Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 8

Third party sources
Two editors are suggesting that we need third party sources for all citations in this article. I refer them to Third-party_sources, namely the section on non-independent sources -

"Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization claimed 10,000 people showed up to protest." is ok when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not."

Let me go through each sentence where the 'third-party source needed' tag has been incorrectly added:

"The Chairman of Young Independence, Harry Aldridge, was enthusiastic about the results, saying, "What we have seen in these elections is a raft of enthusiastic first time candidates from YI, from whom we have got some very encouraging results."

This is a direct quote from the chairman of the youth section of UKIP put on the UKIP website. It would be impossible to have a third party source for this - only a secondary source from someone who has read this quote on the website and repeated it. The primary source in this case is the appropriate one. The only reason for a third party source would be if someone doubted that this individual actually said this. Another question would be if the sentence is appropriate or relevant content at all, which I would question, in which case it should be deleted and not have a (impossible to meet, and unnecessary) 'third-party source' tag added to it.

---

"In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil" nationalism of extremist parties.

The sentence says UKIP claims something in it's 2010 election manifesto, so the citation should be the 2010 election manifesto, and it is. Note in particular the use of "In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises" makes this perfectly ok according to Third-party_sources. Again, only a secondary source is possible for this, not a third party source.

---

" In addition, a withdrawal from both the European Convention on Refugees and European Convention of Human Rights is advocated by UKIP, to "enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable" while still "allow[ing] genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations".

This one is more grey - but the direct quotes indicate this is what UKIP claims. I would advocate putting "which it claims will" before the first quote in this sentence.

---

"UKIP's policies on immigration are currently under review[56] but they have previously outlined a number of measures designed to reduce immigration into the UK."

The sentence says that UKIP has outlined something, and the citation links to where this has been outlined.

---

" In addition, they propose to allow EU citizens who have been domiciled in the UK for seven years to apply for citizenship."

The sentence says that UKIP has proposed something, and the citation links to where this has been proposed.

--

In each case, the sentence does not state "UKIP is XXXX", which would need a third party citations, but that "UKIP claims XXXX" or "UKIP proposes XXXX" and so on, which means that third party sources are impossible and only primary sources are suitable to deomonstrate the UKIP proposes or claims such a things. The only other type of source for this would be a secondary source (see WP:third_party_sources) and not a third party source. Atshal (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Third party sources are there not only for verifiability but to establish notability. What you are doing is applying a rule to statements and extending it to cover sections. The entire section needs 3rd party sources to establish notability, just coming from UKIP isn't good enough. Otherwise this article just becomes a news site for UKIP, which is not the intention of an encyclopaedia GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  08:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * notability discusses the notability of the article, not individual sentences within an article. If you think a page on UKIP is not appropriate since UKIP is not notable, then nominate the page for deletion. The source of policy for third-party sources is WP:third_party_sources. Atshal (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Atshal, I suggest you have misunderstood here. See WP:PRIMARY for more. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABLE is not just about articles, but the content within them. Not everything UKIP says or does is notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  11:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you there GimliDotNet - certainly not everything UKIP says or do should be included. Perhaps some of the content above should be deleted, but that is not the point I am making. My point is for something that is taken directly from a manifesto, it is impossible and unnecessary to have a third party source for this. A third party source would have to be a source that independently has evidence that UKIP claims/proposes this. It is possible to have a third party secondary source, for example a journalist who has read the manifesto and is commenting on it. In that case it may well be appropriate to include the journalistic analysis, but the primary source is the manifesto and is fine (and probably better) for the citation.  Similarly for a direct quote from something a UKIP member has written or said - as long as it is clear that this is a claim/proposal/statement then no third party source is needed. The sentence is not making the claim that what UKIP is saying is correct/true/valid, but only that it was said.


 * For example, lets say the leader of the Labour party writes an article for a newspaper and says "The Labour party has the most impressive post-war economic record". Now, if someone wants to include the statement "Labour has the most impressive post-war economic record", then clearly they need third party analysis and the leadership statement is not enough.  If all the editor wants to do is say that the " Labour leader claims that 'Labour has the most impressive post-war economic record' " then no third party source is needed, as all the editor is saying is the that the Labour is claiming this.  Of course, the statement should probably not be included at all - but in that case it would simply be deleted and not have 'third-party source needed' tags added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the link you gave is not policy. WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE and WP:PRIMARY are policy. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see now what you mean about content. WP:DUE is more appropriate here. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  11:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps we are getting on the same wavelength. If an editor thinks it should be deleted, then they should make the case for it and for some of the content above they well be correct.  But randomly adding 'third-party source needed' in places where it is not appropriate (and the WP:third_party_sources is a good resource for deciding this) only clutters up the article.

A nice example is this rather useful BBC page on UKIP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690. I think everyone would agree the BBC is a third party source. However, much (or all) of the material here has ultimately come directly from UKIP statements on policy - since UKIP statements/articles/manifesto etc. are basically the only source of what UKIP policy is (unless the BBC employs mind readers). If we want to include what any party's policies are, which I think should be an important part of any political party wiki article, then ultimately the only source of what that party's policies are, is the party itself. Atshal (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC) We accept the veracity of the BBC because they are a reliable 3rd party source, it is not our role to interpret statements that the primary source makes. In your Labour example that statement would have no place in wikipedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC) . And a little further down "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." . You are ignoring whole sections of policy and picking out the bits that suit you. You cannot base entire sections on primary sources. Also if you cannot find secondary sources on the policy, there is an argument that they shouldn't be in the article at all. If they are not notable enough for discussion in other sources they are not notable enough for Wikipedia, we are not here to reproduce UKIPs website. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - but the sentences in question do not include any interpretation. They merely say "UKIP claims XXXX", "UKIP spokesperson said XXXX", "The 2010 UKIP general election manifesto said XXX", with citation to the primary source to prove this is what they said/claim/wrote. This is 100% fine according to Wikipedia policy and a third party source is not needed (and will be inferior as it would be a secondary source, with the UKIP claim/statement being the primary source). Atshal (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable Third party sources are never inferior, they are always, always, always preferred. Primary sources are, on occasion acceptable. WP:PRIMARY is the policy, WP:third_party_sources is an essay, not policy. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  14:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are trying to claim that it would be preferable to cite a BBC article on UKIP policy that takes its information directly from the UKIP manifesto, than to cite the UKIP manifesto directly? That is absurd and I do not believe it is true. Sure, if the BBC has some kind of independent reliable source for what the UKIP policy is then it might be better, but ultimately the ONLY source for what UKIP policy is, is UKIP itself. This is true of all political parties Atshal (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY backs up me up completely. I shall quote the relevant passage: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * ALL of the statement I put in my original post do not involve interpretation and are clearly straightforward, descriptive statements e.g. "UKIP claims" "UKIP emphasises" and so on. Third party sources are NOT needed, and in case could only ever quote the primary source, making them redundant. Atshal (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You stopped reading too early. See a little bit further down "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
 * Yes, it would be preferable to cite a BBC article on UKIP policy than to cite the UKIP manifesto directly, because the fact that UKIP finds this part of the manifesto noteworthy is an indicator for the notability of this part of the manifesto. Otherwise, we could cite the whole manifesto from A to Z. Third-party sources decide which parts are notable and which are not. If Wikipedia editors decide which parts are noteworthy, it will be original research. --RJFF (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That argument makes more sense RJFF. If I can be bothered I might add them (there are dozens of references all over the media) Atshal (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an article that might be useful in terms of reliable sources discussing UKIP policy: Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Their policies are outlined briefly on their website. No other party has what other people think their policies mean. That is bias and breaches POV.Arsenalfan24 (talk)
 * No other party has massive sections that are just copied from their website, so what is your point? Third party sources is what gives legitimacy to their inclusion in an encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No other parties have points of view in their policies, they have brief outlines. So what's your point? Clearly this is just bias crap. And we can see the bias element clearly when you keep reverting my changes on a freeze on all immigration. No it's not. The policy has NEVER been a freeze on all immigration. It's been a freeze on immigration for PERMERNANT SETTLEMENT which is actually different. Don't see why you treat Ukip different to all the other parties who merely just list the policies, no rubbish about what someone thinks their policies are about, that's not their policies.Arsenalfan24 (talk)
 * Can you point out please edits where I have, in your words treated Ukip different to all the other parties? GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverting the removal of what that academic thinks about Ukip. The 2010 General Election stuff should go as well. The section says POLICY, not 'oh here's what someone thinks their policy means'.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again you side step the question. You have accused me of treating the UKIP article differently from the other edits I make. I would like you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Side step the question? Ok, I'll answer it again then - reverting the removal of what that academic thinks about Ukip.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You have accused me of treating UKIP differently from the way I treat other articles. You are unable to answer a simple question, where have I treated any other political party's wikipedia page differently from the way I am behaving towards this one? GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  15:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Policies (Again)
This page is not here to advertise the UKIP manifesto. Unless policies are covered by reliable third-party sources they have no place in this encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is here to give an overview of UKIP which, as a political party of some note now in the UK, includes policy. Instead of simply deleting content (which is sourced, although not third party), perhaps spend a minute looking up on of the many third party sources that are available. I have just done this, so the content has been restored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not here to re-publish UKIPs website. No other major political party has such large sections of self-published material. This is nothing short of advertising for UKIP, not encyclopedic. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No other parties have what someone else thinks their policies are about neither. But apparently it's one rule for them, and one rule for UKIP.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC
 * And actually what you've said there is untrue. Liberal Democrats have bullet-point lists of their policies, but apparently once again, that free advertising is allowed. Why is it one rule for them and one rule for UKIP? Either you list the policies as they stand, or not at all, I don't see this nonsense about what some supposed author thinks their policies are about, is relevant in any way, shape or form.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ME: No other major political party has such large sections of self-published material.. You Liberal Democrats have bullet-point lists of their policies, can you really not understanding the difference? You're writing like a UKIP supporter, not a contributor to a neutral encyclopedia. That is why your edits are not NPOV.  GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  19:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please do me a favour. The policies section is supposed to display the policies, not what someone thinks of them. NO OTHER PARTY HAS THAT. That is the bottom line and you never answer that point. My edits are not NPOV? Right, because actually telling the facts are not neutral, right ok, let's carry on telling people they want to do this that and the other when actually they don't.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Every WP article should be based on academic sources, not on partisan statements. That other articles do not comply with this rule is not an argument against applying it in this article (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It is an argument for improving the other articles, not for deteriorating this one. You are free to improve the articles on Labour and/or Lib Dems using third-party academic sources that analyse and criticise their policies. That it has not (yet) been done in other articles cannot hold us from doing it here. --RJFF (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Partisan arguments? The source used in the policies section are direct from Ukip website (apart from the bit in the introduction to the policies), so don't try and patronise me.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to patronise you. I am sorry if you feel patronised. I have not said "partisan arguments" but "partisan statements". If you find the wording ambiguous, I will rather say "first-party statements" (coming from the subject of the article). And, of course the policies as presented on UKIP's website are first-party statements which should be avoided in WP articles. --RJFF (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there is a WP:COMPETENCY issue here. The core principles of Wikipedia's reliance on third party sources, rather than primary sources just doesn't seem to be understood. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Arsenalfan24, why don't you simply use material from Wp:Suggested sources? If you do this -and provide a fair summary, all experienced editors will accept it -and reinstate attempts to delete it.  End of problem.  JRPG (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the preference for secondary sources on WP is not so much about not using primary sources at all, but being careful about their use and not using them to build analysis or argument around. The policy page it comes under is of course No Original Research. Simply stating that UKIP have policy X – or, rather, perhaps that they say they have policy X – and sourcing that to their website or manifesto is OK. Nor is it, in itself, POV, so long as its not the only source used, which would be a problem anyway. Both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB are fairly clear on this.


 * I would also add that the other content that seems to be in dispute here, the sentence re nationalism starting "However, although UKIP's ...", which was reinserted with this edit, reads extremely problematically to me. Yes the source appears a decent one for WP, but material of that sort, which is clearly analysis – and a pretty negative one at that – clearly needs attribution as such, and balance, rather than being presented as clear fact, as currently. This is a POV issue, but the reverse of that suggested in the edit summary.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, up to a point, the point being your comments on the sentence beginning "However.." So let's examine this. The preceding sentence was inserted at17:27 on 9 May 2013 by Atshal who I believe is clearly a UKIP partisan. He referenced it to the UKIP manifesto (first party source). At that time it read:
 * In contrast to the blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties, UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background
 * At 09:54 on 10 May 2013, he edited this to:
 * In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP contrasts its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" with the "blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties"
 * And almost immediately, at 09:55 on 10 May 2013, to:
 * In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties".
 * And so it remained, near enough, until third party references were, quite rightly, requested. At 09:17 on 24 May 2013, Atshal added as a reference the Mycock-Hayton article from British Journal of Politics & International Relations. The relevant section of this article does indeed support our text about UKIP decrying the blood and soil nationalism of other right wing parties. What it says, in full, is this:
 * Whilst UKIP have sought to typify other Anglo-British and English ‘extremist parties’ as ‘blood and soil’ ethnic nationalists who threaten the cohesion of the Union (UKIP 2010a), they and the BNP and the English Democrats draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance. (Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, "The Party Politics of Englishness", BJPIR)
 * Now, if UKIP supporters who edit here want the article to state that UKIP does not support "blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties" then they have to also accept the inclusion of of a peer-reviewed academic journal article that gives it some context. After all, it's a UKIP supporter who put in the "blood and soil" stuff; it's a UKIP supporter who supplied the source. Emeraude (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the history of the text and editing, but I'm not sure how relevant all that detail is to my fundamental point, which you also have not addressed at all, that such material needs to be attributed. Genuinely neutral, balanced and well sourced text would say something like "UKIP say X, although this has been disputed by A and B, who say ..". Instead what have currently is the first part of that followed by, basically, an interpretation that what UKIP say is nonsense, as if such a judgment were fact. The people who say it may well be respected academics, and that judgment may well even be right in some sense, but it needs attribution. And, even worse than that, we have an explicit assertion, in WP's narrative voice, that, given such an analysis, UKIP's position is "compromised", which isn't even in the source, from the excerpt you've quoted.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are fine for individual statements but not for whole sections. Entire sections are being added based solely on the fact they've been published on the UKIP website. We also do not accept the UKIP sources as analysis of UKIP, that's for third party sources GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  06:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that, indeed it's pretty much what I said already. The problem was that some of the points being made above were going much further than that. I'm going to try to do something with the para that I've queried as needing attribution. Whatever one thinks of UKIP, we're trying to write a balanced encyclopedia, not have political debates by proxy and prove how awful – or, conversely, brilliant – they are.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It IS sourced (ref no 51) and I also repeated the source just above. But here it is again: Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, "The Party Politics of Englishness", British Journal of Politics & International Relations, October 2012, doi=10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00543.x. The previous sentence, referring to the UKIP manifesto (ref no.50) contains a direct quote relating to civic nationalism. Mycock & Hayton wrote: "But whilst UKIP’s conception of British civic nationalism purports to be ‘inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain’, the party identifies a number of ‘threats to Britishness’ that compromise this stated position." My apologies for not including this above. Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't sourced, nor was that ever my point (other than querying whether the "compromise" point specifically was in the article being cited, which is now clarified). The point was about how to represent what it says.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I thought when you wrote "but it needs attribution" you meant it needed a source. (Actually, I still think that's what you meant.) Anyway, it reads better after your edit, though I still think that Mycock & Hayton's point about the "shared narratives" compromising UKIP's stated position is the key issue that needs to be covered. I've unlinked the red links - no need to link every academic and journal, especially when fully referenced. Emeraude (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've consistently said exactly the same thing, and meant exactly the same thing, at each point, from when I first said in my opening post here that "the source appears a decent one" but that the analysis cited to it needed "attribution", as in an explanation of exactly who is making it. I'm not sure how any confusion could have arisen over that, and am even less sure why you would now be saying that you still think I meant anything different or that I've at any point denied there was a source there at all. Anyway, I'm glad we broadly agree on the conclusion in terms of article text.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, because if a section of text is clearly sourced to authors/article/journal, as it was and is, the attribution has to be the authors/article/journal in the source. Now I see that what you intended was that the attribution should also be explicit within the text. Emeraude (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

General Improvements
Does anyone have any ideas for ways to generally improve the article? I think it is in a substantially improved state compared to around a month ago, partly due to some extensive edits from me, but imagine a lot more can be done. I have sat back from editing for a while because of what I feel were some fairly unpleasant accusations of bias directed towards me, but now that other editors have contributed and most of the changes I have made stand I felt I could contribute some more. Any ideas in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is badly lacking reliable sources for the various figures. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Aberdeen By-Election
No one seems in a rush to add details of the Aberdeen Donside by-election to this article. Britain's "third party" just finished fifth with 4.8% and a lost deposit. Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Details from Aberdeen_Donside_by-election,_2013 added to UK_Independence_Party_representation_and_election_results. Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see User:Bondegezou has taken up censorship and has removed what appeared to be a more neutral re-write and addition to this section. To say that "a trend that was confirmed" is incorrect, since there has only been one by-election in Scotland since UKIPs rise in England, there is no trend lol. So the source does not support what you have written Bondegezou does it? Trend....what trend? Can we have a more neutral re-write, what you have written makes your political persuasion only too clear. Wikipedia is meant to be apolitical. This article and this paragraph is anything but that! 5.70.236.182 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Labeling of right-wing populist
In the info box there is a repetition of right-wing which is clearly unnecessary. To repeat the same label is not a neutral way of writing an article, no other political article does this. I have suggested that the label of right-wing populism is changed to just populism, whilst maintaining the link to the correct(existing page), as directly below this it says right-wing anyway. This solution was not acceptable to some editors, therefore I suggest we just remove the political position of right-wing and keep the link saying "right-wing populism". Come what may, I do not think it reasonable to repeat the phrase right-wing with only 2 words separating it. I shall remove the political position label as it already says right-wing above. Its probably worth noting that the phrase "left-wing" is not repeated in the info box for the Green Party. 1 further note: I am not disputing content, I am disputing labeling/tagging, we need to do this in a neutral way. Many ThanksConsciousKipper (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As GimliDotNet pointed out, right-wing populism != populism. I don't think we need to worry about repeated words in the infobox, as the infobox is there to provide quick facts to the reader rather than being articulate, well-written sentences. If this was in the lead, I'd agree – but the repetition of "right-wing" in the infobox is harmless. I think it's fine keeping the "political position" field filled out, as that, too, provides a nice general overview for the reader. —  Richard  BB  09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I agree with your description of what an info box is but the whole idea of an info box it is meant to be concise, repetition is not concise. I believe my initial solution to be the best...i.e. retain the political position but change the tag on the link to "right-wing populism" as the phrase right-wing is already there. Repetition of the phrase "right-wing" does not meet the description you just gave of an info box. Provided the link takes you to the ciorrect page (which it will) I really do not see the harm. ConsciousKipper (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * UKIP are described in sources as Right-wing populist. That means we label them so. If the label repetition is too much then take one label out, do not change the content to suit. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * May I just remind you GimliDotNet that I am not for a minute suggesting to change the content, merely the repetition of labeling. My initial edit where I changed the articles was a a genuine mistake which is why I came to the talk page to resolve the issue. I agree with you that we should remove the repetition. Which is why I therefore proposed to remove right-wing as political position as it is already stated with right-wing populism, the other option was to tag the Right-wing populism article as just "populism" as so: populism and maintain the political position label as "right-wing". Since no one has had anything constructive to add, I shall remove the political position label as that would be classed as the repetition. Let me know if you prefer the original solution after all, or have an alternative idea to avoid such repetition. ConsciousKipper (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * May I suggest, as per WP:BRD, we establish consensus here before changing this. Personally, I don't feel the repetition is a problem. We have one source describing the party as 'right-wing populist' and another as just 'right wing', so let's show both. When in doubt, stick closely to what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also disputed the source for right-wing, it is research book on the Nordic countries, the UK is not a Nordic country and therefore the source is not directly applicable. There are plenty of sources to say that the party is "right wing populist", so it seems to me that if we are to follow reliable sources my suggestion seems ideal. I really can't see how this repetition is justifiable on this article and not on other similar articles. However, peoples objections have caused me to look into the source for right-wing and I dont really see how it is an appropriate source. ConsciousKipper (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the source for "right-wing", or are you just judging it by its title? Bondegezou (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why has the brief section on LGBTQ in UKIP been removed?
This was a well sourced section in the article and it has been removed. I notice that a number of other parts of this article have been rewritten in a less neutral manner than before, this is more than a tad concerning. The removal of sourced material without comment is simply not acceptable.ConsciousKipper (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can the person who removed it please reinstate the section without delay. ConsciousKipper (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised to see this removed but I rarely come on Wikipedia due to my seasonal work commitments: So have no idea how or when this was removed. It just goes to show that a certain group of people with a certain agenda control wikipedia....Neutrality simply doesn't matter. 5.70.236.182 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are of free to be bold and restore the content. However it must meet WP:NOTABLE and have reliable third party sources. The problem with a lot of the previous content on this article was that is was simply a re-writing of UKIP's website. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  05:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources were all 3rd party, the LGBT section was perhaps the best sourced section in this article and much of it has been removed. Perhaps because it was inconvenient to the narrative of the article. So you are wrong there, it was well sourced, without a single source from the party's website, go back about 3months into the history if you don't believe me. I seem to remember PinkNews being 1 of the sources. You got any batter explanation for its removal? 151.227.16.243 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall critiquing the sources? Just pointing out that article content requires reliable sources, therefore I was not 'wrong' about anything. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How is its removal evidence that "It just goes to show that a certain group of people with a certain agenda control wikipedia....Neutrality simply doesn't matter."? That's bizarre. Emeraude (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you only have to look at the history of these articles to see who "polices" edits of this article. Very well source material has been removed without good reason or any explanation at all. It has completely changed the narrative of that section of this article. It was neutrally written, now it is not. 151.227.16.243 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As well as editing and tidying, I've had a look at the material that was removed: see here for the diff of the removal regarding the group "LGBTQ in UKIP". The sourcing is adequate for the claim being made: PinkNews is a good enough source for saying there is an LGBTQ UKIP group. There's actually two PinkNews sources on this group - UKIP LGBT group: ‘We really need more candidates from the socially liberal side of society’ exists too, which quotes the International Business Times video article Ukip Leader Nigel Farage Urged to Act against Homophobic 'Fruitcakes'.

I think that one of the issue I'd have is due weight: simply saying there is an LGBTQ group in UKIP doesn't really tell the reader much. The Conservative Party (UK) article has a link to LGBTory in the section 'Associated groups', but that's because LGBTory is independently notable. LGBTory does not have any discussion in the article. 'LGBT Labour' doesn't have any discussion in Labour Party (UK). 'LGBTQ in UKIP' wouldn't pass muster at AfD based on these sources. There's just not enough substance here.

The only real potential point of interest for the reader might be that it's a slightly curious development, and the comments from the LGBTQ in UKIP chairman basically arguing against the "fruitcakes" in the party might be worth discussing in some kind of criticism section (although policy tends to disfavour those now). I'm not sure the homophobia of the "fruitcakes" or the reaction of the LGBTQ in UKIP people necessarily deserves to be included in a section on LGBT issues that is (or was, I changed it) itself a subsection of the section on policy. Internal bickering about homophobia isn't policy, it's internal bickering. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism
It is an absolute joke to list ukip as being libertarian. They might claim to be, but in practice they are clearly not. They are ideologically much more in line with national conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrime (talk • contribs)


 * We work off reliable sources. Libertarianism is sourced adequately. —  Richard  BB  19:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "More in line with national conservatism". No they're not. But I agree that libertarian is stretching things - it seems to mean that Nigel Farage wants to smoke in pubs with a pint, but to have little philosophical backing beyond that. Be that as it may, the libertarian tag is referenced, albeit in my opinion very haphazardly, so I'm afraid we're stuck with it until some reliable source comes along showing the opposite. Meanwhile, the text of the article does say "The party describes itself in its constitution as a "democratic, libertarian party". In other words, Wikipedia does not describe it as such. You might want to look back through the archives of this talk page for earlier discussion ad nauseam on this point. Emeraude (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed at length. There seem to be a few definitions of Libertarianism, basically anyone who believes in small government gets the label. Whether we agree with it or not is unimportant, we work with sources, not against them. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotherham fostering scandal
Is there no way of inserting this without concerns regarding notability or original research? It's quite plain to me that the popularity of UKIP over the last year derives from the media coverage of this single event, but since no-one appears to have published any analysis to that effect it can't be cited, and yet I feel it would be a shame for its significance to go unregarded in the article. Does anyone else at least agree that the indcident is, in this sense, important? --AdamM (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The conclusion that UKIP is popular because of the fostering scandal seems to be a bit of a leap, but the events in Rotherham probably are notable and should be included. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be highly desirable to include it BUT as children were involved it is going to be impossible to get a complete Social Services viewpoint. JRPG (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence at all that that the "popularity of UKIP over the last year derives rom the media coverage of this single event". According to opinion polling, UKIP's star was rising anyway and this event is unlikely to have had any real effect beyond Rotherham. (And note that UKIP's supposed great surge resulted in votes, but control of not a single council.) It remains a suitable issue for Wikinews, but any long lasting encyclopaedic value is extremely doubtful. Emeraude (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst FWIW everything I've read suggests UKIP supporters are defecting Tories, Rotherham is worth a mention -even if its just a one liner saying why its not significant.
 * This seems to fit the bill. Any objections if I -or anyone else adds it? JRPG (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the inability "to get a complete Social Services viewpoint" would be an issue, nor does whether it has or has not had an effect on UKIP's popularity. It's worth mentioning because there are a reasonable number of reliable sources that discuss the events in question. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say unless there are third party sources discussing it outside of the context as a news story (i.e not just links to articles reporting the event) then it doesn't need reporting. We are not a newspaper. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its relevance is that it was very well publicized as clear evidence that UKIP were being victimized because of their perceived racist policies. The BBC link shows this wasn't true though many will not have seen it.  A single sentence will suffice. JRPG (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added it to Rotherham_by-election,_2012 as this seems the most obvious place. JRPG (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems a sensible conclusion. Emeraude (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was clearly a significant part of that by-election campaign and is covered there in some detail. Beyond that by-election, I don't see any reliable source citations claiming "that the popularity of UKIP over the last year derives from the media coverage of this single event". If one can be produced, let's see it and consider its inclusion in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I never claimed there were any. I said that is my personal perception of the matter and that I wanted to see if anyone agreed or could produce such a source. Apparently not, so there we are. --AdamM (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To try and back up my assertion, here's a link to Google Trends . The rise in searches for UKIP around the time of the Rotherham scandal is expected but note how it does not fall as sharply, and compare the level of searches for UKIP has been higher over the past nine months than it has been historically. --AdamM (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But it remains your assertion (i.e original research). We could equally say that the rise in searches for UKIP was around the time of the Rotherham by election, which of course it was, and this would not be surprising for a minor party. Google Trends does not attempt to tie its figures to any cause and, quite frankly, given the time scale on the chart, it is impossible to say exactly when UKIP started trending up (or down). But, given the degree of media coverage of the party - remember there were wild predictions that UKIP was about to win seats - a spike in searches is hardly surprising. (And the way I look at the chart, it does fall sharply before the end of 2012, to rise again significantly around the time of the May local elections. Again, no surprise.) There remains no evidence that this was anything to do with fostering and the key issue, here, is whether or not the "scandal" was actually in any meaningful and encyclopaedic sense of significance rather than a flash in the pan - I think we have reached a conclusion on that already. Emeraude (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that the 'scandal' had a lasting effect. The Council said there were good reasons unlikely ever to be disclosed for removing the children so it wasn't a scandal -otherwise all democratic parties would have objected. I expect most people will have forgotten about it by now. In short, put it on a blog but we can't include it in an encyclopedia. JRPG (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Policies (Again) (Again!)
Atshal is attempting to remove from the first paragraph of the Policies section the sentence "However, according to academics Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, writing in The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, the party, along with the BNP and the English Democrats, "draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance"." His motives for this are highly suspect. He wrote after first deleting it that it is "Misleading - this sentence refers specifically only to policy on English governance and the Union... NOT on general policy. Possibly include in a section on policy on UK Union issues and English governance." This is in itself misleading. I reverted on the grounds that "That sentence is a summary of a wider exposition and is, in any case, a counter to the previous sentences in this article.". Atshal again removed it, saying "This does NOT belong in the header, as that implies wider applicability to policy. This sentence is out of context and refers ONLY to English governance." Again, not the point and not what the source article is saying.

This is annoying, especially since it was Atshal who introduced the referenced journal article in the first place, though not with the intention to which it has been put! This was gone over at great length in May - please refer to the archive discussion here on this very point; the conclusion was that the sentence is relevant and properly sourced. It seems that having lost in May, Atshal is now back for a second crack. I have reverted to the status quo ante pending discussion. Emeraude (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here


 * Yet again, Emeraude reverts virtually every change I make. I am correct in this case.  I will reproduce the relevant section from the article here, since I believe that one needs to subscribe to the journal in question to access the text. It is clear that the "shared narrative" refers only to issues surrounding the English parliament and Union. This would be relevant on a section surrounding this issue, but not in the lead text summarising policy in general, which should serve as a brief introduction and discuss policy in general terms. As it stands, this sentence is very misleading.


 * Also, please do not suggest my motives are 'suspect'. I imagine there are many wiki policy and guideline articles outlining why one should not behave in this way. Atshal (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that the article is titled "The Party Politics of Englishness", and does not discuss policy in general, but only the much narrower subject of national identity in post-devolution UK. For those who can't access the article, this is clear from the freely available abstract here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00543.x/abstract Atshal (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have sympathies for Atshal (talk) here as I do not believe UKIP can be fairly linked to the BNP without the full text which is too long. JRPG (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it can, because there is no need to quote the whole text, simply to source it in a properly cited way which is what is done. But, in any case, the journal article does not link UKIP to the BNP in a way that amounts to equivalence - it points out that the apparent similarities in what it calls the party politics of Englishness among these parties (not just BNP, but EDP and others) have a different source and specifically states that UKIP is not in the same 'blood and soil' racism as them.


 * Despite Atshal now saying the journal article is irrelevant because of its title and then telling us what he says it contains, I would recommend everyone to read it all. The article is NOT about "only the much narrower subject of national identity in post-devolution UK". The article also deals with multiculturalism, immigration, Europe, taxation and sets out how the parties, mainstream and other, are increasingly becoming Anglo-centric to some degree or another (and in the case of UKIP, BNP et all, a large degree). As such, it provides an insightful background to policy formation in those parties, and in our case, UKIP. The writers say that "UKIP and the BNP may well be prepared to abandon their current veneer of British unionism in the pursuit of English votes. For UKIP particularly, connecting a sense of English grievance with issues such as Europe, tax and immigration may be a tempting strategy to draw right-wing voters away from the Conservatives."


 * As to me finding Atshal's edits in this case suspect: we still have no explanation of why a source provided by Atshal is now being deleted by Atshal, again. If it was OK when he edited it in, why does he now want it out????Emeraude (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Emeraude. I'm not really interested in Atshal's motives, just in whether the article is wp:npov and whether a particular edit improves it or not. I found the fuller version of the article very interesting -I'd love to read the rest- but obviously the authors were displaying a touch of wp:crystal.  For many older people -including me- using a source which links any democratic party with the BNP without specifically excluding the latter's racist objectives is wrong.  Regards JRPG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Emeraude. I have never said the article itself is irrelevant, merely that this quote is highly misleading in the context it has been placed in the article. Since the quote is placed at the beginning of the policy section, it implies that UKIP draws on 'shared narratives' across policy areas. In reality, the quote refers specifically to attitudes of UKIP towards the UK union and devolution, and is quoted out of context. Please don't make this personal - this is not about some imaginary 'war' between us from months ago, but about improving the article, removing bias and making it more encyclopaedic. Atshal (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But it was YOU who placed it in the article! And again you have attempted to misrepresent what the journal says: it doesn't "imply" that there are shared narrative, it says "they and the BNP and the English Democrats draw on shared narratives". No 'implication' there. And you quoted it above!


 * Here's what YOU wrote into the article back in May - the sentence and source you are now trying to remove:
 * 17:27 on 9 May: In contrast to the blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties, UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background
 * 09:54 on 10 May: In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP contrasts its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" with the "blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties".
 * 09:55 on 10 May 2013: In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties".
 * This was tagged for a reliable reference, which YOU supplied - the Mycock-Hayton article, at 09:17 on 24 May


 * Please, everyone go back to May and examine what Atshal did then; he introduced this source, quite corectly, as showing that UKIP's policy formation was different from the BNP et al, not being based in 'blood and soil nationalism'. Later, he wanted to remove it because he realised that the journal was actually making a link between what could be called the 'Little Englandism' (my phrase) of UKIP, BNP,etc, though stressing that UKIP is not coming from the fascist background of the BNP. It was discussed at some length, and left in. It is not entirely flattering to UKIP if you're a UKIP member, but neither is it a condemnation tarring UKIP with the same brush as BNP. (Indeed, the article identifies a similar process in Labour and Conservative.) It goes some way to explain the background to UKIP's process of policy formation (and, again, other parties including Lab and Con) and as such is an ideal topic to appear in the introduction to UKIP's policies.


 * And I mention UKIP members in the preceding because I believe Atshal is one. Nothing wrong with that, and no reason why a UKIP member should not edit the UKIP article (and it is noted that Atshal's editing record on article space since April has been entirely confined to UKIP apart from one edit). But that makes it all the more important to edit neutrally, but this issue seems designed only to promote UKIP in a positive light using, frankly, spurious arguments that did not hold water in May and do not now. Emeraude (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a member of UKIP? Wikipedia is a funny place! I have also been accused of being Johann Hari here. Not that it matters, but I have only ever voted for Labour, am the member of no political party and have no intention of ever supporting UKIP.

Now, lets just stick to the facts related to the edit, I have no time for a silly personal feud on the internet. Atshal (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so you're not a UKIPian, but I felt you might be from a previous discussion when I suggested you were and you failed to respond. (And being accused of being Johann Hari must have been rather unpleasant.) Emeraude (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally when I edit articles on Wikipedia, which is not terribly often, it is to remove bias from articles. That was the case with the Hari article, which at one stage was basically one giant personal attack on him, presumably by people on the right who dislike him. I attempted to clean it up and make it impartial and balanced, and many people objected because they were happy with the article being largely negative. People started to accuse me of actually being Johann Hari, when in reality I was trying to improve the article by removing the bias.
 * With the UKIP article, there are clearly large chunks of text written by people with an extreme dislike of UKIP, many of which I have removed already and made impartial. Many examples remain - I believe the sentence at the start of the policy section that incorrectly implies UKIP policy has a 'shared narrative' with EDL and BNP, when in fact this quotation refers specifically to ideas surrounding the English parliament and the Union, and should not be placed where it is, or probably be in the article at all. Another example is the section on policy on European issues. This should be comprised of what the UKIP policy is, with citations, and cited criticisms of policy. Instead, the author of that section is constructing their own criticism, and it basically constitutes original research and is clearly biased. It is already clear I am going to have to put a lot of effort to reduce it down to cited policy and cited criticism, because some people are happy with the anti-UKIP bias in that section. Atshal (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just gone back through the Europe policy section removing each sentence that is essentially discussion and original research, and is clearly the author of that wikipedia section constructing an argument as to why s/he thinks the UKIP policy is poor. What we actually need is citations of people directly criticising UKIP policy on Europe, not citations to articles saying why Europe is good/profitable and constructing the criticism of UKIP policy within the wikipedia article. As it stands, what is left is cited examples of UKIP policy on Europe, which is what should be there, and what is missing is cited direct criticism of UKIPs policy. I'm sure there are many out there. Atshal (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kilroy Silk and UKIP under Knapman
The above section includes the following statement about the 2005 general election: "This placed it [UKIP] fourth in terms of total votes cast, behind the Liberal Democrats and ahead of the Scottish National Party." This is mathematically true as far as it goes. But, seeing as the SNP did not contest any seats outside Scotland, it is meaningless. Within Scotland, UKIP polled a total of only 8,859 (0.4%) for its 22 candidates, compared with the SNP's 412,276 (17.7%) for its 59 candidates. In terms of votes cast, UKIP was eighth. Statistically, it was trounced by the BNP in terms of votes per candidate, both of whom were beaten by the Greens (UKIP: 403 each; BNP: 796 each: Grn: 1,356 each).

It therefore seems sensible to remove the bit about "ahead of the Scottish National Party". But having done that, is there any need to say "behind the Liberal Democrats"? Edited to say: "This placed it fourth in terms of votes cast nationally." (Source for statistics is that given in the section of the article, i.e. The Electoral Commission report Election 2005: constituencies, candidates and results. Emeraude (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible to me. Atshal (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Education
This article lacks a section of UKIP's backwards Education Policies under the sub-category "Policies". IJA (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What backwards education policies might those be? —  Richard  BB  09:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Party resignations/defections/suspensions
Party Resignations/Defections(Coachtripfan (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC))
 * That article claims, "Nattrass is now the third MEP to resign since the party won 13 seats in the 2009 European elections, after two previously defected to the Tories." As I count it, Nattrass and Nikki Sinclaire have resigned, and David Campbell Bannerman and Marta Andreasen have defected to the Tories. So I don't know how The Guardian counts Nattrass as the "third" to resign. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know whether the Gruniad is making a fine judgement between resignation and being sacked for defection but it is clearly notable and worth a line to say 2 resigned & 2 defected or whatever & Nattrass's comments following his deselection.

JRPG (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

MEP suspension(Coachtripfan (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Atshal, numerous citations say Bloom has had the whip suspended. Whip (politics) explains what that means: "in the UK and Ireland, a party's endorsement of a Member of Parliament (MP) or a Teachta Dála (TD); to "withdraw the whip" is to expel an MP or TD from his or her political party. (The elected member in question would retain his or her parliamentary seat, as an independent, i.e. not associated with any Party.)" Bondegezou (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And this article describes hims as "suspended" from the party: Bondegezou (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely crystal clear. When a party removes the whip from a representative, they disown him. Bloom is not, currently, a UKIP MEP. Emeraude (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Having been removed from the party, the entry is now accurate. Atshal (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

2010 General Election
I'm trying to clear up this section a bit. There is a questionable claim that:

"Overall, UKIP hoped for a hung parliament in which the Liberal Democrats would drive through proportional representation as a key demand to form a coalition government.[citation needed]"

I can find nothing to back this up. Perhaps it is quite true that UKIP secretly wished this but I do not think it is verifiable. Is anyone able to provide a suitable source for this? If not, I think it should be removed. Atshal (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems very suspect, and perhaps someone's opinion. Remove away. —  Richard  BB  11:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, delete for now, but keep looking for sources, because I suspect there truth in it. Emeraude (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But, on a more serious note, I see that Atshal has reverted one of my edits (an edit of his edit) in a way that only be described as arrogant. (See history of today's edits.) Does he really think that I am hanging around waiting to revert his edits? To claim that my edit can be reverted with the reason: "That you think it is does not suffice" doesn't hold water - I never expressed an opinion. But to immediately follow it up with an edit of his own saying "I do not believe there exists a suitable reference for this, and do not think it is true" is simply going too far!! To go back to my edit, there was no point in deleting the affiliation of the candidate who beat Farage (and the source is thhere) just because it was in brackets. Remove the brackets! Which I did. And the fact that he was a Europhile beating not just UKIP, but the UKIP chairman, is immensely significant. Besides, as it now stands the article is inaccurate. John Stevens was NOT an Independent. He represented The Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy. There were four candidates officially listed as Independent, but Stevens wasn't one of them. Emeraude (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get in a silly wiki war, so I unequivocally apologise for coming across as arrogant and hope you are not too upset.


 * Lets examine the latest reversion in question. I removed the reference that John Stevens is a "Europhile" (an uncited assertion). The inclusion of the word is a clear example of weasel words since the inclusion of the word "Europhile" implies that the issue of Europe somehow played a role in Stevens finishing ahead of Farage. However, if you take a look at Stevens campaigning material he rarely or never even mention Europe. There are no stories attributing Steven's opinion on Europe as contributing to him finishing ahead of Farage. Where is the evidence that the uncited assertion that Stevens is a 'Europhile' is notable in the context of finishing above Farage? It is not, and is in my opinion placed there to imply that Stevens finishing second and Farage third is somehow a defeat for Farage's Euroskeptic opinions. Why include 'Europhile' and not one of Stevens many other beliefs that I am sure do not coincide with Farage's that may or may not have place a role in finishing second?


 * Also, according to the Electoral Commision Stevens did stand as an independent, so that is accurate too. Atshal (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your last point would be a good one if it were true. But it's not. The Electoral Commission's results page for Buckingham describes him as "Buckinghamshire Campaign For Democracy". BBC News - Election 2010 lists Stevens as Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democrac] as does John Stevens Wikipedia article. The constituency straddles local authorities: official election notifications by Aylesbury Vale District Council and Wycombe District Council describe him as "Independent - Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy" as does the Bucks Free Press. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As for your assertion that the term "Europhile" is used as a "weasel word", that is palpable nonsense - "Eurosceptic" (or "Eurosceptism") is used eight times in the text of the aticle (and further in the infobox and references) so this must be weasel words as well??? That's ridiculous. Both are clearly understood words. You're right that Stevens is not cited as a Europhile, but only in this article. If you want a citation, look for one. (You've managed to find citations for other issues.) Stevens is a well-known Europhile and it is surely significant that someone who left the Conservative Party to found an anti-Europe party was defeated by someone who left the Conservative Party to found a pro-Europe party (the Pro-Euro Conservative Party)!


 * Now, whether Stevens' pro-Europe stance compared with Farage's anti-Europe stance was the crucial factor cannot be known. No one knows exactly what was in the minds of the good voters of Buckingham, and Stevens was fighting mainly on local issues. But when UKIP alone of the national parties (the serious ones anyway, forget Monster Raving Loonies and such) stands against the Speaker, a Conservative, and fails to come second then questions have to be asked. And one possibility is that conflicting views on Europe played a part. What other major issue separated them? Describing Stevens as a Europhile is not saying that it was the reason, but readers are entitled to have that fact and can make up their own minds. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that describing Stevens as a Europhile seems sensible, and here's a relevant cite: Bondegezou (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done it. (And removed BBC reference; the Electoral Commission one is the official one.) Emeraude (talk)

I still don't agree with either change (there are conflicting sources within the electoral commision regarding whether he was an independent or not, and being a Europhile is not notable in this context) but I really can't be bothered with arguing over such a trivial thing anymore Atshal (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you find conflictng sources within the Electoral Commission. Every reference to Stevens from EC source material I have refers to Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy, e.g. Candidate spending and donations, Result for Buckingham and a news release on Donation and borrowing figures for political parties observes that "One party – the Buckingham Campaign for Democracy – submitted its donation report after the 30 April deadline,....." General election 2010 results for analysis uses the abbreviation BCD on page 1, but on the results spreadsheet refers to "Ind1" (but it doesn't name any parties unless they stood in multiple seats). However, this was compiled by LGC Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth from Press Asociation data and not by the EC itself. The same happens in the spreadsheet General election 2010 results, but this is also by Plymouth, not the EC. Emeraude (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted "student protest" sentence
One student handed a formal letter of protest to the President of the European Parliament, heavily criticising Bloom's behaviour.

I deleted the sentence above as it does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. If the anonymous "student" cannot even be named, I don't believe the "formal letter of protest" merits inclusion. Politicians receive all manner of documents from any source imaginable. That it came from a "student" feels like it was a stunt for publicity, and I'm averse to wiki being used in this way, particularly when the "event" is so flabby and insignificant.Jonny Quick (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom
Why is this in the article? It belongs in the article on Bloom, not here. I see no such comparable section (Controversies) on the Labour Party (UK) article for instance, nor any mention of member misconduct. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You might say the same about Nikki Sinclaire, Marta Andreasen, Nigel Farage and, come to that Michael Crick. Then, of course, the section on Controversies/Sexism would be empty.........
 * What happens in other articles is not really relevant. Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The point being there ought not be a section like that here, and what other UK political articles are written like are very relevant here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So you do want to do away with the section on controversies concerning UKIP.
 * It is never a good argument to say that another article does or does not do something - the fault may be with the other article(s). Emeraude (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see similar sorts of sections for the articles on the SNP, BNP and RESPECT, so I think Darkness Shines' argument is dubious anyway. As a more significant party, there's more to say about Labour and more spin-off articles, some of which also include comparable sections. Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys are missing the point, this article is about a political party, not what members of that party get up to. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly the actions of key party members are relevant to an article about a political party. (And UKIP doesn't have a lot of Parliamentarians, so the actions of individual MEPs stands out more than in the case of, say, Labour, with hundreds of Parliamentarians over many decades.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it can be clear, this is an article on the party, not the members, they have their own articles. That stuff is just coatrack, and should not be here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Darkness Shines, the Godfrey Bloom affair was not a historically relevant event, although it was highly news worthy at its time. Mr Bloom seems to have had a very long list of indiscretions....do you suggest we add all of those as well and while were at it all indiscretions/controversies by other UKIP MEPs? Would that in your view be an impartial way to write an article? I think not. It seems clear that it is relevant to document Mr Blooms indiscretions/controversies on his own Wikipedia page but I see no reason why this should be on the party's page, especially considering other nationally significant pieces of party info have been removed from the page. Owl In The House (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the sheer number of MEP resignations/defections/controversies is a significant part of UKIP's story (5 out of 13 elected in 2009 now no longer sitting as UKIP, and various issues in the prior cohort too), although there may well be some recentism in the article's current coverage of Bloom as the most recent (and colourful) affair.
 * UKIP-related articles have suffered from a lot of contentious and bad faith editing, so I strongly suggest we go slowly and work towards consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Centre-right
The UK Independence Party (UKIP, Ukip, ) is a Eurosceptic  right-wing populist See: -  -  - Owen Jones: Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, p 245, Verso 2011 - David Art, Inside the Radical Right, p 188, Cambridge University Press, 2011 - Stephen Driver. Understanding British Party Politics, p 151, Polity Press 2011 - Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, p 154, Verso 2012 - -  - , centre-right..

References: "UKIP is a relatively traditional centre–right party".

I have been trying to add this but so far two users have deleted it. Uhseere (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to leave as "right wing", as that is accurate and not controversial. Trying to narrow it down further is problematic as this is fairly subjective - it would not be hard to find reliable sources describing UKIP as far-right. Atshal (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was one of the editors who reverted and I was wrong to do so on the basis I gave. This came about from a simple error - I had searched the cited article by Usherwood for "centre right". It isn't there. However, "centre-right" is, in the phrase "the electoral base for UKIP appears much more contingent than the Greens’ did, for the simple reason that UKIP is a relatively traditional centre-right party, whereas the Greens were able to appeal to a more general insecurity in its voters." This is why I did not revert the latest edit. However, the phrase Underwood uses is based on a reference to Betz (1990) (which I do not have available) and Usherwood himself gives no reason for describing UKIP as centre-right - certainly nothing else in the rest of the article suggests this position - and my own view would be that, if the Tories are centre right, then UKIP is (further) right. What it comes down to is where on the right UKIP is; clearly, not extreme or far right, but either simply right (plenty of refs) or more specifically centre-right (a couple of refs). I tend to agree with Atshal for once, that we leave it as "right wing". Emeraude (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Betz is not releveant - it is used only as source for Greens. Emeraude (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian
Is being removed by Please explain why you are removing well cited content without consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite it's constitution party they claim as a libertarian and democratic party, for ideology it's ideology is euroscepticism and right-wing populism, for categories of course i mean wikipedia categories they have category as a libertarian parties in the United Kingdom. however it's policy is not really libertarian party, many political analysts and commentaters dispute UK Independence Party as a libertarian party, they considered as a right-wing populist for exemple which often combines free market and anti-elitism which is commons by some libertarians. User:Adn1990 (User talk:Adn1990) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS & WP:V. Please refrain from removing that content again. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why
I have restored the removal of reliably sourced content, which has been removed twice of spurious grounds. Please stop removing reliably sourced content. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is meant to be an encyclopaedia article. As such, it is not appropriate to include every poll or article that mentions UKIP or Farage. We should only be including significant events, and not given undue weight to particular minor events. I suggest you read WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE for some background on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidance. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And which policy says we remove positive information but include minor events like, the actions of a few members being given an entire section, sexism, how is that not undue? How is it undue to report the latest polls? It is not, and I intend to restore the content as no reason within policy has been given for it's removal. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather than come to my talk page and accuse me of being at 2RR (not an offence!) it would be better for Darkness Shines to discuss the reasons why I reverted, which were clearly stated and need to be addressed. They were not "spurious" grounds and conform to the usual practice of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a repository of current affairs stories and one-off opinion poll results. (And it's worth noting that this article was bogged down for weeks over the issue of recording every poll result: see archived pages.) As I said at my first revert, "Undoubtedly referenced, but this is current news of dubious long term encyclopaedic value." I do not question the sources; I read the same myself. What I questioned was the desirability of including these news stories in an encyclopaedia. To then restore the material with the comment, "Only time will tell", actually supports my deletion as I made clear when I deleted the second time with the observation that "Indeed, only time will tell. So wait for time to tell." I think Bondegezou has adequately summarised the appropriate policies here. Emeraude (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, if there are specific parts of the article where you think undue weight is given to "minor events", please do describe them here and let's discuss. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam political parties in Europe
There are definitely UKIP individuals who hold extreme views against Islam, but is it really as much as the EDL and BNP to merit having this category? Áccénté Áígúé (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the category. There's not even any mention of their stance on Islam in the article. -- Ե րևանցի talk  03:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)