal view on what is going on. Various commentators have taken the single issue of immigration and have taken that as a measure of left–right politics. However this type of classification does not always apply. There have in the past been various Unions who have been anti-immigration for the purposes of keeping their own jobs secure.

I know that for myself I hold anti-immigration view in the hope that the UK can be ecologically sustained on its own natural resources, not having reliance on imports of agriculturally produced materials (long sentence) and I hold this to be important as it is this that would potentially provide a trade environment that would allow currently impoverished countries to develop the same standards of living enjoyed in the UK. It is still possible to believe in even communism and still believe in borders.

If a country like China has border controls with a country like India this does not automatically classify China as being "right-wing". What I would argue is needed is an analysis of policy and, for this, consideration can be given to The UKIP Manifesto 2015 and The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015.

From this I would like to know what reasoned justification there may be for presenting UKIP as more (or even just as) right-wing in comparison to the Conservatives. This is not to say that there aren't right wing influences within Ukip. However I do not think that influences are as extensive as, say, bullingdon club type influences are on the tories. Voter support for UKIP certainly comes from a wider range of colours from within this political spectrum.

As far as I have so far seen, WP:UNDUE applies. GregKaye 17:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about what is true, but what is verifiable. Do you have reliable secondary sources that claim UKIP is not right wing? If you do you can edit the article to reflect those sources.  Otherwise WP:RS etc applies. 82.132.219.212 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is really interesting and a point I have been trying to put across, granted not as well as Kaye has done. If you look at UKIP's policies for example on the NHS, Schooling, housing, pensions and benefits system. They are inherently more left wing than the Conservatives. When you look at the same policy topics at the Conservatives, they have more policies that are inherently Right Wing. Taking their attitudes toward cutting benefits for instance to disabled people. UKIP have, regardless of what people say, a more liberal attitude towards immigration than people care to admit. Over 70% of people polled want reform to the immigration system, with some form of control installed to limit numbers. The current system to a degree prohibits Non-EU migration in favour of EU migration. A issue that UKIP want to address. My personal opinion as has been echoed above, is that the Conservatives are currently more Right Wing than UKIP in policy terms. I would place UKIP as being slightly Right of Center and Conservatives Right Wing. RoverTheBendInSussexRoverTheBendInSussex 12:22, 20 September 2015 (GMT)
 * I wonder if there's a risk of confusing whether anti-immigration attitudes can be characterised as necessarily right-wing, and whether UKIP can be. I agree that anti-immigration sentiment isn't necessarily the sole preserve of the right, and also that UKIP has won part of its support from voters who previously voted for left-wing parties. However, when we start to look at the party's other positions, I do think it emerges as more right-wing than the Tories. Consider capital punishment, same-sex marriage, foreign aid, defence, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, opinion and interpretation of editors is beside the point. We follow what reliable sources say. Editors on either side of this debate should focus their efforts on finding high-quality citations. See WP:OR and WP:RS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - I was just warning against the danger of reducing UKIP's political position to their stance on immigration alone. We should rely on sources that consider the party's ideological position in the round. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So, I went to Google Scholar and I typed in "UKIP" and restricted the search to papers since 2014 to ensure recency. In descending order, the hits were...

Mellon J, Evans G. "Class, Electoral Geography and the Future of UKIP: Labour's Secret Weapon?" Parliam Aff (2015) doi: 10.1093/pa/gsv013 This short piece says:

"while working class voters are a little more likely to support UKIP than other classes, numerically the bulk of UKIP's support comes from the middle classes. Second, using propensity to vote scores to measure which party's supporters are likely to be fertile ground for UKIP, we find that (i) 45% of current Conservative supporters have UKIP as a second preference, compared with only 19% of Labour supporters"

It also refers to the authors' earlier, longer article: Evans G, Mellon J. "Working Class Votes and Conservative Losses: Solving the UKIP Puzzle" Parliam Aff (2015) doi: 10.1093/pa/gsv005 This says:

"working-class voters are attracted to so-called ‘radical right-wing’ (RRP) parties such as UKIP in the many European countries in which RRPs have flourished."

Next hit: Webb P, Bale T. "Why Do Tories Defect to UKIP? Conservative Party Members and the Temptations of the Populist Radical Right" Political Studies 2014, 62(4):961–970 This paper repeatedly refers to UKIP as "populist radical right" and "radical right". Although they also conclude:

"This analysis shows a startlingly widespread willingness among current Conservative Party members to countenance voting for UKIP at future general elections. Those most likely to do so are cultural conservatives, but they are not overly right-wing on the distributional dimension of politics. They are particularly concerned about immigration and the EU."

The next hit, I couldn't access.

Next hit was the Evans & Mellon (2015) paper already mentioned above.

Next hit: Ford R, Goodwin M. "Understanding UKIP: Identity, Social Change and the Left Behind" The Political Quarterly 2014, 85(3): 277–284. They describe UKIP as "radical-right".

The next hit, I couldn't see that this had been published in a journal, so I was uncertain whether it would meet WP:RS.

The next hit was a bit more journalistic: Deacon D, Wring D (2015). "Pints and pratfalls: for UKIP, all publicity is good publicity." The Conversation, 19th May 2015 This piece does not categorise UKIP as right or left-wing; rather, it considers media coverage of the party and notes the media tends to cover negative issues, like "reported claims about the party’s racist, xenophobic and/or religiously intolerant tendencies".

The next hit was a piece in The Guardian: This just describes UKIP as "Eurosceptic". Not clear how this had got into Google Scholar.

Then we get Geddes A (2014), "The EU, UKIP and the Politics of Immigration in Britain", The Political Quarterly, 85(3):289–295 I quote:

"Receptiveness to UKIP’s message is associated with discontent with politics, Euroscepticism and hostility to immigration"

And: "UKIP calls for EU exit and derives much of its support from people whose prime motivation is their opposition to immigration. This combines with UKIP’s repetition of a popular populist refrain: ordinary people are being sold out by an out-of-touch political elite."

And: "Central to UKIP’s positioning is their targeting of what they claim to be the destabilising effects of open-door or mass immigration."

But Geddes doesn't make any mention of the right-left distinction.

Next is Martin K, Smith K (2014). "UKIP and the rise of populist politics" Anthropology Today, 30(3):1–2 I quote:

"UKIP has conducted a blunt election propaganda campaign that seeks to aggressively play on people’s fears of immigration"

It also refers to UKIP as "right-wing populist"

And that concludes the first page of Google Scholar hits. Seems to me pretty conclusive how reliable sources describe the party and that's populist radical right, with anti-immigration a key theme. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The article deals in detail with the fact UKIP's support base encompasses people who are not traditionally right wing voters (one of the reasons why counting the appearance of words in an article is not a good way of establishing supposed bias). As far as I'm aware, all credible sources class UKIP as right-wing, and so the weight is entirely due. Dtellett (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cordless Larry with all due respect. A singular MEP's opinion is exactly that. Her opinion. Is no such policy in UKIP's manifesto that supports capital punishment. As for same-sex marriage, UKIP does not oppose the regulation now it has been enforced. Considering UKIP's policy on these kinds of topic areas is to hold a Referendum to let the people decide. I am not entirely sure how you can call it "right-wing". Gay Marriage has, as yet, to be given public support in the form of a vote. As for cutting foreign aid. If you look at the right wing press or left wing press  you can find concern about the volume of money we spend on foreign aid. As for defence, spending to ensure the sustainability and ability of the defence forces is not right or left wing as is again reflected in the right  and left  of the press. I am still waiting for an example of a Right Wing policy in all fairness. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2015 (GMT)
 * Sorry, but you seem to be confusing whether policies are popular with whether they are right-wing or not. Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument about the ins and outs of UKIP policy. We should go with what the reliable sources say. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou if you type in "UKIP" in Google, the articles tend to be stacked with negativity. This because it sells papers, not necessarily because UKIP are worse with candidates than any other parties. I could show you the following article that was put together to reflect instances at other parties where by reps had been caught varying different things. Yet you would never find these articles pushed to the top under a generalised search on Google. The point remains that UKIP should be evaluated on policies. But as to often happens they instead get evaluated based on reps who have been removed for doing unacceptable things, all the time whilst other events go ignored at other parties. Take this for instance... Did you hear about this once? ... Had this been a UKIP Councillor it would be the front pages of the Guardian, Mirror and Independent. UKIP are not a "radical right" party so I am not even going to get into this discussion again. UKIP have not been formed due to a threat against values so it's not even worth debating. It is far bigger than that and UKIP's policy areas cover way more than just EU membership. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (GMT)
 * Bondegezou's search was of Google Scholar, not Google's general search, and given that scholarly publications are generally regarded by Wikipedia as the most reliable sources, the results appear to support characterising UKIP as right-wing. See, for example, this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye, your comment, "the Telegraph similarly commented Ukip isn't Left-wing or Right-wing" is incorrect. The Telegraph published an article by a UKIP MEP, Steven Woolfe who said that.  UkIP does however place itself to the right of all the mainstream parties.  And certainly like many right-wing parties it has successfully attracted working class voters disillusioned with the Left.  It is not specific policies that make UKIP right-wing, it is its overall view.  And if there is a hung parliament next time round, they would be more likely to back the Tories than Labour.  TFD (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Telegraph published an article by a UKIP MEP, Steven Woolfe who said that. UkIP does however place itself to the right of all the mainstream parties." - Care to reference that particular article that has that exact quote? Meanwhile in the Guardian this morning.  "Professor Tim Bale from Queen Mary’s University of London and Professor Paul Webb from Sussex University carried out a survey in May this year of almost 6,000 party members from the six main parties, as part of a research project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council." ..."Conservative party members are more rightwing (measured according to how they define themselves) than Ukip members." Interesting. You then go on to say "It is not specific policies that make UKIP right-wing, it is its overall view." ...I am confused by this statement. I don't understand your logic at all? Now Jeremy Corbyn has taken control of the Labour Party, and has ousted the "old guard" and installed a very left-wing Shadow Cabinet. Does that make the Labour Party "Far-Left"? "And if there is a hung parliament next time round, they would be more likely to back the Tories than Labour." - More former Labour supporters voted Conservative in the General Election 2015, than UKIP. Does that make Labour, Conservative? Wanting to leave the EU was the make or break element for UKIP when considering forming a supply and confidence agreement with another party should they have gained enough MP's. Neither the Lib Dems or Labour were offering that opportunity. Only the Conservatives (love them or loathe them) were offering the possibility of an EU referendum. Offering a referendum isn't necessarily a right wing trait. In fact right up to 2010 General Election, the Liberal Democrats were offering the country one as well. . Accusing UKIP of being right wing because they were willing to do a deal with the Conservatives is disingenuous to say the least. Especially when you consider Nigel Farage himself said "I would do a deal with the devil to get an EU referendum". Had an EU Referendum been on offer by the Labour Party, the possibility of a supply and confidence deal would have been on the table with them as well.RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2015 (GMT)
 * What matters is what reliable sources say. The only new reliable source in your comment is the piece in The Guardian. This found that in a survey of party members, the following ratings:

"Left/right (self-defined - with 0 as very leftwing, and 10 as very rightwing)

"Overall average: 4.44

"Conservatives: 7.76

"Ukip: 7.34

"Lib Dems: 4.1

"SNP: 2.96

"Labour: 2.39

"Greens: 1.9"

That concords with all the other reliable sources quoted as putting UKIP as right wing. I tried to find a more detailed write-up of those results and couldn't, but I found the authors' most recent journal paper: Bale T, Webb P (2015), "The Conservatives: Their Sweetest Victory?" Parliam Aff, 68(suppl 1): 41-53, doi: 10.1093/pa/gsv026. This says:

"According to British Election Study data gathered shortly before the campaign started, [...] the Conservatives were regarded as being more ideologically remote from the average voter than most other parties: the mean position of voters on a scale running from 0 (‘very left-wing’) to 10 (‘very right-wing) was almost exactly in the centre, at 4.99, while the Tories and UKIP were both perceived as being well to the right of this position (at +2.93 and +2.94, respectively), whereas the other main parties were all regarded as being to the left of the average voter—and all were seen as closer than the two right-wing parties; the Liberal Democrats were closest (at −0.21), followed by SNP (−1.42), Plaid Cymru (−1.69), Labour (−1.87) and the Greens (−2.06)."

So, again, that clearly supports describing UKIP as right wing. Case closed, I suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The Conservatives are defined as being "Center-Right". If UKIP are seen as left of the Tories what does that make them? RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2015 (GMT)


 * Seen by whom exactly? Which of the academic sources cited above refers to UKIP as being to the left of the Tories??? Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume Rover is referring to the first Bale & Webb study above that found that party members of UKIP rated their own party as slightly less right wing than Conservative party members rated their party, although voters generally put UKIP 0.01 further to the right. However, perhaps we can move on from this discussion now. Bondegezou (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be the case - but as has been noted, what some party members perceive is not sufficient. You're right though - time to move on. Emeraude (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By your judgement we may present that UKIP may be publicly perceived as right wing. However our job as an encyclopedia is not to present opinion as fact but solely to present fact.  Keep in mind that writers in our so called reliable sources often have very pronounced political agendas.  Even the Guardian article presents clear indication that UKIP has strong appeal to both "left" and "right".  The current presentation of the article parroting references regarding the right is undue in the extreme.  GregKaye 11:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the continued insistence of some editors that a party described by all academic sources as right wing should not be classified as right wing is ridiculous in the extreme. With the possible exception of this talk page, the alternate view that UKIP's policy space instead occupies the "left wing" or "centre" of the political spectrum is essentially nonexistent in mainstream discourse, including the party's own official statements. So I'm at a loss to what is supposed to be presented as a counterexample to political scientists' consensus that UKIP is right wing? The party's claims to define itself as "libertarian" and its appeal to demographics that have tended to vote for left wing parties are discussed in detail in the article. If you have any specific objections to any specific phrases used in the article then of course feel free to raise them. Dtellett (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is no objective scientific standard for the "left-right political spectrum" at all. The voting profile for UKIP is "centre-right" according to studies by polling companies, and it has in the past attracted a large number of Labour supporters. This is what the current scholarly surveys state. And thus what should be reflected in a neutrally worded article. I suggest, alas, that any belief that "the party claims to define itself as 'libertarian' " is intrinsically a non-neutral view and should not be used as an argument as to what this article should present to readers. In this world, parties are generally defined by those who support them. Collect (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I reiterate, if there are specific parts of the article do you not consider neutrally worded then please identify them. I suggest this is a more constructive approach than accusing my arguments of being "intrinsically non neutral" because - in line with Wikipedia policy - I don't consider a political party's own statements of position to be authoritative. As you say, there is no "objective standard" for the left-right political spectrum, but every Wikipedia article on political parties includes the respective party's position on that spectrum according to academic consensus of political scientists, usually with accompanying commentary. You would have to come up with an exceptionally good argument to justify violating this policy and overruling the academic consensus for this article. And voting profile - already discussed in the article - is not an exceptionally good argument since swing voters are a notoriously poor way to define a party's political position, particularly in the UK. In it's heyday, the British National Party also attracted many former Labour voters; this certainly did not make it centre left centre right or anything other than the far right platform and set of values it actually campaigned for. Indeed pre-election polls suggested the number of votes UKIP captured from the BNP earlier this year would be similar to the number they captured from Labour, but those supporters obviously aren't a defining factor sufficient to justify labelling UKIP as having "far right" or "ethnonationalist" tendencies either Dtellett (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kindly do not set up straw men to attack. I stated clearly "the party claims to define itself as 'libertarian'" is a non-neutral wording at best, and is not usable as a position for Wikipedia to assert.  By the way, might you proffer a definition of "far right" which applies universally?   In my experience, the meaning is dependent on precisely when and where the line is drawn and who is drawing that line.   And thus the scholarly articles showing the position as seen by its members in surveys is about all we can do, and ascribe those terms carefully to the survey made.  Collect (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well since there are several scholarly articles linked to above which suggest that the position of the party as seen by its members which agrees with the scholarly consensus that the party is "right wing" in inclination I'm not really sure what you're objecting to in the actual article, which discusses how the members see the party in great detail as well as how academics see it. You can of course continue to argue that Wikipedia should define parties' positions solely by what its members say, and the radical revision of WP:NPOV that this would imply, and continue to argue that a specific phrase not used in the article is not a usable position for Wikipedia to assert, but may I politely suggest there are more productive uses of your time.
 * If you'd like to question the appropriateness of using a term as loosely-defined as "far right", please feel free to do so on the talk pages of a party where it's actually used as a descriptor, such as the British National Party page. I hear that in the view of the party members none of their positions are racist...   Dtellett (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect and Greg, if you would like to suggest some changes to the text based on Wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:RS, please do so. Any suggestions based on your own opinions or interpretations without reference to reliable, secondary sources are not going to carry much weight: see WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? I did not suggest that we should describe the party as "far right" which is apparently the personal position of another editor.   In fact, I do not assert my own "opinions" here at all, and only noted that another editor did appear to use his own personal opinions - which is what is contrary to WP:NPOV.   Is there a reason why you addressed this seemingly strange post to me and not to Dtellett?  Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's because I posted to note that the existing well-sourced text represented mainstream views and academic consensus on their political positions, rather than suggesting that it was "biased", or making wild and inaccurate claims about the personal positions of other editors....
 * If you wish to change the page, please feel free to propose changes. Otherwise I politely invite you, for the second time, to cease speculating about my personal positions. Dtellett (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph flow
The opening paragraph of the Reception section: "The BBC received almost 1,200 complaints about its coverage of the 2014 European and local elections, saying it was biased towards UKIP. The BBC denied any bias. UKIP politicians including Nigel Farage have accused the BBC of a liberal bias, particularly on issues of immigration, the European Union, and climate change."

Sentences 1 and 2 refer to the BBC being accused of bias towards UKIP. Sentence 3 refers to BBC being accused of a liberal bias by UKIP. I would like to propose adding "conversely" to the start of Sentence 3 to convey the fact that this sentence describes an opposing opinion to the first two. The paragraph's current state has too much of an abrupt switch between ideas. 93 22:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bias towards" may simply mean "bias concerning" and not a "favourable bias" at all. "Conversely" would read "favourable" into the first part which is not an obviously correct conclusion. "Carrie Nation was biased towards saloons" does not mean she favoured them. "Mussolini was biased towards Ethiopians".  Collect (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, adding 'conversely is to interpret the sources rather than to state them Snowded TALK 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snowded. It would seem to violate "Synthesis of published material".  TFD (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So why include UKIP's views on the BBC at all? If the paragraph deals with undue coverage by the BBC it's completely irrelevant. 93 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Current members
The sole reference for the number of UKIP members is based on number that Nigel Farage made in an interview. I'm not sure when Nigel Farage has ever given an accurate number in an interview. He has been pulled before on his figures being incorrect, and based on the time between the previous announcement it would suggest the party increased it's membership by a fifth in the two months before the election. While it is not impossible, on its own it is not a credible reference and requires a further source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7221:1000:8598:E038:27D3:DF27 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Membership figures are communicated to the membership by the party chairman when a notable milestone is reached. wonko (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015
Total fucking nonsense. Essentially UKIP according to Goodwin and Ford... and peppered with various BBC and Guardian journalists. More adjectives than facts- e.g. "hard eurosceptic", "radical right" etc. Many facts presented in ludicrous paradigms- e.g. small state political ideology presented in terms low voter turnout; enormous emphasis placed on the 'typical voter' (who at the same time comprised 15-30% of the voting electorate).

Someone needs to press Ctrl + Alt + Delete and start again.

81.152.66.18 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Find some reliable sources, and maybe consider making a real edit request (be specific, resetting the article will do nothing productive), otherwise what you're saying has even more hot air than the article. I will consider changing the adjectives. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC) edit: I decided not to change the adjectives, after seeing that the party is actually described as "radical" etc. by sources used in the article. Anyone who can think of a better way of tweaking it towards neutral (I can think of a few more radical parties than UKIP, EDL is one), you're welcome to have a go. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:18, 6 November 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. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

White Working Class
Is there a source for this? It seems to have been discussed before, but I can't find it in the archives. Some sources disagree. Additionally, I'm not sure it warrants entry into the intro, re: WP:LEAD. Phatwa (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this has been debated extensively in the past; it should all be in the more recent archived pages. It was one of those debates that kept cropping up again and again; I doubt that many editors here will be particularly interested in discussing the issue once again to be honest - it was exhausting! The general consensus was always to retain the information in the article body and in the lede, if my memory serves me correctly. Moreover, as far as I can see it, WP:Lead actually makes a good case for said information being included in that lede section: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I'd say that the demography of UKIP's support base was a pretty important point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For anyone wanting to read this, I managed to locate it here: []. Phatwa (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro changes
I've used the existing sources from within the article, to introduce them into the WP:LEAD section as it was missing citations. Additionally, I've re-ordered parts of the intro to match the Front National article, using a similar format, which is a 'Good' article on the English Wikipedia. If anyone has issues with this, kindly address them here and I'd be happy to correct. Phatwa (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly happy with this sentence: "Describing itself as a libertarian party, academic political scientists have instead characterised UKIP's ideological approach as being that of right-wing populism" as it implies that they are opposites or unrelated, which is not the case. Phatwa (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right-wing populists are not libertarian (dedicated to individual liberty, economically liberal/pro-market), but rather authoritarian in social sphere and welfare chauvinist in economy. Libertarian radical right is a thing of the past, with very few exceptions. Sideshow Bob 14:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's assuming that the assertion in this article that UKIP are on the radical right is true. In any case, the article states that UKIP are right-wing populists. If Laissez-faire economics is a hallmark of right-wing populism, then that would warrant a discussion on the connection with libertarianism. Phatwa (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my point exactly - I'll try to summarise it for you: Even though in the beginning (most of the 1980s and 1990s) populist radical right (PRR) has represented petit bourgeoisie and supported laissez-faire economy, in recent years they are moving more and more towards economic protectionism (because their core electorate has moved towards the "globalisation losers", blue collar workers, less educated, etc.), which guarantees to retain welfare for natives (hence welfare chauvinism). And one more thing, identifying UKIP w/ radical (populist) right is not an assertion, it is an academic consensus, regardless of how the party self-identifies. I can direct you to some literature on the subject if you wish. All the best. Sideshow Bob 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a lot of conjecture and opinion. It may or may not be true, but I would rather you (or someone) updated the article with those sources, because currently there are a lot of blanket statements in it, that would do well to have at least 1 reliable citation added to them. I wasn't disputing that UKIP are radical right per se, my own opinions don't matter here (although if you must know I think your claims surrounding so-called welfare chauvinism are incorrect), but if the claim is in the article then it should be sourced for obvious reasons. Phatwa (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies if the above sounded rude, it was not my intention. If you can provide those sources, I can update the article. Thanks! Phatwa (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just briefly summarised the mainstream academic literature on this subject since it is my area of research, while you sound like you are trying to defend UKIP, but I don't want to go into that really. If you really interested in the subject, I would recommend authors like Betz, Ignazi, Mudde, Kitschelt, Goodwin, etc. Sideshow Bob 07:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Defend' UKIP? From what exactly? I simply want to improve this article by adding citations to some of the more contentious and unsourced claims. If you can include your sources in the above academic claims I can try to work them in, I too have an interest in this subject. Phatwa (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I've reverted the changes made to the lede, which largely consisted of slapping "citation needed" on some sections and adding citations to others; all of which was totally unnecessary as the lede serves simply to summarise the (properly referenced) content of the main article. The current wording in the lede is the result of much discussion and debate, and has been carefully crafted over time. Moreover, this has proved to be a highly controversial page, with much edit warring and problems over the past few years. I do appreciate that you are new to this page and well intentioned, although if you wish to make changes to the lede as sweeping as the recent ones, please discuss each and every one here on the Talk Page first before acting unilaterally. Otherwise all the old problems will just crop up again, and I'm sure that no one wants that. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. As stated in the section below this, I was acutely aware already that there had been many discussions on this topic and I'm sure I don't bring anything new to the table. However my main concern with this article is the lead featuring literally zero citations. Please can you read WP:LEADCITE, namely: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." and clarify why this doesn't apply here? Let's start with that. It does appear odd to have literally zero in the lede, indeed I can't actually find any other lengthy articles to not have them. Phatwa (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be an accurate summary of the content in the body of the article. Where a claim is in the body of the article and supported by proper cites, it is silly to iterate the footnotes in the body of the summary. In other words, any contention affecting the body of the article may mean the lead needs rewriting, but if the lead is an accurate one, no duplicate refs make sense. Collect (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I too agree. If something is accurately sourced in the main body of the article, then that is sufficient. Adding citations to some statements in the lede, but not to others, just looks aesthetically messy and is simply unnecessary. Moreover, avoiding the use of citations within the lede itself is fairly common practice on Wikipedia; just look at the majority of our Featured Articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm happy with that, thanks for clarifying. Phatwa (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Economic Protectionism, Libertarianism and Right wing Populism
I've noticed a couple of things here that seem a little off, so I'm just going to throw it out there and see what people think. In the Ideology and Policies section, a claim is made that UKIP are not libertarian due to their economic protectionism, and the sources given for this, somewhat bizarrely, are two articles from the media, and a blog from the Spectator, none of which strike me as a great source that we ought to be using on a wiki site which is intended to provide an unbiased source of information. Also, two of the articles are old (2012) and one is from 2014. Neither of these have much relevence any more since the party has changed very quickly over the past couple of years, and it completely fails to take into consideration the party's 2015 manifesto. If we can't find better sources proving that UKIP are economically protectionist, then we surely ought to remove this from the page, since UKIP has consistently argued in favour of leaving the European Union in order to pursue more free trade agreements with other countries. This doesn't sound very protectionist. On a side note, the introduction also claims that UKIP is characterised as being a right-wing populist party, and this is written in such a way as though it is trying to challenge the idea of UKIP being libertarian. I am not entirely sure how being part of an ideological movement that Wikipedia's own article describes as "a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and often combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism" means that you cannot also be libertarian; indeed libertarianism also favours laissez-faire principles and anti-elitism. If anything this is showing a simialarity to libertarianism, not a difference. FloppyCatfish96 (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)FloppyCatfish96


 * Find some third party reliable sources relating to ideology and we can look at it. We summarise sources rather than debating the politics here.  Snowded  TALK 14:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point. The sources given to justify UKIP not being libertatian, and supposedly being economically protectionist are not relevant, or reliable. My intention was not to debate politics, I am merely pointing out inconsistencies. FloppyCatfish96 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that UKIP "has changed very quickly over the past couple of years" other than growing, but even so, a 2014 article is well within the past couple of years. Of course, the issue here is Ideology and Politics - the two are related but distinct. So while UKIP's policies may have changed (in the 2015 manifesto as compared to the 2010 manifesto) its ideology need not have done. As to sources, Snowded makes a valid point - it is not for us to say that UKIP is libertarian or that UKIP is not libertarian. If reliable independent sources say libertarian, then that will be reflected here, so it really is a question of finding those sources. Emeraude (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently the wiki directly refers to, I quote, "socially conservative and economically protectionist policies as being contrary to a libertarian ethos". UKIP do not have any economically protectionist policies as of the 2015 manifesto, and citing articles from before the manifesto was published to prove a point about policies from afterwards just doesn't seem quite right. FloppyCatfish96 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FloppyCatfish96, it would be useful if could offer up some alternative citations. Without alternatives, I don't see what's wrong with using 2012 and 2014 sources. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source! Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Name of the party
Does UKIP not stand for the United Kingdom Independence Party? According to the lead section of the article (and elsewhere) it stands for the UK Independence Party, ie the first two initials of the name stand for ... initials. That seems bizarre to me but I accept that it might be the case. Can someone confirm definitively, one way or the other? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The party's official name, as registered with the Electoral Commission is "UK Independence Party" (see registration details here). Incidentally, in Wales it goes as "Plaid Annibyniaeth y DU", DU being the Welsh equivalent of UK. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

References used above
To call UKIP a "Eurosceptic and right wing populist political party" whilst simply describing labour as "centre left" and the conservatives as "centre right" shows clear political bias, as do references to long out of date 3rd party articles. The entry should read "a Eurosceptic and Libertarian political party". Rather than make up things yourself or blindly accept what political enemies say, why don`t you actually read their manifesto at ukip.org.Chilledspark (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not political bias. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and that's what they say. If I read UKIP's manifesto (actually, I have) and then come to some conclusion about its position, that would be original research and not valid. Emeraude (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

more councillors
493 not 491, per current source. 92.26.135.152 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can give a reliable source for that, then it would make sense to change it. DrArsenal (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As i said, per current source. It's 494 now. http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm 78.144.211.19 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Not sure that is a reliable source, and even if it gives 494, it's wrong, since it includes 1 UKIP on East Staffs - but see, 3 on Maidstone - but see  and 32 for Thanet, instead of 26 - see   DrArsenal (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * FFS dude, that is THE reliable source for local councillors. That is the source that is currently used not only on this article, but across wiki. Maybe you should get another person to check this if you're still not following me. 78.144.211.19 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No need for that. I suggest you actually read Identifying reliable sources.  "Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, ... the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."  I checked precisely three councils, and the source was wrong about the current number of UKIP councilors on all three.  So far as I can see Keith Edkins is the only person checking, and while he might do a good job, that doesn't mean his blog is "THE reliable source for local councilors".  Possibly the single best aggregating source, but that is a different matter.
 * More generally, his page falls into the category of Self-published sources "self-published media are largely not acceptable. ...Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs,..."  The fact that Keith Edkin's website is used on other pages on Wikipedia does NOT make it a reliable source.  It may make it an over-used (and useful) unreliable source.  DrArsenal (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Councillor count incorrect, does not match source.
Could someone OTHER than DrArsenal read this, as last time I brought it up he apparently couldn't understand what I was saying: the number of councillors is out of date, and does not match the source (the source ALREADY USED, and used on every page on wiki for councillors, and universally accepted as THE reliable source for councillor totals). The source is the one ALREADY USED in the article, it is not a source I am suggesting, it IS THE SOURCE. That is the reliable source, that is the source that all of wikipedia uses for this and has for ages. 79.74.28.48 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Right wing?
Is the UKIP right wing? Its purpose for being is to take the UK out of the EU. That is neither left or right wing. Opinion polls show voters regard it as a centrist party, not right wing at all: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-shows-voters-believe-ukip-is-to-the-left-of-the-tories-9923416.html Of course the leftist newspapers all try to portray the party as far right, but that is just politics. In order to be objective, I suggest that references to left or right ought to be removed.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In this article they claim to be neither Right nor Left wing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11642724/Ukip-isnt-Left-wing-or-Right-wing.-Its-just-sensible.html

Quote: We have been called "Left-wing" by the Tories time and time again for wanting to scrap means testing for the most vulnerable in society. Meanwhile, Labour call us "more Tory than the Tories" - code for "Right-wing" - for wanting such things as well-financed armed forces. Since when has supporting our armed forces been a Right-wing idea? Supporting our forces is common sense. They put their lives on the line for us, it’s only right we support people while they’re part of our armed forces and make sure that support is continued when they leave. It’s not Right-wing; it’s just the right thing to do.

Lastly, if "Left-wing" is ‘radical’, then seeking to put an EU In-Out referendum and staking a claim to take back Britain’s sovereignty back at the centre of the country’s political agenda is arguably the most radical policy that has emerged from any UK political party since 1974. Even the most curmudgeonly of political commentators could agree. Steven Woolfe is a Ukip MEP and the party's migration spokesman Peter K Burian (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This article suggests they might be Right wing but with some Left wing tendencies and getting lots of votes from the Left wing. = confusion as to what they are. So I support removing the discussion of this topic from the article OR doing a lot more research and discussing these aspects, with lots of citations. And letting the reader make up his mind...... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/16/ukip-divided-left-right-cut-labour-support

Quote: Ed Miliband's most celebrated policy announcement called for state regulation of gas and electricity prices, and he has shown a distrust of big business, and a desire for greater taxation of the rich, and greater government help for the less well-off. The Conservatives, meanwhile, retain their traditional faith in free markets and private enterprise.

If Ukip is just dividing the right then we would expect to see Ukip voters falling consistently on the Conservative side of this longstanding divide. But as our chart below shows (based on new data from the British Election Study), the opposite is in fact true. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We base descriptions on what experts say, rather than the man on the Clapham omnibus. There is incidentally a contradiction between your claim that UKIP is a single issue party and your claim that they have left-wing policies.  Indeed they have policies and Farage says they will not disband if the UK leaves Europe.  And while they are right-wing, they are not liberals or conservatives and unsurprisingly have different policies from the Tories.  Historically extreme right parties have claimed to be beyond left or right which they see as basically the same, and have drawn support from other parties across the political spectrum.  They have been most successful when the traditional parties of the left, right and center have been seen as failures.  TFD (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I quoted two articles from expert sources not just from the man on a bus. But at the end of the day, how many readers are interested in anything about a party with a single seat in Parliament? 2015 the UK's First-past-the-post voting system meant that the party could only secure one seat. And if they are Right wing, how did this happen? Many of its advances were made in Labour-held seats. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/how-many-seats-did-ukip-win-10233571.html Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One of your sources discusses polls and does not make any statement about where UKIP lies on the political spectrum, while the other two are opinion pieces, one written by a UKIP MEP, and reliable sources policy says opinion pieces are only reliable sources for the opinions expressed not for statements of fact. Is UKIP taking away working class voters?  Traditional right-wing leaders from Bismarck and Disraeli have had some working class support (both were accused of being socialists btw).  Far right parties from the Fascists to the Front Nationale have also drawn votes from all classes of society.  OTOH, some millionaires and nobility vote Labour.  But putting this together to say UKIP is somehow left-wing is synthesis and cannot be added to articles unless it is explicitly stated as fact in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Europe and Foreign Policy
This section needs more work on it, as until just now it referred to UKIP's aspiration to leave Europe. This is now in the past tense, but more work is needed to clarify their current position in the light of the referendum result. Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The UK has not left Europe. TFD (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move.  Event horizon51  (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

UK Independence Party → UKIP – reason=Per WP:COMMONNAME; media organizations pretty much universally call this party "UKIP". Related articles with "UK Independence Party" in their title should also be moved. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 12:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. "UKIP" seems to be the common name of this party judging by press coverage inside and outside the UK. Moreover, while Wikipedia sometimes prefers long formal names for things named by abbreviations, that can't justify the current partially abbreviated title. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. Google news hits are 6 times higher for UKIP. vs  Meatsgains (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: WP:COMMONNAME. Ebonelm (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: WP:COMMONNAME. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, I agree it's the more common term, but for consistency it should stay at the current title. Per WP:TITLECHANGES - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". Their website has their full name on the homepage and I think it starts a slippery slope of using shorthand titles, when the full title should be used. That's why we have the Conservative Party (UK) and not the Tory Party (UK), for example.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that that is a very good argument. You say that "it starts a slippery slope of using shorthand titles, when the full title should be used"– firstly, why should using full titles override WP:COMMONNAME; and secondly, we already use shorthand article titles for political parties! Your example of Conservative Party (UK) would be located at Conservative and Unionist Party if we insisted on using full names... The difference between the two situations is that "Tory Party" is not the common name, but "UKIP" (or "Ukip") definitely is the common name. It should also be pointed out that the policy you cite, WP:TITLECHANGES, contains the line "and there is no good reason to change it": in other words, if there are two equally valid article titles, it should stay at the current one. This does not apply here, since the aforementioned common name policy is a good reason to change the article title. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 02:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: An acronym may be more commonly used but that doesn't mean that an article must necessarily use it in the title. We use British National Party, not BNP, for example, and United Kingdom, not UK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: proper name of party is appropriate title - so we don;t have Lib Dems as the article title either. Pam  D  10:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Midnightblueowl. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Liberal Democrats not Lib Dems. In any case independent sources are increasingly using "Ukip". Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. And whilst it is an acronym, it is also a spoken word, so shouldn't be considered in the same bracket as the BNP – UNITA or RENAMO are more appropriate examples. Number   5  7  16:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – This looks like a case where WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:OFFICIALNAME. Having listened to more than my fair share of UK politics over the last few months, I have never heard anyone talk about the "UK Independence Party"; everybody says "UKIP" pronounced as a single word (youkipp!). By contrast, the other parties are sometimes addressed by their full name (Labour Party, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats) and sometimes with their nickname (Labour, Tories, Lib Dems). So this particular title deserves moving, similar to NASA, UNESCO, CERN, Laser, LIDAR, etc. — JFG talk 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The UK Independence Party is a short, widely-used, descriptive and very familiar full name, much like the also-commonly-abbreviated Scottish National Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the British National Party. Incidentally since they were raised as examples here, UNITA and RENAMO both use their full Portuguese names on the Portuguese language Wiki. Dtellett (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support sources and the media overwhelmingly use "UKIP", unlike other political parties. SST  flyer  13:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016
I request that the UKIP info box be changed from right wing, to centre-right. A source for this is http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/11/ten-reasons-why-i-wont-be-joining-ukip.html and a specific quote in this article says "Although there’s more in UKIP that I like than I dislike (it’s largely a party of the centre right after all) ".

UKIP is not as right wing as many thing. In many respected, the Conservative Party is more Right wing than UKIP.

Thank you.

92.19.59.218 (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:, one blog post does not override the numerous academic and other reliable sources which describe UKIP as right-wing. Ebonelm (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No Leader?
Is there a source for the leadership actually being vacant? Farleysmaster (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2016
I request that on the political spectrum that the term "right wing" be removed and the term "Centre-Right" be put in. UKIP shows no sign of a far right group. I also ask that Right-Wing Populism be removed from idealogy and replaced with Civic Nationalism. I will provide a reference here

The URL for this article is https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/bnp-ukip-voters-politics-immigration

Thank you

78.151.172.119 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article cited supports "centre right" or disputes "right wing" or "populism". The use of "right wing" does not imply "far right", so I don't see the problem that the IP editor does there. The notion of "civic nationalism", which the article does support, can be covered in the article, but I don't see a need for its inclusion in the infobox.
 * We've been through these discussions before. I don't see anything here that's going to overturn current consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

YouGov Profiles
With respect to, I'm wondering if you could clarify which information is being cited. Is it just the picture of the gauge that is being referenced? Graham (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In comparison the same source indicates supporters of the conservative party as being, on average, far further to the right so as to almost place them at the most extreme position the YouGov scale makes available.  I think this is notable in that the article for the Conservative Party (UK) describes them as centre-right while the right-wing description/label is applied to UKIP.  The information from YouGov indicates that surveyed supporters place themselves the other way around. GregKaye 07:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC) ping: Graham
 * Do you have a reliable source article discussing this? If so, we can cite that. If not, I fear we'd be falling foul of WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, nowhere on the page is the term "centre-right" used and without the necessary context, one is unable to evaluate the source. Graham (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Legislative violence
Should mention be made of today's incident be made yet/ 'an ongoing events' tag added? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Has the child abuse cover-up, domestic violence among MP's and Activist violence at the Labour Party been mentioned? Has the Activist violence been mentioned at the SNP or Greens? The answer is no, nore should it be in this instance. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:51, 06 October 2016 (GMT)
 * As this is the UKIP page some of those points belong elsewhere - and perhaps they should be there developed. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I find myself on the same side as Rover on this issue (but not, perhaps, for the same reasons). I think that mentioning this one single (comparatively trivial) event would be WP:Recentism. The punch-up might be all over the UK headlines today, but will be largely forgotten about tomorrow. I can't really see it having any long-term historical significance. It probably warrants a mention on the Steven Woolfe page, but not here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect that ultimately it will warrant a passing mention solely because of it affecting the front-runner in a leadership contest (a bit more directly than Eric Joyce's fisticuffs leading to Corbyn's election!) though if Woolfe still becomes leader it can't be said to have affected it that much. The only place a detailed account of the events belongs is on the pages of Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem though Dtellett (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

right-wing populist political party is a subversive description
Please stay objective and do not lean to any political sides. The description of "far right wing or populist" is an inflammatory political description. Many supporters of Ukip and similar parties in the West are NOT "far right wing or populist". Wishing for preservation of one's language, culture, and traditions is not a far right phenomenon, neither does one's belief in this make a person a populist. Few of such citizens have far-right (ie. Nazi) ideologies. — According to the The United Nations, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous peoples are not defined as tribal or third world AND furthermore; "Indigenous peoples have unique and distinctive cultures, languages, legal systems and histories. Most have a strong connection to the environment and their traditional lands and territories. They also often share legacies of removal from traditional lands and territories, subjugation, destruction of their cultures, discrimination and widespread violations of their human rights." No one would consider any of these peoples as FAR RIGHT or Populist! They do have a right to preservation of their culture, lands, language(s), religions, and traditions. European countries are no different. Languages are being lost, cultures are being forced to change etc. These indigenous Europeans have Human Rights; they don't all have to become Americans.

Sincerely, jeroenix@mail.com 67.21.190.171 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you think their ideology is? TFD (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that the IP hasn't really read the article. At no point does this article actually call UKIP "far right", so on that point their claim is demonstrable nonsense. As for the idea that UKIP represent a form of right-wing populism, we have a very wide array of WP:Reliable Sources produced by academics and published in peer-reviewed outlets which do describe UKIP thusly and actually explain why UKIP is populist (i.e. because they promote a strong anti-establishment message while presenting themselves as champions of "the people"). This is explained in the article, which again makes me suspect that the IP just didn't read it before posting here at the talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Besides, the IP's comment that "The description of "far right wing or populist" is an inflammatory political description" is itself mistaken. Both "far right wing" and "populist" are neutral descriptions of political positions, wel-understodd in political science and, more importantly, used accurately within the context of the article. In no sense are they "inflammatory". Further, regardless of what UKIP's supporters see themselves as, the description is about UKIP, not them. And even further, far-right does not necessarily equate to Nazi. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)