Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 6

New Pages for Key People
I propose that we create a new page for the Party Director: Lisa Duffy, who s also the Mayor of Ramsey, Cambridgeshire. Jonathan Arnott, the party's General Secretary has had a wikipedia page for quite some time. Lisa Duffy's role is of similar status to Arnott's and she is also an elected mayor, there have ben a number of instances where I can see linking her in would make sense but there ha ben no page. Nick Nick Dancer' 18:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that you check the notability criteria for politicians (at WP:POLITICIAN). Duffy might have gathered enough coverage in and of herself rather than the coverage being related to the election itself. There's a subtle distinction there - I think she needs have been the primary subject of coverage beyond that event to be sure that she would be notable enough for a page of her own. But, heck, people make articles about all sorts of stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, to me it seems that she would qualify, she has been news worthy in other parts of the country for doing other things as she also runs political by-election campaigns as part of her job as party director. Unless anyone has any justifiable objections, I will make the article when I get round to it at some point soon. Nick Nick Dancer' 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not here and what people think that you need to be thinking about - if she's notable and there are enough reliable third party sources relating directly to her (rather than events surrounding her) then she is notable enough for an article. That battle would be played out in any Prod or AfD resulting from that. So long as you have the sources it'll be fine - but there's no need to seek approval for it here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, if she's notable enough then our ownership claiming friends cannot enforce removal. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  07:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Right wing
One of the sources used in the info box for this statement of fact is an opinion piece, It needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is political science we are dealing with here. "Fact" and "opinion" are not the same in the discipline as in mathematics or science. The test is whether or not it is a reliable source and here there is a similarity of what we would look for in articles on maths or science. I don't know the News Statesman that well, so whether you are correct in your assertion that its article is an opinion piece or not I can't say, but I do know that NS is a respected and reliable source within its field, i.e. politics and social issues. So, the question should be, is the author a reliable source for what he has written? Is his "opinion" based in his area of expertise? (When my doctor says it his 'opinion' that I have an infection....... ) Emeraude (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are kdding me! You've actually used a New Statesman article to justify this! They are notoriously the most anti-UKIP paper that exists! Also this was taken from the period that Mehdi Hasan was in charge, he was an editor of the paper at the time. Husan is UKIPs most publicy outspoken critic, I can not see how this can be seen as a credible source. Ok, the New Statesman has a long history and is a respected paper but all papers have their prejudices and you have picked the paper that exherts the most amount of prejudice to UKIP. This can not be seen as impartial behaviour! Nick Nick Dancer' 11:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if this is political science we are dealing with here, all that matters is policy. Policy dictates we do not use opinions for statements of fact. So I think I shall just go ahead and remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, we just can't use sources like this, I think it might actually be worth having a source review of the entire page. I just happened to spot this one because of this discussion but what if there are more? Source review anyone? Nick  Nick Dancer' 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Please see discussion right t the bttom of the folowing page: Talk:European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). We need more people in his discussion, proposal is to remove Greens and BNP from info box to make it cnsistent with every other bocks. Please see links at the bottom of the pag to point you in the direction of evidence! Nick Nick Dancer' 13:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Er...Has anyone actually read the article complained of. It is not an "opinion piece" but a detailed personal account of life in UKIP. Whether it is a valid reliable source (and NS usually would be) is another matter, but let's not attack the piece under false pretences. By the standards some people are using here, we could not use ANYTHING from any newspaper, since they're just about all anti-UKIP. Slandering the sources is not the way forward. Emeraude (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I get what your saying, the Guardian for instance aren't exactly pro-UKIP but they don't resort to demagoging and using phrases like "right-wing populist". The Guardian behave sensibly with their opposition. By the way I don't see a single source from say the Express on the Lib Dem's page (probably the Lib Dem's most outspoken and unflatering critics). You see what I'm saying? This is what we call double standards! As for another thing there are loads of sources on the Lib Dems page which are 1st party! And your saying that we can't even say "UKIP is constituted as a democratic Libertarian Party", a constitution is a legally binding document, if any 1st party source is allowed then legally binding ones have got to be at the top of that pile! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst I understand the points you're making, the quality of or sourcing of other articles is irrelevant. The guidelines are well established. Now, having said that, somewhere in the article there needs to be some reference to what other people think of the UKIP - whether than be Cameron and his comments or those from a supportive viewpoint. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the phrase "UKIP is constituted as a democratic Libertarian Party" is misleading. UKIP claims to be such, it is true. But "constituted" is not the right word to use, and to use that sentence as a whole gives the Wikipedia seal of approval! As is plain from this talk page, there is no agreement that UKIP is libertarian, it might be, it might not. But we do not rely on what people say about themselves except in so far as we say it is what they say about themselves. That's common sense. It is entirely possible that UKIP's constitution framers are the biggest load of frauds ever; it is possible that they are genuine honest people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. It's possible that they are honest and well-informed. We don't know, and in fact we don't make those judgements. We depend on reliable sources: when thet say that UKIP is liberatrian, we can say so and give the source. There are countless examples of parties (and organisations and people) who make false or exaggerated claims about themselves, which is why Wikipedia has strict criteria on sources. Just because UKIP says it is "democratic, libertarian" doesn't mean it is. By the way, Blue Square Thing is quite correct: failings in other articles are not relevant arguments to use in discussing this article. Emeraude (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a comprmise that should address all concerns: "The party is described in its constitution as a democratic, libertarian party." I think this wording works because we will not be stating these qualities to be an absolute fact. I have a real problem with simply using the phrase "describes it's self", it's a bit too misleading in the other direction. For instance Nick Griffin describes himself as not being a racist and he has nothing to back this claim up with. However, UKIP have a document that has been written by a firm of paid lawyers, not politicians and it's terms and conditions are binding. Now I get what your saying about 3rd Party sourcing...that's fine. I'm not asking that this be recognised as an absolute fact, I'm just asking for recognition in this paragraph that it is not just something they say or "describe" themselves as, that a comitment has been made. I really think "described in its constitution" works because it's a non-comital statement. Please consider this, I'm trying to work with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that wording. It has the added advantage of using a more straightforward form of English. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At first sight the differences appear trivial, but there is a crucial difference in emphasis. "Decribes itself as" is factual and allows that others (e.g. Farage et al) use the desciption. "Is described in its constitution as" suggests some independent, external legitimation that actually is not independent and has the clear intent of justifying UKIP's claims. Let's not go overboard about the work of lawyers on UKIP's constitution. I doubt this very much, and in any case, they would not have had any input into this particular piece of drafting. The key issue is that, whatever wording is used, Wikipedia is not saying, editorially, that UKIP is libertarian (or democratic even) but simply that UKIP says it is. Emeraude (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Emeraude, you doubt that the constitution was written by lawyers? Why don't you look into it a bit deeper! Your right to say that drafting is done by the party but it's the lawyers that make all the changes and aprove all the wording. Your refusal of using the word constitution is beyond me! I bet you wont even accept "describes its self in its constitution as..." I don't understand are you fundamentally anti-UKIP or something? I understood your argument before which is why I tried to accommodate and fall in line with your criticisms! Let's be clear we're not arguing that Libertarianism is being put down as an official ideology, we're arguing that we state that that's what it says in their constitution. Massive difference, all be it seemingly subtle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look into it deeper? Why should I? Lawyers will only examine a constitution of a party to ensure it complies with relevant law (in this case, laws on electoral registration, discrimination and financial probity). They will not care whether the party is, in fact, libertarian or not (or democratic, come to that). But that is irrelevant, because it's not going in the article anyway. I repeat what I said about the difference above: it is subtle, and my words need to read carefully. Incidentally, whether I am "fundamentally anti-UKIP or something" is none of your business, has no bearing on what I write, the article or my suggestions. It is, though, bordering on a slur on an editor and is not the proper way to proceed. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ukip drugs and crime policies?
Does Ukip have any policies on drugs? What about on crime? If so, it would be good if someone could add them. Kookiethebird (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is an important area: UKIP want a Royal Commission to be set up to look into the war on drugs asthey believe it is failing. Nigel Farage ha suggested that the best way to cut down use is to legalise certain drugs like cannibis in certain controled conditions in order to drive the dealers out of business (as they no longer charge a risk premium). If you want to write a section I'd be happy to help. One thing though, use the individual policy links on their website, the 2010 manifesto is out of date and has been invalidated by the party leader and NEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Populism? I disagree
Right at the very beginning of the article, UKIP is described as a right-wing populist party; being name populist can be perceived as an insult or a nasty comment against someone, their political beliefs or the views of a party. UKIP does not describe itself as a populist party but rather a libertarian party. UKIP is not populist either, representing the views of everyone including the mega-rich and the poorest or the poor; they are NOT populist.

I request and require the word 'populist' be removed from the heading paragraph as a statement and rephrased as a suggestion.

Johnxsmith (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, populist is just not appropriate! If you think about it, it is a normative phrase, what's populist will depend on one's opinion! Also the sources provided to justify this word are splurious at best, I mean these are well known accademics that are notoriously pro federal Europe! have explained all this below but some peope are just incapabe of looking at the partiallity of a source when it goes against their own opinion! Nick Nick Dancer' 11:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll remove it from the article and leave a link to this page for those who disagree.

Johnxsmith (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What total nonsense. Firstly, "populist" is not a 'normative phrase' (apart from being a word and not a phrase!) whose meaning "will depend on one's opinion"; it is a clearly used term in political science. Secondly, it is not "an insult or a nasty comment". If you think it is, you need to read up on the subject. Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason why a party cannot be both populist and libetarian; indeed the two frequently go together, especially on the right of the political spectrum. Fourthly, there are sufficient reliable sources, quoted within the article, to support UKIP being populist, and it is reliable sources that Wikipedia always goes by, not perceived notions by editors based on what they think a word means. Fifthly, this issue has been discussed at length previously (see archives) and consensus reached. Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think people need to read Populism. It strikes me as being a completely fair way to describe the politics of the UKIP. I would very strongly suggest it remains in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Emeraude: How can you just come on here and tell me to read up about populism? You have a different take on what populism is, by all means: share it; do not simply re-direct me to another unbalanced Wikipedia article edited by idiots such as yourself. One of your points is telling me to go to an article on populism, the next tells me the meaning of populism is my own opinion as with the next victim of your stupidity. If the meaning of populism is one's own opinion, how can it be placed on a Wikipedia Article? I hate the Labour party, how about I go over to Labour and change the heading paragraph to: 'The Labour Party are a disgraceful, borderline-communist, British political party lead by an illiterate person who speaks funny...' You think populism is good and describes UKIP, great; go shove your ideas up another poor sod. Johnxsmith (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Nick on this one, populism is normative, it's only popular if you think it's popular, also I don't see us using this label on other parties that clearly fit the criteria. I really can't remember the Lib Dems having this label in early 2010 and believe me, I have checked! It just looks a bit biased if I'm honest, I mean I'm a real stickler for consistency and to use this label on this party and not to have used it on other parties when the relevent qualities are atributed to thoeparties to me seems deeply inconsistent! You can get al the academics in the world to write the same thing over and over again but as far as I'm concerned if we don't apply the sam rules and criteria to everyone then we are being biased. Sheffno1gunner (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not normative. "Populism" and "popular" share a common etymological root, but their meanings are absolutely distinct. As I have said, and Blue Square Thing has repeated, some people need to read up on populism (within and outside of Wikipedia) before commenting. The subhead for this discussion illustrates what is wrong with it: '''Populism? I disagree'''. Frankly, whether you disagree or not is totally irrelevant. That UKIP is "populist" is self-evident to people who know what the word means and how and why it is used, but, even more significantly, it is referenced as such by reliable sources of the type which Wikipedia demands.

Johnxsmith: Your personal attacks on me are totally unacceptable and do your case, weak as it is, no good at all: "go shove your ideas up another poor sod", "edited by idiots such as yourself" (personal and general!). I did not direct you to a Wikipedia article, I advised reading up on the subject. Your comments demand an apology. However, give the way in which you rant, I will not hold my breath. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage is now LGBT issues
Have expanded this section which outlines the party's full position very clearly, using direct quotes from spokesman and using sources from the party's policy website. This section is now a lot more detailed and neutrally writen, highlighting the recent controversey accurately. Nick Nick Dancer' 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been adding the logo and the slogan of the LGBT wing. I think it's important that these images are included because other political parties actually have their own pages for their groups such as LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, LGBTory and LGBT Labour. However UKIP's group is nowhere near big enough for it to have it's own page (not yet), so inclusion of these images seems a sensible alternative.

Also, I'm having problems positioning them so that it works best with the text, can someone help me? Please :-) Nick Nick Dancer' 17:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry about all my edits to the LGBT section on the page, it is all sorted now. Nick Nick Dancer' 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been some issues concerning some of UKIP's LGBT logos, these are in hand, permision has already been granted for the Logo officially by the owner, in the same email confirmation was sent for the second image, the banner and this was meant to be approved at the same time. However the owner is having to send yet another email as a formaily. The banner should stay as it aready has permision to be on the page, it's just a case of verification, which I believe we're aloud up to a week to get! It will onlybe a day or so. Nick Nick Dancer' 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised about sourcing: please see source 66, it's a 3rd party source from the UKs main (most reliable) LGBT News pubication, this states the groups existance with a picture of the group logo, approval has been sent for both images by their owners. Facebook is an extra secondary source. Main source is PinkNews and this is reiable and reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@User:Emeraude. I think your grammar corrections were fair sensible and have improved the article. So Thank you. However I have removed your extra paragraph as it is purely media speculation. The quote you used does not assert what 'The Guardian' were claiming. May I remind you that this is a policy section and the quotes that others have used were specifically outlining and clarifying policy. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The words of mine you object to are these:
 * "The Guardian reported in December 2102 that Farage intends to exploit the government's proposals for gay marriage which, he said, "present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw". He hopes to attract Tory members and voters who are opposed to the policy, believing that it will "rip apart" the Conservative party." (Source: "Gay marriage row: Ukip plans to derail David Cameron", The Guardian, 12 Dec 2012.
 * For the article, Farage spoke to the paper. The quotes I have given of his are verbatim quotes used in the paper. The article says,
 * "''The Conservatives' turmoil over David Cameron's plans for gay marriage has been compounded after Ukip pledged to exploit their divisions and go after the votes of Tories who abandon the party over the issue. Amid signs that Conservative associations are losing members in their droves over what is being dubbed the prime minister's "clause IV moment", the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, warned that gay marriage could "rip apart" the Conservative party. He plans to put the issue at the heart of Ukip's campaign for the 2014 European parliamentary elections."
 * It directly quotes Farage:
 * "David Cameron's proposal has the potential to rip apart the traditional rural Tory vote. While Ukip wholly respects the rights of gay people to have civil partnerships, we feel the prime minister's proposals will present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw. The division between city and rural is absolutely huge. In my village pub in Kent they are just completely against. Ukip is not a one-issue party, ....but the gay marriage case is closely interwoven with the European court of human rights, as is so much of our life. Ukip will be seen to be a party campaigning not just about who governs Britain but about how we think that Britain should be governed."


 * So UKIP in its own words, directly related to gay marriage policy, LGBT policy, how their policy differs from the Tories.


 * You say that "the quotes that others have used were specifically outlining and clarifying policy" (one might say that the confusion was of UKIP's own making). What I have added clarifies further.


 * As for speculation, the Guardians two opening paragraphs, based on interviewing Farage', are pretty damn well conclusive. Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your missing the whole point. This is a policy section, what you have quoted relates to political tactics, which is something completely different! The policy is already fuly clarified, we've got to be conscious not to put too much emphasis on recent events. Also one thing that is in your quote that is key to your argument absolutely is speculation: "He plans to put the issue at the heart of Ukip's campaign for the 2014 European parliamentary elections". He has not said this, no one has, all news papers do it, we've got to stick to policy for this section and avoid media speculation as well as discussions on political tactics because they are simply not relevent and most importantly, they are not policy! If you want to join the discussion on UKIP coverage in the media, then pick up Blue Square Thing's point and start a discussion on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could your objection be linked to the suspicion that UKIP's policy is entirely cynical and we wouldn't want to suggest that would we? How do you now what Farage has not said? Have you some inside knowledge that is not available to the rest of us? The policy section has several statements that are not, as you describe them, policy, but elucidate the reasons and thinking behind UKIP's policies. For example: "UKIP's economic stance is based on what it claims to be the need for..."; "UKIP claims that the Armed Forces are 'starved' of money...."; "UKIP asserts that "former New Labour staff maintain that this policy has been a deliberate attempt...."; "In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP,....." etc. And it is not correct to continue as if this is just a Guardian issue: see also The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail. Emeraude (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not have any inside information but based on the information you have provided, he simply has not said what you claim. This is media analysis of which you are refering to, it is not policy. Like I say, if you want to do a section on UKIP coverage in the media, then please by all means re-start that discussion. What you are trying to put in the article is not policy. It is media analysis and suggestions of political tactics, that is not policy! I agree this entire article needs cleaning up, it simply has not been written in the same way as the other main parties. I'm not having a dig at the Guardian, I'm just saying that not all their articles can be used as a reliable source for conveying policy, I could say the same thing about the Daily Mail or the Express. The substance content of the article is what matters, not the opinion, not the analysis and not the speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I've just read this and I don't see how Emeraude's addition relates to policy. It doesn't give a clearer idea of what UKIP would do in Government and at the end of the day that's what policy is! I wouldn't invalidate the Guradian as a source, nor any other paper but I do think we have to be careful and look at the relevence of an article on an individual basis. It seems clear to me that this particular article does not add anything to this page. We can't simply act as a news feed, this addition would skew the article too much towards current events without even giving further clarity to policy. As for the speculative side of things, I also agree with Blue Square Thing's point about including a seperate section for media comment or we risk a propaganda war with pro-UKIP activists compeeting with anti-UKIP activists over sourcing, phrasing etc. Lets keep this section as what it says on the tin ie: "Policy" Nick  Nick Dancer' 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Social conservatism
After viewing a few reliable peer reviewed sources. I have come to the conclusion that Social conservatism should be added to the Ideology section of the article. I would seriously recommend for Social conservatism to be added to the Ideology section.(CatCalledJim (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC))


 * I reject this idea, the ideology in general is already in dispute! This unsigned comment by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please cite the sources you mentioned. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Third-party source needed"
Throughout the policy section, someone at some time has added the tags "Third-party source needed". So, for example, a UKIP policy is stated, and the manifesto or similar source is quoted. This seems totally adequate - "from the horse's mouth" as it were - and obviates any requirement for the third party source. ("Fred Bloggs says that UKIP's manifesto says what UKIP's manifesto says.....") Unless I've totally misunderstood, I propose that these tags be removed.

Similarly, the heading and several subheads are followed by "This section may rely too heavily on sources with too close a tie to the subject...." Where the article is dealing solely with what UKIP itself says, what's wrong with this?

On a related issue, I have noticed that several of the sources are cited to dead links. This has come about because UKIP has updated its website. This does not invalidate the sources, of course; Wikipedia does not require that sources must be available online. They will all be available in hard copy somewhere and were all "approved" by the normal editing procedure when first posted. In these cases, I have gone ahead and tagged them as dead links, where appropriate replacing the "third-party" tags. Other links have already been tagged as "dead" because items have been moved behind a pay wall (The Times for example). In fact, these are not dead links if you have a subsciption, so I have removed the dead link tag from them.

In some sections, a citation is directly followd by the tag "citation needed" - redundant. Where a citation is still valid, I have removed the tag; if the link is dead I have replaced with dead link tag. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that large parts of this article should be based on sources by the party itself. The whole policy section is only written from UKIP's point of view, based on UKIP's sources. UKIP has a website to present their platform. It is not Wikipedia's objective to present UKIP's platform in a close paraphrase, without neutral or critical reflexion. One of Wikipedia's main pillars is WP:Verifiability which regularly means reliable, independent secondary sources. UKIP's platform is a primary source which normally should not be the base for a Wikipedia article, even less when it is the sole source for several whole sections. This should be addressed. Are there no independent sources that deal with UKIP's policies? Can these sections not be based on secondary sources? --RJFF (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is about UKIP policies not interpretations of their policies. I think UKIP are the best source for what their own policies are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.43.102 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course we should not provide a platform for UKIP (or any other party), but if we are going to cover its policies the only reliable source is UKIP itself. Practically by definition there can be no "independent sources that deal with UKIP's policies". While it is essential that we give no interpretation of policies, and certainly no appearance of endorsement, I can see no other source for simply stating what the policies are, without comment. I actually agree that, as RJFF puts it, "It is not Wikipedia's objective to present UKIP's platform in a close paraphrase, without neutral or critical reflexion" but just try and add any critical refelxion while this article is patrolled by UKIP supporters! Emeraude (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * UKIP lies about their policies. The BNP claim not to be racist, but of course they have an extremely racist program. In the same way, UKIP claims not to be Islamophobic but in reality it's hating against Muslims right left and centre. Hence we should only use academic political science works, which clearly indicate UKIP to be a xenopobic political party, and a radical right populist front. Claritas § 12:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is about policies and where to source them, not whether these policies are or are not xenophobic. Claritas I think you are getting confused about a different debate. Dja1979 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Saying you need a 3rd party source to describe a political party's published policies is like saying you can't rely on a book to summarise its own plot. A party's policies are its theory of government. It's what they sell to voters. Naturally political parties break their own pledges but their official policy is what they say to the world. No 3rd party source for that can ever exist.

92.7.142.230 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course it can. E.g. a political scientist's study of the party's programme. Like there are literary studies and literary criticism about books. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on primary ones. --RJFF (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not hilarious - it's precisely how encyclopaedias and academic research works. Of course you can't rely on a book to summarise its own plot. You can't rely on a book to do anything much other than sit on a bookshelf (assuming you have a decent, level bookshelf). Name a book that summarises itself! Reviewers summarise books; readers summarise books; academics summarise books. Books do not summarise books. And if that was not enough of a nonsense, where does the idea come from that a party's policies are it's theory of government? UKIP wants to leave the EU. So what theory of government is that? Fascism? Communism? Democracy? It could be any of these. The Tories want to cut the size of the welfare bill. So what theory of government is that? Anarchy? Meritocracy? Socialism? And by "theory of government" do we mean ideology? It's really very simple: you can rely on a party's statement of its policies to know what its stated policies are, but that's all and, as far as that goes, I accept that if the article says "UKIP wants to murder all first born" and UKIP's manifesto says "We will murder all first born" that ought to be good enough. (And some parties will lie about their policies and ideologies. That's not the same as failing to keep pledges.) Let's not confuse a party's stated and publicised polices with its political position (left, centre, right) or philosophy (democratic, fascist, utilitarian) which do need reliable sources independent of the party. Emeraude (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion polls and suggested sources, December 2012.
I noted that User:31.52.210.196 recently added uncited text about opinion polls and UKIP's rise to 3rd position. I intend to add a brief description from a suggested source meeting wp:NPOV and avoiding wp:undue for the simple reason that this should improve the educational value of the article -our objective. Feel free to discuss. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source is OK, though it's doubtful this is a permanent and significant trend. However, the use made of the source is dishonest and I have deleted the second sentence relying on it: i.e,:"According to pollsters, three quarters of prospective UKIP voters did not regard problems in the Eurozone countries as one of the top three issues and Lord Ashcroft believes opposition to gay marriage has caused the reported one sixth of Conservative voters to switch to UKIP." The source does not say one sixth of Conservative voters have switched to UKIP. It says the Tories have lost one sixth of their support (not voters), with some going to UKIP. Neither does Lord Ashcroft say what is attributed to him: his quote makes no mention of gay marriage at all and suggests that Tory supporters have moved to UKIP because of its draconian stance on immigration and "benefits culture". The relevant parts of the Guardian article are:
 * "Tories have lost a sixth of their support over the last two months, with much of this going to Ukip" and
 * "Lord Ashcroft recently suggested that Tory voters are moving to Ukip because they're attracted to its much more draconian stance on immigration and "benefits culture"."

Emeraude (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Chart
Since UKIP's growth in the opinion polls throughout 2012 seems to be the undoubtedly most relevant/note worthy and indeed newsworthy event for the party since the last election, I thought it appropriate to include the chart for 2012 from commons.

I have put this in such that all of the text for 2012 fits perfectly along the left hand side of the graph! I have also put an explanation in a text box below with links so that readers can look at relevant related subjects. I don't doubt that someone will come on here and claim that some of what is in the text box is original research! So I will now address this claim before it is made! I have included a link showing a list of every opinion poll conducted by a British Polling Council member in 2012. In the 2012 table there is a 3rd party lead column, showing the difference between 3rd and 4th place. On that same page is links to pollsters methodologies whereby they admit that their margin of errors are around 3%. I have also provided a link so that readers can find out what this means! It is not original research to make this claim because it is already clearly stated in the table!

I have also used this information to rebut UKIP's claim that they are now the 3rd Party of the UK. It's important we present both sides on this article (which includes the factual evidence), so that we are able to have a fair and unbiased piece. We already have a source on the page that says "a series of opinion polls have indicated that UKIP had drawn ahead of the Liberal Democrats to become the third most popular party". We now have a piece that basically says this might be true but there is no proof of that and that's not what the evidence says!

I am confident that readers will find my phrasing unbiased and fair, I am also confident that this is not original research! because I have only written things that are clearly stated on other Wikipedia pages and in the sources already provided!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, it's got all the links in so people can check things out. You've not implied anything that isn't already elsewhere on Wikipedia. Now if people want to demand that more sources are put in for the sake of it, then fair enough! They can, I can't see the point in copying sources over when the links are there for the pages where the info actually already exists on Wiki. Good work!217.41.32.3 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

✅To avoid any potential problems I decided to source everything anyway! I have included 6 sources that verify the commentary in the text box. this is in edition to the existing links that already give a full account.217.41.32.3 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

3rd party Chart - disclude Labour & Tory
Have added a new chart instead, there was no need to include Labour and the Conservatives in the graph, it was only taking up more space and distracting from the real point. Here's the new box.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Greatest problem is the use of the word "throughout", both throughout your text above and in what was added to the article. The last few polls of 2012 are most definitely not "throughout 2012". Also significant is what is actually significant in the chart, and what you have removed from it - the large fall in Tory opinion polling which, given the size and statistical margin of error, is much more important. UKIP's "performance" (it's an opinion poll, not an election) must also be set against the failry steady share of the LDs over the year and the collapse of "others". It is likely (but the pollsters give no detail) that this mostly represents a collapse of BNP support as that party has crumbled over the year, to the benefit of UKIP(?). Emeraude (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds a bit like your starting a political/analytical debate which we are not allowed to have! So I will not bite. I will merely answer your relevant points: I take your point on the use of the phrase "throughout2012" and hence accept it's omition! Poor phrasing on my part!

The issue we're referring to here is 3rd party, if I wanted to I could point you in the direction of the UKIPs higher scoring polls(Survation and Opinium, cough cough) where you will notice that Labour loose as much as 5% (down to as low as 37%). So the top of the graph is besides the point. The point is that statistical polling tie! A phrase, I don't see why you removed? It is sourced material! I don't see your link between the 3rd party margin of error and the Conservatives? You just seem to be trying to make a political point, which is of no relevance to the matter at hand!

Your right to observe that LD support has been statistically static throughout 2012, can't argue with that. You then mention the collapse of other parties and then try and make a political point involving the BNP. You are correct to say that "Others" have lost vote share, if you look at the breakdown of the others columns in the polls you will see that this is for a number of reasons! The BNP never had more then 2%, so your claim does not add up!

1. Labour have recovered in Wales which has harmed Plaid Cymru figures.

2. The SNP have had a bit of a rocky time with Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond's lies about legal advice regarding the EU and Independence. The SNP's mid-term blues are also starting in a more general sense as well.

3. The Green Party are not picking up any extra vote share.

4. And yes the BNP's vote share has crumbled and it does seem fairly likely that the party will collapse before 2015. Does that mean their votes are going to UKIP or back to Labour(where they came from), who know's! I suspect it's a bit of both, Ed Miliband has been making a number of speeches about Immigration, Multiculturalism and Englishness. Maybe people are listening to him. I don't know and neither do you, so lets not guess!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

✅ I've added in all your sources for you!217.41.32.3 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I intended no political point and hope you didn't really read my comments in that way. I am concerned that opinion polls (not election results) are being used to state as fact things that can only be inferred (and inference is not allowed in WIkipedai). I'm also concerned that two of your sources are in no way supportive of the claims you have made for them: a book and an Economist article both from the 1990s (despite you dating one of them as 2013!) have nothing to say on UKIP's position in 2102. Indeed, neither even mentions UKIP. This is disingenuous. I don't suggest a deliberate attempt to mislead. While the sources do have useful things to say about margins of error in polls generally (and I have used similar arguments in this and other talk pages) to then use them to say that UKIP and Lib Dems are neck and neck or some such is original reaearch/synthesis. By the way, a lot of what you say in your points 1, 2, 3 and 4 is also original research or pure guess work and, while I might agree with some of it, it has no place in this discusion which is supposed to be about the article, not the news or our views on it. Emeraude (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 217.41.32.3. I believe people need to know UKIP is growing in popularity, because its denying the readers of interesting information regardless of their opinion on UKIP. What is so misleading about giving the readers interesting information?(CatCalledJim (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC))


 * What is misleading is that there are no facts to back this up. A couple of opinion polls (not all polls, or even a large number of polls) have shown UKIP's "support" rise from a small amount to a slighly larger but still small amount. But these are only polls and, as has been pointed out, the margin of error in respect of minor items in any poll is so significant that the result itself is frequently insignificant statistically. The real test, as always, is what happens in elections and the real test of elections is general elections - in 2010 UKIP was hammered. In recent by-elections, UKIP did much worse than they (or some commentators) had predicted, with the exception of Rotherham where there were special circumstances. So, until there is concrete voting evidence, it is not only misleading to say that UKIP is "growing in popularity", it is also wrong. Emeraude (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your point about using those sources for that one sentence. I accept the removal of that one sentence and that one sentence alone! As for my point: 1, 2, 3 and 4. I accept that if this was in the article it would be original research and therefore it has no place in a wiki article! The reason I added those points was to show that a lot of what you were stating as fact is indeed not fact but your opinion, I only sought to demonstrate that and as a result that required a bit of OR commentary. Now other editors know not to accept anything mentioned by myself or yourself on the of points 1, 2 ,3 and 4 as a fact and should therefore not argue for inclusion! Hope this makes my position clear.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Accepted, but it might have been better not to have made the points in the first place(?). Er, what is it exactly that I am "stating as fact" but was "is indeed not fact but (my) opinion"? Emeraude (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been following this debate in detail, but I have to say, it does look to me like Sheffno1gunner and 217.41.32.3 are the same person! Kookiethebird (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kookiethebird We are not the same person but yes we have worked closely alonside one another on a number of articles. I regularly click on his/her contributions page to see what they have been up to, I assume this works vice versa! this tends to mean that we edit/discuss largely the same topics. I have done this with other users in the past such as Nick and more recently User:CatCalledJim. This is not unusual, that is why the contributions page is there!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * |217.41.32.3&limit=1000&submit=Submit Interestingly, the account and the IP work nicely in shifts and never at the same time. And I know very few users who always put their signature directly behind the punctuation mark without a space. This could be coincidence. But if you just forget to log in from time to time and edit under your IP, I would advise you to better admit it. No one would take offense. Being convicted of sock puppetry and lies is much more unpleasant. If it is really coincidence, please don't take it badly, but there is really a number of signs indicating that you and the IP are the same person. And you know that we have methods to identify sockpuppets. Again: I just utter my suspiscions. Please don't take it amiss.--RJFF (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)]]

Can RJFF concentrate on the subject we are presently discussing. Rather than falsely accusing Sheffno1gunner of breaching the rules of the website. As I have said, what is so misleading about giving the readers factual and current information? Most users agree that we should add that opinion polling graph.(CatCalledJim (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I didn't intend to accuse Sheffno1gunner. I just wanted to advise him to better inform others if (and only if) he sometimes edits under his user name and sometimes under his IP. It's just better for him to make it transparent. And how can you know if he does or doesn't? If I falsely accused him, he can defend himself. --RJFF (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry because of work pressures (which are rapidly increasing) I am less able to respond as swiftly. I am disapointed that I am being accused of someone that I am not. I am not user:217.41.32.3, we merely work on the same articles. Someone has suggested that we are never on at the same time, have you noticed the different times we edit! if we were the same person we'd have to be on Wikipedia practically 24hours a day! Who has the time to do that, honestly? I am not 217.41.32.3, I have never even met this person! However in the interests of transparency, I will freely admit that I discuss Wikipedia things with 217.41.32.3 on Youtube via personal messaging. I don't think it's for me to tell you what his Youtube sign on is but I can tell you 217.41.32.3 is a he and not a she! If they wan't to tell you their sign on, then that is their business, I will respect his privacy! There is nothing wrong with 2 people discussing something freely in another forum, it's a free society! now will people get off my back and get back to the matter in hand!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm conviced that there's nothing untoward here! Now kiss and make up!130.88.52.103 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - the matter in hand. Sheffno1gunner has reinsated some sources that I deleted from the blurb under the chart. The sources had been used to justify the statement "The small distance and indeed intersection of the yellow and purple lines show that the party has been within the margin of error (normally 3%) of their Liberal Democrat rivals since April 2012." Now, this may well be true, but the sources do not say or suggest this and their use in this context is dishonest. Why? Well, firstly, because neither actually mentions UKIP! But more significantly, despite both sources being dated by Sheffno1gunner as January 2013 they are actually both over 10 years old. The first source is an article from The Economist dated 17 April 1997. The second is Nick Moon's book Opinion Polls published in 1999. Clearly, they have nothing to say about events in 2012, or UKIP, or UKIP in 2012. I deleted the sources on 14 January with the edit summary "Sources from 1991 [my typo] and 1999 do not support a '9 month statistical polling tie for 3rd place' in 2012. (And neither even mentions UKIP))". I thought that was plain enough. Yesterday, Sheffno1gunner reinserted them with the edit summary "Readded sources that seem to have been removed. They are relevent and part of the discussion on the talk page". No, they are not relevant, as explained above. They may have something to say generally about margins of error and may even be relevant to this discussion on the talk page (though I doubt it), so I have deleted them again with the comment "May be releveant to talk page but not here: falsely dated sources from1991 and 1999 say nothing about 21012 and do not even mention UKIP." [my typos] Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point about me putting the wrong dates on the sources, that was a genuine mistake due to copying things accross, obviously those dates need changing. Point accepted, sorry for the mistake! The next point is what the sources are being used to justify, those 2 sources are being used to justify the 3% figure, it's to show that 3% is pretty standard, it shows aknowlagements by leading accademics. Those sources were not intended to be used for illustrating that "that the party has been within the margin of error (normally 3%) of their Liberal Democrat rivals since April 2012." The source that justifies that they have been within 3% since April is the BBC Source! If you really want me to, I can repeat the same sources 3 or 4 times in the same paragraph but the point is that if you read the whole paragraph in it's entirity you will see that everything is sourced. Who reads one sentence at a time and then checks each individual sourse? No, one, you read the paragraph and then check stuff out! I will replace them and the text, I will also change the dates on the sources, as this is clearly a mistake on my part, that I apologise for!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We are having a related conversation at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and I would agree with Emeraude. As I've suggested there, Sheffno should review Wikipedia policy on original research as I feel s/he and some other editors are relying too much on their interpretations and not sticking to reliable sources when it comes to coverage of UKIP.
 * Emeraude and Kookiethebird, I would appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election on related matters. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very suprised at your actions Bondegezou, you seem to be starting an edit war, we are having a discussion on this and you clearly have not read my last comments on this page! If you have something to raise then raise it. Do not simply revert an edit and then leave comments when the subject is already in open discussion, this is improper conduct. Emeraude seems to disagree with me on a numbner of points but has behaved reasonably by discussing as opposed to simply reverting and shouting other editors down. I have been addressing Emeraude's concerns one by one. I seek to do the same with [User:Bondegezou|yourself]], if you are prepared to conduct yourself in a less aggressive manner! i hope that you are, up until this discussion I had always considered you one of the best editors in the UK politics section, i am not so sure now. Sorry, prove me wrong by discussing this properly!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was guided by WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:OWN. Might I also recommend we reflect on WP:FOC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheffno1gunner is still missing the point. If it is necessary to say that UKIP has narrowed or closed the gap on LDs in opinion polls, the source, naturally, is the opinion polls themselves. I don't argue with that - who could? (Whether it is significant is another matter and not for Wikipedia editors to decide.) We use reliable sources and most of them seem to be still out on the matter. My own view is that it's too soon to tell as well. The key issue here is the use to which Sheffno1gunner is putting what are perfectly reliable sources. It's a question of context. As I have said and repeated, the sources are totally irrelevant to this article and to this discussion. (No mention of UKIP, 14 or more years old, etc.) The text below the graph referred to the margin of error in polls, quite rightly, and the phrase is linked to the Wikipedia article margin of error. It is not necessary to rehash parts of that article here in an article about UKIP - that's why we have internal links after all. Otherwise, they can only be taken as sourcing the substantive point about UKIP v. LD in 2012, which neither source can do. Emeraude (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Sheffno1gunner, I think that by your multiple reversions the edit war, if there is one, was started by you. Emeraude (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not Sheffno1gunner, I am no way near as clever/incredibly nerdy! (no offence mate) Umm, yea how about we keep it short and sweet on here and put the extra detail on the other page because there is a link to it! No point in repeating ourselves!81.133.12.45 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, ok lets end this discussion on this talk page! I agree there is no point in saying the same thing more then once, the internal link is there, the graph is there, that's fine. The rest of the info can be fleshed out on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election where it belongs. I have left comments on that page that give further details. Can we consider the matter closed on this page? i.e. that short description stays as it is!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with a shorter text but would prefer it to say something about 3rd place in the box....you know, to kind of say why the graph is there....217.41.32.3 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Transplant text from Opinion Polling page
UKIP Vs Lib Dem's Polling.png and UK Independence Party in 2012. UKIP started the year at around 2-7% (see table below) and finished with 7-15% of the opinion poll share (depending on the polling company). Whereas support for the Liberal Democrats has remained fairly static around 10% with little fluctuation throughout 2012 across all the polling companies that conducted surveys.

There has been debate within the media as to whether UKIP have supplanted or are supplanting the Liberal Democrats as the third main party in British politics,  as UKIP claim, in part based on these polling figures. . See Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election for more details, including a list of every opinion poll carried out in 2012]] This is how the graph appears on the page>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done this because we have decided to remove this graph from the opinion polling page. We have done this to avoid duplication. there is absolutely no point putting the same graph twice on different pages just for the sake of it. Especially when you consider that this is just a condensed version of the graph above it on that page. This is the right place for this text.

I am pleased to say that this text has been approved by other editors on that page. If you wish to discuss it here, fine but it is the same to what there was consensus for before. And margin of error isn't even mentioned! So can we leave it at that?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, just thought, I'd put comments on here to confirm what you say and declare that an end to the matter.Nick Dancer (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to declare that's an end to the matter? Do you own Wikipedia? Emeraude (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But anyway, there are other issues to address, including whether this chart is even wanted here. I don't recall a consensus on that, though my memory is not what it was. The wording beneath it WAS all right, I'm not so sure now - it stinks of original research and synthesis again. It does not show Jan to March, yet is used to talk about 2012. It takes some outlying results to push the idea that UKIP is growing in popularity. Flash in the pan, from one or two rogue pollsters? Apart from which, YouGov's poll conducted 17-18 January and published on 20 January gave UKIP 7% and LDs 11%. The latest ICM Research poll, conducted on 18-20 January 2013 and published 22 January, gives UKIP 6% (down from 7%) and LDs 15% (up from 13%). Emeraude (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way Steve the Lib Dem's and UKIP are tied in the most recent YouGov poll, both parties with 10%. Also if you look at all of ICM's polling and I mean all of it, ICM have generally had UKIP on 6% anyway, it has never gone above 7%! ICM are the only polling company that I am aware of to have never published a poll where UKIP have not been in the lead. So this seems to me another example of a Liberal Democrat picking his sources to suit what he wants to write! Flash in the pan? That's an intesting analysis and yes Steve that is analysis! It's a bloody hot pan if it's been going for 10months! Also it seems UKIP have recovered from the Ollyshambles, that would be a better analysis of the temporary dip in the polls!

I am not really surprised that a self confessed "card carrying Liberal Democrat" doesn't want something like this to be publicised! Shame really because it only reflects the most talked about polling story at the moment..... well, that is according to our reliable sources. I'm sure UKIP supporters aren't best pleased when they read things like being called "right-wing populists" but as you have so often reminded people, it comes from reliable sources! You might have a go at Nick for thinking he owns Wikipedia but it is bit rich really when generally you sir and a few others seem to think you are on the board of directors!81.133.12.45 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, turn it down a bit you to! I just want to clarify that those percentages were changed by Bondegezou, the percentages I initially wrote were changed and I accept that, if people prefer what it said before then can we please make our minds up!

Also Emeraude, your argument doesn't hold, your being selective with your evidence! I really fail to see how this is of irrelevance to the article. We have a section on the Lib Dems period in government and this is a key part of it, rightly or wrongly, their support is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 what it was at the last election, that becomes even more noteworthy when another party consistently ties/overtakes/narrowly tales them in the poles. And yes, all the reliable seem to think so to. I can see why you don't want to see this change happen, I mean surely you accept yourself that there is a significant conflict of interests here.

I'm going to try and move on from all of this: What are your specific concerns with the wording? Have you a sensible alternative suggestion?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK 81.133.12.45, let's get this straight. You call me Emeraude, not Steve. I am not 'a self confessed "card carrying Liberal Democrat"' nor even a crypto one. To make that assumption shows a complete lack of nous on your part and I assume is meant to disparage my contributions. I am not a card carrying member of anything and I demand that you retract that accusation and implied slur immediately.


 * As for "another example of a Liberal Democrat picking his sources to suit what he wants" - well I've dealt with the LIb Dem bit, but I notice the generic slur against Lib Dems in this statement. As for me picking sources, not at all. They are the two most recently published polls, as you would know if you had any expertise in the subject rather than a pro-UKIP inspired agenda.


 * To say that "the Lib Dem's and UKIP are tied in the most recent YouGov poll" is a blatant lie, or possibly total ignorance which is just as bad. I even gave the latest figures for you! The latest YouGov poll is as I stated above: UKIP 7% and LDs 11%. You can see it online here. The ICM result was in The Guardian today - look it up online for yourself. Sorry if the evidence hurts, but there you go. Going on for 10 months? Well, in some polls, but not all; your evident bias against ICM, presumably because it hs never given UKIP >7% shows that you the graph only covers 9 months; UKIP has not won a single seat so the whole thing is quaintly academic anyway.


 * And "the most talked about polling story at the moment"? No, hardly. It was a topic that excercised the press a couple of weeks ago, but look at any of the quality papers over the last week and they're all debating the signficance of the gap between Labour and Tory ("Labour lead over Tories shrinks to five points, according to Guardian/ICM poll", The Guardian headline, 22/1/13).


 * You think I don't "want something like this to be publicised". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a place for UKIP or any other party or organisation or individual to "publicise" anything. If you think it is, you are in the wrong place.Emeraude (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To Sheffno1gunner. How can you accuse me of "being selective with your evidence"? I have merely quoted the two latest opinion polls. How is that selective? If I'd quoted one and not the other, maybe. If there were three published this weekend and I only quoted two, maybe. But I am aware of two polls and have quoted both of them. And, please note, that is here in the talk page and not in the article! This is not he first time you have openly questioned my probity. On 15th Jan I asked you to explain your assertion "that a lot of what you were stating as fact is indeed not fact but your opinion": you have failed to respond.


 * Acceptable wording? Relevance to the article? Ditch the graph. It adds nothing. It's a distraction. A simple sentence would do: "During 2012, UKIP's popularity in opinion polls increased." Add a median figure even. But what really counts is electoral success and UKIP has failed on that score, despite its best endeavours. What we are loking at here is a transient news story, but we are supposd to be writing an encyclopaedia. Do these polls have any long term encyclopaedic value? If UKIP picks up parliamentary seats in 2015 great, add it to the article and who'll give a toss about polls in 2012? But by the same token, if UKIP fails to win a seat in 2015, add that to the article, and again who'll give a toss about polls in 2012? Emeraude (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You say you'd picked the 2most recent polls? Really at the time of your comment the most recent poll was the YouGov poll showing the parties tied at 10%, that is a simple fact. I was merely backing the IP up saying that you had got that wrong and you had, check the time the poll was published if you like. Ok the link the IP put up doesn't seem to be working but I managed to find it ok. You had clearly ignored or innocently not been aware of this poll that showed a tie within your set time frame. So ok, you were wrong on that, that is what I was saying.

if I can just say about the 2 of you, you both seem to over react and immediately get aggresive, I've found myself get aggressive in reaction to it. it's not helpful guys, calm down, it's not good for yours or any of our health. So please give it a rest! It's unhelpful for one of you to accuse the other of being a Lib dem and the other to accuse the other of being pro UKIP. Your both being childish, I don't care who started it. So let that be an end to this childish behaviour on both your parts!

The fact remains that the race between UKIP and the Lib Dem's is still a feature of the current climate. The graph covers a significant period of time and is therefore not covering an anomoly! The graph stays, the text stays, although if there is an issue with the wording then please discuss it sensibly. You say it's a distraction, a distraction from what exactly? It's not a distraction from their lack of seats in Parliament because that is plain to see in the info box at the top of the page, it is also stated in the opening paragraph, although not quite as blatantly as you and others had previously argued for when rewritting the section. You seem to keep changing your mind about what is acceptable. I have removed this graph from the polling page in the interests of duplication and the interests of not making the polling page all about 3rd place. I'm trying to introduce balance here! So please just accept that this is part of this article, I have removed it from others.

I don't want to fall out with anyone on here but these attitudes are very difficult to work with! I'm finding it difficult to be polite, all your negativity and aggression is very wearing (both of you). It wasn't even me that wrote the text, it was Bondegezou who changed the writting and if you look on their page, you will see that they admit to having an interest in the Lib Dem's. If I have not responded to you please send me a personal message with the link, I appologise for not getting back to you. Lets end this discussion now, please! For the sake of all our sanities!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "You say you'd picked the 2most recent polls? Really at the time of your comment the most recent poll was the YouGov poll showing the parties tied at 10%, that is a simple fact." No it isn't. Far from it. I posted the comment to which you refer at 12:10, 22 January 2013 (check above). I was referring to polls published on the 20th (YouGov) and 22nd (ICM) with the results I gave. Are you seriously suggesting I was able to post results before they were published. Yet again, you are twisting the truth when it stares you in the face to undermine the contributions of editors. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I broadly concur with Emeraude's position above. I had a very long discussion with Sheffno1gunner on the Talk page of the opinion polling article about text there. The text there now is in replacement of material that (I felt) clearly contradicted WP:OR. The current text improved the situation, but I am not wedded to the text there. I also don't feel that text needs repeating here. I remain concerned about WP:OR issues in both that article and this one. I would urge a number of people in this discussion to pay more heed to Wikipedia policy and guidance, including WP:OR and WP:OWN. I would particularly suggest Sheffno1gunner reviews WP:FOC and WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize, I made a massive school boy error and have caused offense! I actually got Emeraude confused with Doktorbuk. I'm really sorry and did not mean to cause offense. That said I stick with my position on this article but make a full retraction of anything I have directed at Emeraude and sorry for calling you by your first name.
 * @Bondegezou: I really fail to see how this graph is not relevant to this page. As far as the text goes, if you have changed your mind what do you want it to say. Also you are wrong to state that this is repeated on another page because it is not. Sheffno1gunner removed it from the opinion polling page because of concerns over "duplicity". He said it was best placed on this page with a link to this page on the grounds that it overstated the position of 3rd place was already highlighted to a sufficient level. I think we need a short text on this somewhere, I get why it's not necessary to put the graph on more pages then one, I accept that. This is the right article for this graph and a basic description of what it shows is not unreasonable. Also you did re-write most of it yourself! Why you changing your mind?217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While it is nice you have apologised to Emeraude, you should not be making intemperate comments at any editor. I remind you, again, of WP:AGF and WP:FOC.
 * Sorry, I have not kept up with the several edits Sheffno has made, so I didn't realise he had removed all the text from the opinion polling article. That notwithstanding, I don't think such a long legend for a figure is appropriate. Let's have this material in the main text or not at all. Also, what text may be suitable in one place may not be somewhere else. The question now is whether that material is suitable here, and on that point, I concur with Emeraude.
 * As I sought to explain in my previous comment, the text I wrote, as you describe, was an immediate solution to the problems with the prior text. It was a work in progress. I was being bold and fixing the problem. None of us own the text on Wikipedia; everything remains up for consideration. I have no attachment to that piece of text just because I came up with it.
 * I remain concerned, as I've said repeatedly, with WP:OR issues. It would be helpful if you and Sheffno engaged more with policy in this area. You appear frustrated with policy on reliable sources, but I'm afraid that is how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am frustrated by Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources but I am more annoyed about how certain editors (I'm not referring to yourself) use certain sources that back up their political views, often making bigoted comments and yes it is bigotry to falsely label something because you don't like it. In particular I'm referring to things like the labeling of "right-wing" populism, many of their views are mainstream anyway! And people attempting to label them far right all the time. Wikipedia is being turned into a Newspaper, I've been trying to address the balance. The more these things happen, the more me and others will challenge them, it's that simple.

OK, I accept that this text needs reviewing but can we have some positive input as to what is acceptable text instead of having people like Emeraude putting up brick walls to acceptable discussions. I accept your argument of a smaller caption but all we get from Emeraude is "no, no no, I'm not having it", it's like he's constantly trying to pick a fight is it any wonder I react the way I do? Tolerance and respect are two way things. I tend to treat people how I am treated, which is why I'm more able to be open to discussion with yourself, there's a kind of mutual respect. Whereas I feel that Emeraude think's I am filth, I think he has respect issues and is intolerant of views that are different to his!

Anyways that's buy the by, lets get on with sorting this paragraph out. What is your suggestion?81.133.12.45 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another personal attack, and another apology demanded. Good job I'm thick skinned! I suggested some wording above but left out the key point, so now suggest this amended version: ""During 2012, UKIP's popularity in opinion polls increased, with some polls suggesting it had overtaken the Liberal Democrats for third place." (amemdment in italics). Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect Emeraude, I don't think another apology is needed. I personally wouldn't have had that little rant the IP has just had but there was no personal attack. When using words like "bigoted" it was in a general sense, I suspect referring to Doktorbuk but I'm not a mind reader. Non-the-less it wasn't directed directly at you, so it's not a personal attack. With respect I think both yourself and indeed 81.133.12.45 need to think about what's just been said. I don't really care who started it, the point is you've both gone over the top. I hope you have the good grace to see fault in yourself! I have seen you try and shut down acceptable debate and it's disappointing! That's by the by though because you do seem to be willing to talk about the text now, which is a positive reflection on yourself! Please, no more fighting!

The matter in hand: I have adapted what you have written to read a bit better and be more informative "From April 2012, UKIP's popularity in opinion polls for voting intention increased to new heights. A number of polls have suggested that the party has overtaken the Liberal Democrats for third place. Please see Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom election for further details." I am happy for us to simply say that and nothing more.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What? 81.133.12.45 names me three times, and no one else, and it's not personal?? Are you serious? And you have still not responded to the questions I raised about your behaviour to me. Oh well. Emeraude (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of that phrasing may not be seen as neutral. "to new heights" is a bit loaded, especially as the most recent polls show a fall. "A number of polls" begs the question how many? Why not just put "some"? And "has overtaken" implies they are still in the lead, which not all polls were agreed on anyway and the latest say is not the case. Emeraude (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheffno1gunner and 81.133.12.45, again, I suggest you read WP:FOC and WP:AGF and abide by their recommendations. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm really sick of this Emeraude, I'm not normally like this but you seem to know just how to get this reaction out of me! By the way some of what I said was about you but not everything! I did not directly refer to you all the time, just as you say "on a number of occasions". When I did it was for solely those particular things! You call yourself thick skinned - I found that rather amusing! Your reaction suggests otherwise, your overly sensitive and constantly grumpy! It's a bit wearing if I'm honest! I do not want to fight with you! But I will not simply keep quiet on these matters. I stand by my initial apology, I was in the wrong! I try and behave with respect, which is why every other editor on this page has had respect from me, you sir make it difficult. I will not make any further apology, for the reasons I have already stated! If we're going to be able to work together on this, we both need to make efforts here, you can't just act like your Mr Perfect and have done nothing wrong!217.41.32.3 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, arrogant as well. And from what I can glean, it seems that 217.41.32.3 and 81.133.12.45 are the same person. It seems to me you are always like this, but I can only base that on the evidence of you posts in this talk page which are, without fail, full of personal attacks on those editors who won't agree with you. You admittance that you were attacking other editors and not just myself is pointless - everyone reading this is aware of that - and directly contradicts your statement that "every other editor on this page has had respect from me"! If you cannot bear to see views that do not acord with your own, go and play elsewhere, because you are not adult enough to engage in debate. Incidentally, you might like to quote where I have been "overly sensitive and constantly grumpy", or were you looking in a mirror? Emeraude (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Genius, well spotted, I am both: 81.133.12.45 and 217.41.32.3, depending on which part of the house I'm in depends on which router I'm covered by! You and Doktorbuk are the only 2 editors I have had a run in with on here. Bondegezou seems to be in constant and full agreement with you but I respect their views and the way that their views are expressed because they do not behave such as yourself! My beef is not with your opinion, my bief is with your attitude and treating me like something on the bottom of your shoe! Non of this argument would have started had you not been so patronisingly disparaging and immediately closing down debate in an "arrogant"/I know best manner! So it seems you're the pot calling the kettle black! I am tolerant of other peoples views, the way I speak to Bondegezou is evidence of this, we clearly disagree but treat each other with decency. You on other hand sir have been incredibly intolerant to mine and others presence on here! It's interesting that you are engaging in the exact form of bigotry that you indirectly accuse others of! I'm man enough to apologise for my error but grumpy old men don't do things like that, do they? They say respect your elders, yea, I do but respect is meant to be a mutual concept! 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet more denigration! We're entitled to think that two different IPs are two different people: you should sign up and get a proper user name to avoid this confusion. Be that as it may, you have, as usual, failed to take note of anything I said and have compounded issues by throwing in further insults. To reiterate, I asked you when I was "overly sensitive and constantly grumpy". No answer. Now you accuse me of treating you like "like something on the bottom of your shoe". When? (And which of you?) When was I "patronisingly disparaging"? When was I responsible for "immediately closing down debate in an "arrogant"/I know best manner"? (In a a debate that is still continuing, note.) When have I been "incredibly intolerant to mine and others presence on here"? When have I shown "bigotry"? When have I accused anyone else of bigotry? And what justification have you for calling me a grumpy old man? Please read back over this discussion topic and itemise these points. You will find that at no time have my editing suggestions been based on personal views, much less on personal attacks. If you insist that they have, make a formal complaint. Meanwhile, stop making personal attacks, apologise properly for those you have made to me and other editors and read up on the appropriate Wikipedia policies by which all editors should abide. Bondegezou, who you seem to hold in high regard, has already pointed you in the direction of WP:FOC and WP:AGF. Emeraude (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, to the real issue. I suggested the sentence "During 2012, UKIP's popularity in opinion polls increased, with some polls suggesting it had overtaken the Liberal Democrats for third place." [plus reference to appropriate poll(s)] Emeraude (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your proposal sounds reasonable and convincing. I agree. --RJFF (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I point editors here to a related discussion at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election? Your input would be welcome there. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous guys! Chill the hell out! It's difficult to refer to which polls because UKIP have been ahead at some point in polls conducted by every single polling compamny on Wikipedia except ICM. Be that as it may, UKIP now has a firm lead in Opinium, Survation, TNS BMRB and also ComRes. Can Emeraude and 81.133.12.45/217.41.32.3, stop this sillyness, there is clearly fault on both sides here! Just give it a rest, just focus on the matter in hand! It would be helpful if neither of you decided to have the last word in this argument, you know it might just show a bit of maturity. Peace guys, peace!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not concern yourself with with the insults heaped on me by the two IPS (who are actually one person). It is really none of your business and there has been no fault on my side, unless you are taking sides as well..... And you have no justification and certainly no right to say that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should not have the last word on the matter; or that I need to show maturity. Who the hell do you think you are?
 * Stick with the issue. I have proposed and heard no counter, that a sentence be inserted covering this issue that says "some polls". That's accurate, i.e, not all polls, just some. There's no need to itemise every single poll (and, in fact, most polls in 2012 showed LDs third). No polls now show UKIP with a "firm lead" - that is your interpretation of figures and original research. (As you know because you made a big song and dance about it, margins of error can make either party the leader given the small numbers involved.) If we say some polls a ref only need give one or two examples - job done and dusted. Emeraude (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheffno1gunner says, "UKIP now has a firm lead in Opinium, Survation, TNS BMRB and also ComRes". Let's examine this:
 * Opinium: Latest poll 8/1/13 (so not "now") says "UKIP drop back to 12%" (not a "firm lead") with LDs 7%. They also feel it necessary to explain why it is the only poll to give UKIP such a figure  - and it is a web-based poll.
 * TNS BMRB Latest poll 22-24/1/2013 gave UKIP 12% (down 1%, so not a "firm lead), LDs 8%. Another online poll.
 * Survation Latest poll 15/1/13 (so not "now"): UKIP 16% and LDs 11% (and notes that "UKIP are still not forecast to win any seats").
 * ComRes: Latest poll 25-27/1/13: raw voting intention: UKIP 8%, LDs 6%. (p 9) But in answer to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as...?": UKIP 4%, LDs 8% (p 13) and with voting intention weighted to turnout values, UKIP 10%, LDs 10% (p 16)


 * To compare with the better known pollsters:
 * Guardian/ICM Latest poll, 20/1/13 gives LDs 15% and UKIP 6%. (p 4)
 * Ipsos MORI Latest poll 12-14/1/2013: UKIP 9%, LDs 8% (hardly a "firm lead")
 * And the two most recent polls:
 * YouGov Latest reports on 31/1/13 for The Sun LDs 10%, UKIP 8% and on 1-3/2/13 for The Sunday Times LDs 12%, UKIP 8%
 * So, Sheffno1gunner is relying on selected polls which don't exactly back up his case and are contradicted by more recent polls. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, Sheffno1gunner and Nick Dancer have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does that not surprise me? I will make the change I suggested. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Emeraude has just done what he/she has accused others of doing! Selective about your information aren't we? No mentioning of ICM, you use to love quoting ICM what with it being an anomaly putting UKIP below 7%. Now, there is not a single current poll putting UKIP below 9%, you are just as biased as anyone else on here! Come on admit it! It's obvious! Who are you to say that internet polls are less valid than telephone polls? What about door to door polls? If others are unfit to edit this page or engage in this discussion then without doubt you are as well! As far as what the other IP's (one person) were saying well it does sound harsh but there does seem to be at least a glimmer of truth in it by the way you react! What other editors have done on here is without doubt wrong but atleast when some of them have made a mistake they've admitted it or kept away, whereas you seem pathologically incapable of accepting fault and then to top it all get really aggressive! This is a truly ugly trait! 130.88.114.111 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another personal attack. OK, let's deal with it. You might like to point out where I have been "really aggressive". Or where I have been wrong. Or where I have been biased (that's a serious acusation to make against any editor). Or where I have been selective (I think I have quoted more sources than most others, and more recent sources, unlike Sheffno1gunner who was highly selective). I am simply quoting the polls and pointing out that they do not show what some UKIP members and supporters on here claim they show - that UKIP is the 3rd party. If that upsets them, tough. You are also trying to split reality from what you wish it to mean. You say "Now, there is not a single current poll putting UKIP below 9%" - you may be right. Indeed the latest poll I have seen gives UKIP 9%. But it also gives the Lib Dems 13% (source: "Labour leads Conservatives by 12 points in poll", ICM poll in The Guardian, 11/2/13). The key issue in this discussion has always been the claim that UKIP has overtaken the Lib Dems and become the third party in the UK. The polls never did support this (a few rogue results did not make it true) and none of the most recent polls have shown this. You ask who am I "to say that internet polls are less valid than telephone polls?" Well, seeing as I didn't actually say this..... But since you raise the isue, it is a general worry that internet polls are not as reliable as telephone or face-to-face. Go look it up, I won't do your research for you. Besides, as I said way back, the only real measure is how many votes a party gets, and UKIP has not done well on this score - wait for the next election. Interestingly, none of the pollsters has suggested that UKIP is actually capable of winning a seat anywhere in the country, and some have explicitly stated that they aren't. Emeraude (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets just pretend Emeraude doesn't exist, his presence is clearly annoying a number of editors and there is no point arguing, if we ignore him he might go away! Guys some people are just too set in their ways and stubborn! Also overly sensitive, e.g. he has a funny idea of what a personal attack is! As far as quoting sources goes, yes he is selective, when others quote sources to supplement the ones he's selected they are apparently anomalies or he attacks their methodologies! Are you a know it all or something? Are you aware that your beloved YouGov also part base their findings on internet surveys? I happen to be one of their regulars that they survey!86.161.219.51 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And another personal attack!! I don't have a funny idea of what makes a personal attack - I subscribe to WIkipedia's defintion and so should you and your alter egos. Once again, please point out where I have been selective; it's a serious allegation to make and one you need to substantiate, as you will need to substantiate the suggestion that YouGove is somehow beloved of me. I have attacked no one's methodology - I accept that different pollsters conduct their surveys in different ways, and that is part of the reason why results between them often vary widely. WHat's wrong with that. However, the point remains, despite the slurs, insults, innuendos and personal comments you and your chums have hurled at me, the point of this discussion page is to improve the article. The especific point of this section of the page was to consider the position of UKIP in national opinion polls. That has been done, so it would seem to me that this section should now be closed. If you want to continue attacking me, do it elsewhere, perhaps by making an official complaint about what you allege is my biased behaviour. Of course, that would put your own behaviour under the spotlight. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear 86.161.219.51, might I suggest you read WP:AGF, which is Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith?
 * Emeraude's comments on Internet polls are sensible: e.g..
 * And, anyway, we shouldn't be in the business of interpreting polls (see WP:OR), a matter we have addressed a number of times before. We take our lead from reliable source citations. Your argument would be more convincing if you could refer to such. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)