Talk:UK Independence Party

Party Logo

It is a known fact by party members that the website has rarely been updated regarding its general look, albeit always updated to change news stories. This may be a poor attempt at backing up my point, but I can assure you it is true. Here is however some sources to show the logo has changed:

Party Logo on recent media magazine.

New Party logo in late October, only a week or so after the party changed the colours.

Party branch website one of the first to be updated with party colours. Hope these links are of help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndependentThinkerUK (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the logo on their offocoal website is the one that should be used. There is also a promlem with the image used in this article as it's been nominated for delition (I think because of a lack of liciencing detail). I've updated the logo now, with one taken from their website, and dealt with the copyright issue properly - so I don't think it will be a problem now. Obscurasky (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Right-wing

What consensus is there for UKIP being a right-wing political party? Surely, referring to them as a conservative party ideologically defines them far more distinctly. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and make the change. RicoRichmond (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why 'Right wing' is still there - saw justification that UKIP is identified as 'conservative' so defacto right of centre/right wing -- but right wing implies a distance to the right (which would need to be justified), whereas right of centre does not. Pperrin uk (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because a source says they are right wing. Never mind referring back to old discussions for dodgy edits. Keep up to date or do NOT edit. Thanks.Wembwandt (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This University of Leicester source describes them as 'Centre-Right' - http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html Do I have permission using this source to make the change as this is a more up to date source than the one being currently used. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the "centre-right" part is the hypothesis they are proposing to study; this is not a peer-reviewed paper, but more like a grant proposal, and thus not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in another section below. The term "right wing" is generally used to describe parties to the right of traditional conservative, chrisian democratic and conservative liberal parties, who are usually called "center-right". TFD (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but, in this BBC Radio 4's 'Westminster Hour' radio talk show ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vw0w3/Westminster_Hour_31_10_2010/ ) claims that most UKIP members and MEPs consider themselves and their policies 'moderate' and 'Centre-Right'. The report starts at 0:34:36. Now I understand the general concensious is that they are 'Right-wing' and I can see why, but to me and it seems members of the party itself and the BBC (which is part of the mainstream media) seems to be dubbing them 'Centre-right' which I personally think is a better way to describe them as a whole. Now I realise I could be wrong and I won't change it unless I'm given authority to, but please consider it as this is a lot more up to date than the old reference. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is calling them "center-right". TFD (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

UKIP advertise themselves as "Libertarian, non racist.." in their google advert, google.co.uk UKIP. Conservative or Right Wing seems to be other peoples opinion of what UKIP is, not what UKIP say they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.121.249 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We report how parties are described in reliable sources. The article does not call them racist. TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me finding a new and up to date source to describe the terminology for UKIP? It seems that a fair amount of bias is going on here from a few militant editors to try and keep the sources as "right wing" suggestive as possible. I believe, and having read the opinions of many other readers here, that the party is more "Right of Centre" based on their policies and various media sources. If you agree with me please make yourself known or nothing will get changed. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's another section below about whether UKIP is "right wing". Several reliable sources, including scholarly sources, label them as right wing. Please read that section before making any changes, and remember that a single "new and up to date source" will not override what all the other independent sources say. Fences&Windows 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 shows UKIP only as right as the Conservative party which is stated as centre right on their Wikipedia page Revonev (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. If it was then we could also call the UKIP a "BNP lite". --Snowded ^TALK 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

then you would have to call conservatives BNP lite as well, most sources labelling it right wing are much more biased than this, I still don't see any evidence for UKIP being right wing to me, especially as they seem to be made up of both ex tories and ex labour party members Revonev (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ukip is a centre right party acknowledged by the times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article664284.ece

I have found futher internet articles indicating centre right http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013374.html http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/UKIP-PIP-TORIES-CITY-EURO-BATTLE/article-1057522-detail/article.html academically recognised as centre right http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html Revonev (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such claims there... please state where it states that the party is Centre Right. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study States UKIP are Centre right, and this is the first proper research done into UKIP which has been done by Uiversity Of Leicster, thus surely Centre right is applicable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.189.59 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC) They are centralist not right wing, they have centre left and centre right policies, so they can not be right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandstruth (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/documents/centre-right/UKIPCandidatesandSupportersworkingpaper-1.pdf Showing Ukip are not right wing

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study Synopsis of the study

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/research/centre-right/competing-on-the-centre-right-an-examination-of-party-strategy-in-britain?searchterm=ukip Further links

http://www2.le.ac.uk/search?gsasearch=on&SearchableText=ukip Lots more too.

Now can I change it to centre right/ Libertarian and civic nationalist. please. (Englandstruth (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

The source your using is a survey of UKIP members and supporters which says "Using surveys of UKIP candidates at the 2009 European and 2010 general elections, we assess the political attitudes and views on party strategy of UKIP candidates and compare them with the views of UKIP supporters using opinion poll data. We demonstrate that UKIP’s candidates and supporters are closely aligned, with both groups placing themselves largely on the centre right", (so the centre-right is how the people surveyed view the party), whereas it later confirms right wing is correct by saying "Firstly, although UKIP is generally recognised as being on the political right, Euroscepticism has a broader appeal". So in fact the source confirms that they are right wing. Mo ainm~Talk 22:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"although Ukip is generally recognised as being on the political right" Is the perception people are given. Have you read the policies at all? All this is proving is that Wiki does not give a true representation of a subject. Ukip are not right wing, not racist. You can not use just left wing sources to prove this as they are BIASED. Libertarianism and civic nationalism can not be right wing as they are all inclusive. Ukip has ex labour and Lib dem members, Left wing ideologies would not work with a right wing one. They like the centre left policy though. (Englandstruth (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

To add there are more links in this section saying that Ukip are centre right and not right wing than there is saying otherwise. The general consensus is leaning towards the centre right theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandstruth (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Said like a true UKIP party member. Mo ainm~Talk 09:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered like some one who is anti Ukip.

From the webpage:

THE ONLY PARTY STANDING UP FOR BRITAIN AND (ALL) THE BRITISH PEOPLE

The UK Independence Party is the UK’s fourth political party – and the only one now offering a radical alternative.

On 3 March 2011, our candidate Jane Collins (right) beat the Conservatives and Lib-Dems to finish a clear second in the Barnsley Central by-election.

In 2004, we came third in the European Parliament elections, ahead of the Lib-Dems; in 2009 we went one better and came second, beating Labour.

THE EU – A SYMPTOM, NOT THE CAUSE

UKIP was founded in 1993 to campaign for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Not because we hate Europe, or foreigners, or anyone at all; but because it is undemocratic, expensive, bossy – and we still haven’t been asked whether we want to be in it.

But the EU is only the biggest symptom of the real problem – the theft of our democracy by a powerful, remote political ‘elite’ which has forgotten that it’s here to serve the people.

WHAT WE BELIEVE IN

We believe in the right of the people of the UK to govern ourselves, rather than be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels (and, increasingly, in London and even your local town hall).

We believe in the minimum necessary government which defends individual freedom, supports those in real need, takes as little of our money as possible and doesn’t interfere in our lives.

We believe in democracy devolved to the people, through national and local referendums on key issues, so that laws are made by the people’s will, not the fads of the political class.

We believe that the government of Britain should be for the people, by the people – all the people, regardless or their creed or colour – of Britain.

UKIP says… Listen to the people. What do you say?

Does that sound Right wing to you? (Englandstruth (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Well, since you asked, and adding it to everything else UKIP says, yep. Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you said it should be pointed out that your politics are:Politics - particularly anti-fascism. Thus making any thing to the right of you actually right wing;). Try not to be biased? (Englandstruth (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Please do try to read correctly before making personal attacks on people and what you suppose to be their motives. My profile page says that one of my Interests is "Politics - particularly anti-fascism". If you choose to read into that something that is not there and then to accuse me of being biased, you really do need to learn more about politics. I await your apology, but won't be holding my breath. Emeraude (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do. :) In your mind it is ok to call my party Right wing, therefore you are calling me right wing, but if I call you left wing you expect an apology? I am a civic nationalist libertarian, just like my party, so can not be right wing. I am a centralist. Not nice being misrepresented is it? (Englandstruth (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

What are you talking about? You outlined a set of statements and asked another editor for a personal opinion which she s/he provided. As it happens I agree with that judgement and I fail to see why being a "civic nationalist libertarian" makes you centrist. I can think of various labels but that is not one of them. Whatever the whole point about the article is that your views, my views or those of other editors matter naught, what matters is what the third part sources say. Todate they use right-wing, end of argument --Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Englandstruth was a member of UKIP. But all reliable sources say that UKIP is to the right, so if that is a typical UKIP member/supporter then I and everyone else must assume that they are also to the right. That they are in UKIP is their own public admission and we are entitled to draw inferences from that; what Englandstruth has done is to make a totally unfounded assumption of my political position and then from that made accusations about my motives and integrity as an editor. I am still owed an apology. Emeraude (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So all the sources on here saying that Ukip are centre right are wrong then. Your assumption that Ukip are right wing automatically means you are calling me right wing. I am not, my political spectrum is centralist, I do not agree with right wing party ideologies. Why would I join one? You are calling me right wing, so you will be waiting a while for your apology, when Ukip are represented in a true light and not by left leaning sources. You will get one. Next you will be telling me all the ex Labour , lib dems etc are right wing, even Reuters call us centre right: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2011/03/08/ukip-replacing-the-lib-dems-or-taking-on-the-tories/

Or that Lord Stodart was once Labour and former councillors that were formerly Labour such as Derrick Huckfield (Staffordshire CC).

Ukip are centre right.

Once again I will apologise when you with draw the remark that I am right wing, this is asserted by calling my party right wing. (Englandstruth (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

(Yawn) Once again, I made no comment on your position - you did. I commented on some statements you provided about UKIP's position. Taken in their entirety, and with everything else we know about UKIP, I said it sounded right wing. Now, you may regard yourself as centrist, but your party is right wing. As for centre right, well "centre right", is right wing - the clue is in the second word. Not far right, nor extreme right, nor ultra right, granted, but right. As to your irrelevant potted histories of selected UKIP members: that is nonsense. (Interesting though, that you did not list any ex-Tories.) You are implying that not one of them changed their views BEFORE joining UKIP, otherwise they would have stayed where they were. People do change their political views and parties (Churchill did, Mosley did, Mussolini did) which is why there are ex-Labour and ex-Conservative members in the BNP; they don't make the BNP left/right/centre because of their previous leanings; the BNP is what it is. But there are also ex-BNP members in UKIP so, by your logic, UKIP ought to be fascist. It isn't, though, is it, so we have to conclude that previous political affiliations of a party's members, though interesting, are not a reliable pointer to the party's own position! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Council seats

The article states that UKIP has around 100 councillors and the info box says 93. However, I can find only 23 seats on this website: http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm Could someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.122.82 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between Principal Authority Councillors on one hand (County, Borough, District and Unitary Authority councillors), and Town and Parish Councillors on the other. Town and Parish Councillors have little power and are often elected unopposed; I would imagine that our numbers are including these councillors, which is a mistake. We should only list the number of Principal Authority councillors. Fences&Windows 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The BBC lists results every year, but they don't include the uncontested seats that year, so I'm not sure what the total is, and where you'd be able to find a reliable source to give the figure not including Parish councils. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's 23: Cambridgeshire (1), Dudley (1), Hartlepool (2), Mansfield (1), Merthyr Tydfil (2), Newcastle-under-Lyme (5), Norfolk (1), Nottinghamshire (1), South Ribble (1), Staffordshire (4), Staffordshire Moorlands (1), Stevenage (1), Suffolk (1), Sutton (1). This can be verified on the local council websites. Fences&Windows 02:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After doing a count up of all their councillors on their website( http://www.ukip.org/content/councillors/1732-find-your-ukip-councilllor ) I have found that they have 66 councillors all together and not the 21 which is currently being claimed. Do I have permission to make the change using this information which is from their official site? Furthermore, why don't Parish council seats count?

I updated the councillors count using information from the UKIP members' forum which is not visible to the public and therefore can't be cited. wonko (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that many UKIP Councillors describe themselves as independent. Indeed indeed some Councils do not recognise UKIP as a group if their is only one councillor. Also parish councils tends to be apolitical. Therefore, it is not easy to provide a definitive figure. I have a list with 54 Parish and Town UKIP Councillors but due to the difficulties and to avoid argument I said around 50. Pstaveley (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A little heads up; the official UKIP page has not even been updated regarding councillors. There are no new councillors that the Party won in the 2011 local elections. I have emailed the webmaster regarding this; but as per usual - they are not doing a thing. Take note that the UKIP page for local government is out of date. (talk) 7:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

UKIP is a Libertarian Party not right wing

There seems to be various reversions about the nature of UKIP. I am a member of UKIP and I feel that it is a libertarian party, it is definitely not right wing, even if the media say it is. For example, UKIP's policy is to remove tuition fees and reinstate full grants and free further and higher education. Surely you are not saying that is a normal right wing.

Similarly, UKIP policy is to build 3 High Speed rail lines using public money. A right wing policy would be to let the market decide and pay for that investment itself.

What evidence is required in order to permit the status of the party to be changed to libertarian and not be reverted?

Pstaveley (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the media (broadsheets) say it is right wing then for WIkipedia that is enough. If you want to make the case of libertarian then you have to find reliable third party sources which say it is. Not your opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 12:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some basic fallacies in Pstaveley's arguments. 1 It's "not right wing, even if the media say it is". Well, actually, if the media collectively say it is right wing then by Wikipedia rules guess what - it's right wing! 2 But it's not just the media; countless academic sources also label it as such so, once again, under Wikipedia rules, it is right wing. 3 Pstaveley declares that less than a handful of policies are not right wing, which is, of course, original research. 4 But cherry picking a small number of policies is hardly a rigourous examination in any case.

In fact, the policies Pstaveley has chosen have support beyond the left wing (though the Lib Dems are currently embarrassed on tuition fees etc). The High Speed Rail Link is a clasic case - proposed by Labour and accepted by the Con-Lib coalition (i.e. with all party support) you could argue that it has ceased to be an issue that could be located on a left-right scale, rather like the NHS. It would considerably help Pstaveley's case that UKIP is not right wing if (s)he could identify some unquestionably left wing proposals in UKIP's philosophy, such as nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, workers' control of industry, international worker solidarity, abolition of the monarchy, banning fee-paying schools......

(S)he asks: "What evidence is required in order to permit the status of the party to be changed to libertarian?" Snowded has answered that above, but asserting that UKIP is not right wing and therefore it has to be libertarian will certainly not do it. Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the reason the High Speed Rail Link is popular in political circles is that we don't have to start paying for it for a number of years. One would ask "have they learned nothing" if not for WP:SOAP. Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

I would have said that UKIP is primarily a one issue party, the reason for having a full manifesto is to avoid the drawbacks of one-issue-parties, which is fair enough. But in the issue of "winged-ness" there are no cites to support the claim that it is right wing, and indeed the body of the article makes no such claim. While the claim that the European group they formed is "more right wing" than the previous grouping is supported by the BBC cite, it does not actually address the issue of UKIP's position (or even of the grouping), merely a relative change in their grouping. Therefore there is nothing to support "Right wing" in the infobox. Since "Right wing" is used as a hate term, using it unattributed seems poor, and since political position is complex, having it in an infobox at all is probably not good idea. If it were to be used the position as in the BBC cite "Eurosceptic" might be a better choice. Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

"Right wing" is used as a hate term. That's just your opinion and says more about your own political position than anything else. Right and left wing (and "fascism", "socialism", "communism", "capiralism") are clearly understood concepts in political science and are used accurately and sensibly in informed discussion of political issues. This is an encyclopaedia, and we expect that editors (and readers) are intelligent enough to use words and phrases with their generally accepted meanings. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. Emeraude (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments made so far. You have said that UKIP is primarily a one issue party. If you believe this to be so that surely it cannot be left, right or centre wing. Withdrawal from the EU is actually a trait shared by both Labour and Conservative politicians. I grant you that fewer Labour politicians are so open about their status on the EU compared to the Conservatives. However, a typical person who is openly wanting the UK to withdraw from the EU is Baron Stoddart of Swindon who is an independent Labour Peer. If anything Conservative politicians tend to be more Euro-sceptic rather than simply wanting the UK to leave the EU. Just to clarify it would be totally wrong to state that UKIP is Euro-sceptic. Pstaveley (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, its very simple. Your opinions, or mine or those of any other editor here are simply not relevant. You have to find reliable sources that support your position. Until you do that you are wasting your time and that of everyone who has to respond to you. --Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A relevant point on the subject of opinion, I think, is that Snowded is a Plaid Cymru activist - a left wing Welsh nationalist party in direct competition with UKIP in the 2011 Senedd elections. wonko (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (A UKIP member) Moved this comment. Keep comments in time order please. Emeraude (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be a relevant point if, and only if, 1 You could show that Snowded's edits were based solely on his admitted political position (i.e. you accuse him of blatant POV pushing) and 2 UKIP wasn't also competing against the whole range of other parties! Emeraude (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You all push your POV on all pages to do with politics right of centre. It's getting hugely irritating. I see the same names on every talk page, acting as if they're the source of authority. Give it a break, and utilise some good faith edits for once. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this page

This article's set up looks like it was written by a left wing author who wants to emphasise dubious events over information and fact, could we please have a big re-edit? Having people like "Snowded" trolling these pages is a hindrance as well, as he is a Plaid Cymru supporter who wants the UK to adopt the Euro - possibly the least qualified person for a unbiased piece on here.

Also, Steve Crowther is now the Chairman of UKIP, and Paul Nuttall is the Deputy Leader. http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1972-nec-unanimous-on-new-ukip-team

--Dunenewt (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Making political attacks on other editors is no way to support your case. Are you happy for members of the Labout Party, Conservatives, Lib-Dems, Scots Nats, etc, to edit, or is it only UKIP supporters who would meet with your approval? Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but someone who is so overtly political should perhaps not be editing the pages of those whose views he obviously disapproves of. --Dunenewt (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are happy to accuse someone of biased editing simply because they support a party and you do not believe that a member of a party can be unbiased in their edits. This is not the way to approach things. Which articles on parties do you think Snowded could edit? And who are you to say? The question of whether or not an edit is neutral can be judged only by the edit itself, not by the editor who makes it, and to suggest otherwise is to make a totally unwarranted attack on the integrity of the editor. Emeraude (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Yes because when the integrity of the editor sucks, he should bugger off. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling people a troll without providing some supporting evidence Dunenewt is not acceptable. Read up on WP:AGF and either provide evidence or stop throwing accusations. That sort of thing can get you blocked. --Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Could everyone please calm down. Dunenewt, I have to agree with Snowded there is not point in throwing accusations around. What detailed changes are you asking to be made? Pstaveley (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just saying that as this person has their colours firmly nailed to the mast, and they are clearly contrary to the views of the party this article portrays, he makes a less than ideal candidate to go round editing it. The History page needs massive re-editing to make it NPOV. Whilst the stuff on racism may deserve a place in the article, it certainly does not merit a place in the History section. Perhaps we could re-edit it with a much better and chronological information. Then, there could be a separate section at the bottom for controversy in which we could put in racism (combine the section on ethnic minority members) and expenses. We need information on Nigel Farage being re-elected as leader, Stuart Wheeler joining. Dunenewt (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with that general propoed structure including combining . There needs to be an update on policies. For example the regional assemblies have now been scrapped. UKIP has produced far more policies than just taxation and education. Obviously there should be a section on the re-election of Nigel (perhaps mentioning the other candidates). I think some of the earlier history, say pre 2005 needs to be condensed a bit. I am not happy that they are called right wing in the summary box. I think that their policies stretch right across the political spectrum. The problem is that the media label UKIP as right wing, but should Wikipedia follow what the media assert or should Wikipedia decide on the relative merits of their policies? Perhaps some pictures would be helpful of, say, Farage and perhaps the group of MEPs or Councillors. What do other people think? Pstaveley (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A stack of mug shots is not useful, unless you want an advert for UKIP! Can we nail this once and for all: the media does not "label UKIP as right wing" any more than they label Conservative as right or centre or left. Wikiedia labels it right wing, because it is and the evidence is supported by sufficient independent sources in academic journals. Just about any party will have policies that "stretch right across the political spectrum", but that's in the nature of parties - there are very few thoroughbreds. What counts is where the bulk of its most important ideas are located, and for UKIP this is on the right. You might not be happy with it, but that's the way it works. And by the way, in order to avoid accusations of hero worship/partisanship, in Wikipedia we normally refer to people by their surnames (i.e. Farage, not Nigel). Emeraude (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the pictures I was only comparing the UKIP page with the Labour or Conservative pages. They have a couple of pictures, that is all I was suggesting. Regarding right wing, could you please add references to a few of those "sufficient independent sources in academic journals". For those that see the party as Libertarian it has been asked to provide references, so to be even-handed we must have references to show that the party is right wing. Pstaveley (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganised it and added little about the latest leadership election. Dunenewt (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad references

There are a couple of issues with the way this article is referenced. First there are too many UKIP references from their own website and press releases - secondary sources are preferred. Second the use of bare URLs is ugly and lazy - it is much better if all references added use the same {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, etc. template to ensure consistent formatting. Please encourage editors who add bare URLs to use the citation templates by posting on their talk pages, although some users simply don't listen. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Centre-right or right-wing?

I would like to see evidence that UKIP is centre-right as opposed to right-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Downey (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to The New Statesman, Ekklesia think tank, Parliamentary Researchers Dods, The Telegraph, and The Belfast Telegraph, they're "right wing". According to research on the views of their own supporters, they're "centre-right". I haven't checked the page revs, but the talk page above indicates it was stable on the far more common "right wing" at the end of last year, when a couple of insistent editors (and party members) made it "centre right". (Frankly, there are more results describing them as "far right" than "centre right") --Saalstin (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

UKIP is consistently described by outside observers as right wing, not centre right, and a knowledgeable examination of its policies in comparison with other UK parties will show this quite clearly. The only source that appears to suggest UKIP is centre right is the Leicester University study referred to by the previous editor, but note that this nowhere actually says that UKIP is centre right, merely that its members tend to see it as such: not the same thing at all. In the absence of reliable sources saying that UKIP is centre right, and in view of the fact that all sources say it is right wing, I am editing accordingly. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above, may I suggest that we now revert it to the far more sensible and well sourced right-wing?--Matt Downey (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The page has shown UKIP as being centre-right for at least 6 weeks. There are conflicting sources. Therefore, we need to have a proper debate here and a concensus reached before the page is changed. Pstaveley (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please display these sources for centre-right, you are currently showing none. As stated above there are many more stating that the party is right-wing. Not to mention that most editors appear to believe, due to the sources, that it is a right-wing party.--Matt Downey (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no good reason why Right wing should be used as the terminology. Look at the dates of the articles as well, right wing tags are older! Centre right tags are newer. Opinion is shifting and this should be reflected in the article. I also think socialists ought to stay clear of this article as I can't think they really would want to add any thing constructive. You don't see me stalking the labour pages. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

going to be scouting sources over the next few days to put this to rest. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need any more sources. As mentioned above there are many and the only ones which support centre-right are one from the times as you mentioned and one from Leicester Uni and all the Leicester one says is that UKIP members describe themselves as centre-right. I can describe myself as the king of Mars, doesn't mean I am.--Matt Downey (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do. As an editor with numerous warnings you will be aware that consensus should be reached when clear disputes arise.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can present more sources for the centre-right than for right-wing, then I'll be happy to accept it being centre-right. Not including that one for Leicester Uni, as that is a survey of how UKIP supporters see themselves. Until you commented, Gaius, there were more editors for right-wing, hence why I defended the page as it stood. The fact that is may have been centre-right for a while doesn't establish a reason for it being centre-right if the argument for right-wing hugely outweighs it in terms of reliable sources. Oh, and I wasn't the one to change it to right-wing originally, I was just defending it being like that. I'm going to change it to "centre-right to right-wing", until you can present more sources for it being considered solely centre-right, if not, then it should go back to being only right-wing. Compromise. My previous warnings for previous edits have nothing to do with the matter.--Matt Downey (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Matt is right, the Leicester source is not valid as it simply describes a survey of members it does not evaluate those views. The other sources are clear. Without reliable sources that say centre-right then it needs to go back to right wing. If Alexandre8 can produce any then we can look at --Snowded ^TALK 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Right wing is clearly referenced, centre-right has one dubious reference. For the moment lets leave them both up. However the correct position is probably to delete centre-right pending those references --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

One day later and now new sources for centre-right. How much longer shall this take?--Matt Downey (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Three editors wanting to work with the referenced "right wing". two editors wanting to change that but to date not providing any supporting material. Given that I have removed centre-right. When and if reliable third party material is produced we can use it. However Alexandre8, please remember that has to be third part, nor reports on what the party or its supporters say. We've been there before on the BNP & EDL articles so you know the rules. --Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been out of town for over a week, and I got back today, I'm also suffering from a grand old temperature. Shall be back on the case when I'm better. cya all soon. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources for Right Wing, are purely personal opinion not actual proof of being right wing http://www.newstatesman.com/200406140013 purely opinion http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11808 mostly opinion http://www.dodonline.co.uk/?showPage=article&ID=4166 talks only about UKIPs EP grouping not UKIP - UKIP may have right wing allies, doesnt make them right wing, Labour are with Far left people in the EP, Tories with far Right, doesnt make them Far left or Far right http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8513978/Pro-cuts-demonstration-held-outside-Houses-of-Parliament.html still pretty much opinion, not proven UKIP are right wing wheras, the University of Leicster source asks actual UKIP candidates, showing that UKIP is a party of the centre right, read the reserach http://www.le.ac.uk/po/documents/UKIPCandidatesandSupportersworkingpaper.pdf it quite clearly analyses UKIP candidates not just asking their opinion but testing their views and coming out centre right, further sources for Centre right http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2011/03/08/ukip-replacing-the-lib-dems-or-taking-on-the-tories/ http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study are people even reading the sources, reading the comments there are misplaced views that this analyses supporters only, when actually it talks about the very core of the party, the candidates and senior members — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.198 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the inclusion of 'far-right' seems to be very badly referenced: by opinion articles, non-reliable outlets, and reference to their allies or some of their voters, not to the party itself. I think the vast majority of newspapers will say - in their news reporting - that UKIP are 'right-wing'. A few reliable sources have said 'centre-right', but they are disproportionately outnumbered by those that say 'right-wing' (and, again, that Leicester study seems to be of the party's voters, not the party itself). So it may be worth a mention in an 'Ideology' or 'Political support' section, but I think any inclusion in the infobox would be giving undue prominence to a minority opinion. For that reason, the infobox and the introduction must say 'right-wing': not centre-right and definitely not far-right. Bastin 12:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But the sources for 'right wing' are only opinion as well, the Study focussed on Candidates - a core part of the party, and shows that UKIP presents itself as Centre Right, has Centre right policies, and stands Centre Right Candidates. To claim right wing, is to give prominance to a position that is only opinion (read the sources used for Right Wing, they are only opinion and mostly from people who are hostile to UKIP) the study is an objective study of the parties Candidates, not just voters, the candidates - a key senior part of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.198 (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. As I stated above (11:10, 26 May 2011), that study nowhere actually says that UKIP is centre right; it merely says that its members tend to see it as such: not the same thing at all. The study does NOT say anywhere that Ukip "has Centre right policies, and stands Centre Right Candidates" and, indeed, would have no grounds for doing so since it only looked at surveys of members views and opinions and not at actual policies/principles in relation to other parties. Emeraude (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Smear in opening

A openly hostile article written 6 years ago selectively quoting "far-right" is a smear. The founding of UKIP is covered in its own section, putting "they are racist and have been infected by the far-right" in the opening paragraph is indefensible and hostile and will need a lot more than an old guardian rant.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously I agree. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source as you both know. The fact that the founder left on those grounds is notable --Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but it's the fact that it's in the opening that is the issue I beleive. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be in both, but its clearly notable, the founder for God's sake. --Snowded ^TALK 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

He left UKIP "in a high fit of pique because people wouldn't support him. "He was going to stand against us but couldn't find any money or backers to support him."http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/euros_99/news/359700.stm He has ever since ranted against them. Typical that the guardian should see his absurd 'racist far right' claim as worthy of print. Nonetheless, I agree this should be covered in the relevant sections, however having this man's anti-UKIP rant in the opening paragraph with its sole source being a bitterly hostile guardian opinion piece is not on.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is considered a reliable source for news reporting but this does not cover opinion pieces. As such it should be excluded from the entire article. Hope this helps. Coldnorthwind (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes from the party's founder published in a reliable source such as the Guardian are notable and should be included. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but since it is a smear from the man himself, it should not be in the lead. It gives far too much weight to his opinion. We have no idea why he left really, when people storm out of a party, it's very rarely because of the reason they actually give to the media. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then find a source which says that is not the reason he left. For the moment we have a reliable source that gives his reason as the right wing shift. Gaius calls it a rant, you call it a smear, the source calls it a reason. The source wins. In fact the other BBC source confirms the Guardian source as the former leaders reason. Guardian opinion is not a source, a opinion piece reporting a statement that is backed up by another source is. The BBC source then reports the counter from Michael Holmes the new leader but makes no comment on it. I can't see any dispute that this was the former leaders stated reason for leaving, its clearly notable. We also have the material sourced in Sked's "Reflections of a Eurosceptic" --Snowded ^TALK 08:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"the source calls it a reason". No it does not, the source quotes an embittered former member who left because he had no support. Whatever spin you put on this, putting "they are racist and have been infected by the far-right" in the opening paragraph with its sole source being a bitterly hostile six year old guardian opinion piece (have you read it?) quoting a former member is simply giving undue weight to one article added with malice and on the sly by an anon IP. Whoever added that should have gotten a consensus in talk first, no reason has been given for the allegation to be included in the opening paragraph.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and the opinion of current members of UKIP. However it is a simple fact that the man, a leading academic, stated this as his reason for leaving. Its not our place to make assumptions about what his "real" motive was. If there is a third party source (not UKIP) that supports your "embittered" point of view then we can include that as well. There may be an argument to move it to the main body or history section, but there is no argument to remove it. Oh please AGF on the IP, the edit was open and clear --Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You concede that "there may be an argument to move it to the main body or history section". I agree that this would be appropriate. The fact it was unchallenged does not mean it was accepted "for over a week without challenge" as you imply, it simply means it slipped past quality control. The edit was by an anon who promptly fell off the face of the earth, 'User:78.144.77.54'. The anon should have gotten a consensus in talk first for such a obviously contentious addition. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how it could be considered contentious, its referenced and its a clear position of the founder. It hardly subject to quality control, when the quality of the material is fine and matches up with other wikipedia articles. We probably need to take a look at the lede anyway however as its over long --Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"contentious: 1. Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial." It is certainly that.

"quality of the material is fine and matches up with other wikipedia articles" that is your opinion, one I and others do not share. Are we moving this from the opening as agreed? Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think so! Alexandre8 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

libertarian

The official UKIP describes the party as "libertarian" so shouldn't that be listed as one of it's ideologies?--24.171.6.27 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See "Classical Liberalism" in ideology box? Alexandre8 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"allegations of racism"

I've renamed the section and removed badly sourced material. It's a complete mess there, hardly any of the content had anything to do with racism, and more of representation within ukip of ethnic minorities. Can we go through and amend useless info please? Alexandre8 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lord Hesketh

Lord Hesketh may be a significant defector worth mentioning in the text, but he is not a member of the House of Lords. As a hereditary peer he was excluded from membership in November 1999 under the House of Lords Act 1999 (he did not stand as a candidate in the elections for the 90 Peers allowed to remain under that Act). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Wikipedia:Recentism explains that encyclopedic articles cannot focus on relatively unimportant developments, just because they are recent (as opposed to news platforms). A change in opinion poll performance belongs to this category of "recentism". On the other hand, an increase or drop in election results would be relevant. This article has to describe the whole history of UKIP since 1993, and there are opinion polls every week. I am sure that you can see, why we cannot include poll ratings here. Kind regards--RJFF (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

UKIP is Populist not Right Wing Populist.

UKIP is not that Right Wing. ( E.P. Davies (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC) )

Do you have any sources as to why you think UKIP is not right wing?

I happen to agree with you that UKIP is a Centre-Right party, certainly not right wing. However, most people on here disagree with us. We need evidence. Pstaveley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Why UKIP is Center-Right not Right-Wing.

UKIP is a Libertarian party. If UKIP was Right-Wing UKIP would not have Libertarianism only Nationalism.

UKIP's Economic Policy proposes Lower Taxes and a Freer Economy. If UKIP was Right-Wing UKIP's Economic Policy would be far more Socialist like the BNP's Economic Policy. (E.P. Davies (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

UKIP is both a libertarian and nationalist party. You are right that, as it does not have a socialist economic party, it could not be accurately described as fascist or nazi. However, most political commmentators agree that UKIP is on the right of the political spectrum - more conservative than the Tories and less right-wing than far-right organisations such as the national front and the BNP. --Xijky (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that UKIP is unarguably on the right and (civic) nationalist, but conservative is the wrong word in this case. Best description for UKIP would be right-wing liberals I'd say. conservative liberalism sums them up quite well. --Dunenewt (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on sources, not on the personal perception of individual users. Please do not use this talk page as a forum to exchange your "original research". Thank you for your understanding --RJFF (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo

I cannot find any uses of a logo similar to File:UKIP Logo - New Purple.png anywhere. I would be surprised if UKIP had a logo which is split into two pieces and doesn't use the traditional yellow/purple. Can anyone provide a reliable source confirming that it is indeed the new logo ? An explanation as to why the UKIP website itself doesn't use it would be warranted. --Xijky (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File's appearance

600px

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xijky (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Well, obviously it appears only on your screen this way, and everywhere else normal. But this seems not to be a problem of the article, or the file (and absolutely no reason for edit war!), but only of the rendering at your place. For everyone else it is perfectly round and yellow and purple. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't just "appear on my screen" this way. I've reloaded the page several times, I've purged my cache. I've used a different computer, different browsers, and different network connections. It looks the same on my computer at work. I've downloaded the file and changed the file formatting, and it still doesn't render properly. Please revert to the old logo, because the current one simply doesn't display properly to me, and presumably a lot of other people as well. --Xijky (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad that it's in place now. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:UKIP Logo - New Purple.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UKIP Logo - New Purple.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ukip.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ukip.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Islam

The source used to "back this up" is a dead link from some "academic". At the end of the day that is one source (which has to include that buzz word "xenophobia", nothing like "intellectuals" name calling!). More sources need uncovering to back this up, otherwise it would be like finding one source that claims Dominic Cork is the best English all-rounder of all time and using that source to paint it as fact. [1][2][3] sources would be nice! And perhaps from less emotive sources as well, which don't have bias one way or another; our external sourcing should reflect WP:NPOV to some extent. As it stands the article in its current form is a trainwreck and needs a major cleanup, as well as needing less edits with a perceived agenda which I have seen through the page history. Whatever our political views, we should always reflect WP:NPOV all the time when editing, our role is to inform people of a subject, not say how "amazing" or "crap" something is, but to simply explain it without personal bias or what not. May be this article will improve over the coming months, perhaps someone with the time and interest could try and transform this to a GA! Certainly in its current form if I were someone coming here to look up the subject, I'd quickly look elsewhere. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The again, perhaps GA is impossible with these types of articles due to the clowns that often vandalise them, just like we find with prominent subcontinent cricketers at WP:CRIC which are subject to fan worship. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything on a party being wary of Sharia law is neccessary for inclusion. None of the political pages have a section on party opposition to Christian or Sikh or Hindu fundamentalism, Sharia effectively is that, so really unless there is an actual notable event on which the mainstream media have picked up on there shouldn't be any of this nonsense. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This link is working. You will see that it pretty much looks like a reliable, academic study, neither emotive, nor biased. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits suggest you have a POV of exposing what you see as anti islamic parties. YOu'll need more than a passing comment from a socialist at nottingham uni to prove that UKIP are fundamentally anti islam. Sorry. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is a socialist? --RJFF (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8, please do not remove content with reference to a relevant scholarly source. If you doubt the reliability of this source, please adress this here. If you have the impression that I have misinterpreted the source, you can discuss this here, as well. But just dismissing a first-class source, published in the European Journal of Political Research by scholars of the Universities of Manchester and Nottingham as rubbish is absolutely not acceptable. Regards --RJFF (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot write material which has somewhat controversial claims and only back it up with one source. We need more than one. Is this the only academic saying this? Or are there hundreds (probably are because most academics do have a fairly bias agenda against anything anti-establishment these days)? I hope you see what I mean, multiple sources are required to back up such information in articles, otherwise its overall sourced reliability has to be questioned. User:Alexandre8 is fundamentally right, a passing reference won't do to substante the passage of writing. Another concern I have with this article, it's probably widespread across the political spectrum of articles, is the article tone and some editors seeming to think they own it. Some of the users editing the article have an agenda, if hidden, which dooms this article from the very start. One editor (economically lacking) wants the UK to join the euro, is a socialist and is wildly in love with the EU. Now while these views are not crimes on here (I'm a Libertarian, don't bother me), I can't help but think such people will have a biased editing agenda on articles like this. Yes, I have little confidence in 6/10 editors on here when it comes to be neutral when editing articles. You can all write my concerns off and do nothing about them, but at the end of the day we're meant to provide articles which accurately inform people, on any subject; evidently this article falls well short of the quality expected. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking up one of the reports creators, Matthew Goodwin, casts doubt on the neutrality of the source in question. I don't know how WP:POLITICS works with sources, but having read his fields, if it were a cricket article and the source creator showed bias toward the subject, (in Mr. Goodwin's case a left-wing agenda, nice to see he's also a member of the Council for European Studies, a Bilderberg Group affiliate) then we wouldn't use that source, for obvious reasons. What I'm saying is if the creator of the source has a bias, then the source is biased, as such its use in the article makes it bias. When someone also writes in this report "UKIP looks set to become a successful radical right party" one has to question the intention of the source creator, given there's far more political commentators I have heard refer to UKIP as centre-right. Unfortunately it appears, just as cricket articles like Sachin Tendulkar, Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne are subject to biased fan worship edits, it seems this article (and probably many others in the politics field) are edited by people who trump all over WP:NPOV and install their own worldview. Such editors should resist editing articles they can't be trusted to be absolutely neutral on. The state the article finds itself in, is I think, evidence that there has not been, and will not be, any effort to make a good article: instead only one which awful and full of sniping sentences aimed at the subject. Shame on those who "maintain" this article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Goodwin's blog and Twitter page, plus regular postings to Left Foot Forward, shows that he does indeed have a bias. The man seems obsessed with anything that is not left-wing being labelled as radical right-wing, racist, xenophobic extremism. Can you seriously call him an agenda-less source? A political scientist... seriously... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bothering to take the time to research all this. I had more than a suspicion that he was one of these POV writers, but these sources just prove that. One left wing academic is not enough to damage the integrity of the fourth largest party in Britian. I understand my tone is dismissive, but I've dealt with so many of these in the past I'm rather sick to death of them. Same story every single time and it takes a lifetime to get the offending content removed. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Who damages the integrity of anyone? Please do not claim such a thing. As Mr. Goodwin is an expert on extremism, most of his publications are about... surprise! ...extremism. This is just natural. You can call that his "agenda". I would call it his job. If Mr. Goodwin is left, right, or centre in his private life does not have to bother you, as long as he is an established and respected political scientist. You don't have to agree with this view, but you have to accept it, if it is published in a reliable source. And this is not a "passing comment" but a thorough 31-page study, published in a renowned journal. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself, who undertakes the job of being a specialist of "right wing extremism" without already despising the right wing? I've never heard of a "political scientist who specialises in rightwingism" without being a self proclaimed socialist. Getting paid to expose those you despise? sounds like a great job to me lol. Anyway that aside as its my opinion, I will work with what we've got. one source. The claim is controversial as not one ukip member would confess openly that they hate muslims, sure theyll be a few, but you'll need a handful of substancial sources to make the claim that anti islam is a defining feature of their party? I don't see one political left wing scientists publication as enough for that. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Eckhard Jesse is a German extremism pundit and an outspoken conservative. There is no compelling correlation between a political scientist's own, personal political views and their fields of study. --RJFF (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the Germans had the Nazi's. They had to content with real fascists. No one in this country has any idea about what true fascism is as they've never experienced it. That is why in Germany you are able to have people from all sides of the political spectrum talking about extremism. Here the left wingers just take the parties they perceive to be the most right wing. He'd have no job mr goodwin if he didn't write something and there's no point writing about german nationalists when we're in england. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't go trying to tell the folks in the Channel Islands that they've never experienced true fascism. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Goodwin, like most politicians in this country, has ever had a proper job in his life. He's most likely stuck in his Ivory Tower just like they are. The type of person you wouldn't buy a used car from. This article is DOOMED. Now back to cricket... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Racism/xenophobia

Some academics consider UKIP to be racist or xenophobic. This is a fairly widely held position and should be reflected in the article. --Xijky (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but the greatest minds once believed that the world was flat, and that was a widely held position. So just because one academic believes something to be so, does not necessarily mean that it is Daily Blue91 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not surprising that some people think UKIP is racist seeing that its current leader referred to black British people as "nig-nogs". I'm not suggesting that we should take it as a massive POV slant, but there are individuals within the party who are racist, and the article should reflect that. It's not true that the greatest minds once thought the world was flat. You should read List of common misconceptions. --Xijky (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I know Nigel Farage, you're telling one user about common misconceptions, while spewing your own. The accusation comes from Dr. Alan Sked, a founder member of UKIP, who later fell out with members of the party. Dr. Sked is a former Liberal Democrat, who wanted UKIP to take a social-democratic path, other members, such as Farage wanted to take a Conservative/Libertarian approch, Sked lost, left the party and got rather bitter. So if we're placing the accusation with someone with a bee in their bonnet, then its like asking me to say something nice about Arsenal F.C.. Then again, without getting too personal, people like you Xijky are like sheep, in that you're easily lead. The nice man in the suite in front of the camera says something, you're inclined to believe him because he's a nice man in a suite. If people are "racists", "extremists" or "xenophobes" because the nice man in the suite says so, then they must be: afterall, he's a nice man in a suite, the shepherd if you like. All reminds me of those who opposed the USSR (including my friend Vladimir Bukovsky), who were termed "extremists", "reactionaries", "mentally ill" ect. For one to oppose the wrongs imposed by the nice man in the suite, then well we must be mentally ill, because how dare people question their design... only "racists", "xenophobes" and "extremists" oppose such wrongs. I wonder if the nephew of the former Prime Minister of Guyana would join a "racist" organisation? Xijki, I've come across many like you on this Wiki in my 2 years and nearly 22,000 edits on here, who should just give up, retire, find something else to do. Frankly yourself and so many others with editing agendas damage the integrity of Wikipedia with your biased, agenda based edits. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your own ideas about the "niggers won't vote for us" quote are irrelevant as it's easily verified through reliable sources (just try google books). I'm making the article better by adding reliably sourced information. If you don't like it, I would support a party with less issues. --Xijky (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is making the article not better, but worse. Go wonder off to to "middle class champagne socialist land" and leave the editing to people who know what they're doing. Anything which preaches the goodness of socialism, the goodness of the left and damn right evil, racist, xenophobic, racist, fascism of the right is a reliable source. Baaaaa the sheep are calling. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Mail is not a reliable source for that serious an accusation, but it was in one of the broadsheets or book from a serious academic or the like then it would be valid regardless of your opinions as to the motivations of Alan Sked or any personal knowledge you claim of Farage. Your own comments here go way beyond discussing content issues a fail to follow WP:AGF. --Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Mail isn't considered reliable for this topic, there's very little way of confirming it, as it was not reported in other media at the time. --Xijky (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Then it can't go in, tabloids are not reliable enough for a serious allegation of that nature. --Snowded ^TALK 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The source provided for UKIP being anti-Islam is rather unreliable. I am referring to this source.. If one was to live by that book, then if one councillor of any political party was rather vocal about something therefore represents the entire political party? If you are going to agree with that, then I suggest you brand the modern Conservative party as homophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndependentThinkerUK (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all about weight. Wikipedia has policies on this. WP:FRINGE material is generally not welcome in articles. Really we need well sourced widespread sources from proper papers to get this stuff in the article. I really can't see any of it as particularily relevent at the moment. There was one quote which xijky made which I didn't revert as it was well sourced. But the rest is simply over the top and pov pushing. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI board

Disruptive editing has been reported to ANI board see here

Discussion on allegations of racism

Please use this sub forum for discussing the recent edits to do with Race. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by user:Xijky for inclusion

"In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being gradually more moderate.[56][citation needed]"

"In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being slightly more moderate.[46] While UKIP is generally not considered a fascist organisation, some political commentators, such as Professor Stuart Sim, consider UKIP to have a right wing extremist agenda. Sim described UKIP as "virulently racist".[47] The political scientist Masoud Kamali describes UKIP as a "xenophobic political party".[48]

"British National Party UKIP's NEC voted to forbid membership of UKIP from any BNP or ex-BNP member.[90] While UKIP officially distances itself from the BNP, a survey of voters in the 2004 European Parliament election indicated that UKIP supporters were more likely than other voters to sympathise with the BNP's cause.[91] According to Christina Liang, UKIP has an "ambiguous relationship with the extreme right".[92]"

What exactly does 1st article say? YOu've changed this citation a few times with different wording. I can't access it as I'm not a member of the library where its published. I'm very dubious. As for the rest let's hear your views on the sources and where to include this information if at all. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read the first article (it confirms what's written) but I didn't add it to the article.

Sim directly states UKIP to be "virulently racist". As Sim is a professor of political science at the University of Sunderland, I'd suggest that his book can be considered a reliable source. Masoud Kamali is a highly notable political scientist at Uppsala University. Christina Schori Liang is a lecturer at the Geneva Center for Security Policy. These are all reliable sources.

I would suggest that as racism constitutes a policy, any claim that UKIP is racist belong either in the lead or in the policies subsection, as should the claim that the party is xenophobic. As there are several reliable sources suggesting that UKIP is a xenophobic organisation, it probably doesn't need quotes - "UKIP has been identified as an islamophobic and xenophobic organsiation" or something along that lines with the Kamali cite and the Goodwin Ford and Cutts cite . We can put the statement that UKIP voters at the 2004 election were more likely to sympathise with the BNP in the relationship with other parties under the BNP. Would that be alright ? If you doubt the quality of the sources, I'd suggest we get this mediated. --Xijky (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your original version of this in the policy section. Its very clear who is making the claims and its well sourced. Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I restore the content or do I need to wait for further input ? --Xijky (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it for a few hours to see if there are comments. There seem to be some attempts by AssociateAffiliate to dispute some academic sources on the basis that s/he does not like their politics which is not valid. I can't see any legitimate objections to the content. Alexandre8 raises a question about the location of the material but wikipedia generally frowns on "controversy" sections if the material can be put in the main text. --Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The only things which might belong in a controversy section are Cameron's calling UKIP racist etc, where the claim is obviously politically motivated. Statements by neutral academics who are experts in their field belong in the main text. --Xijky (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I've restored the category "Anti-Islam political parties in Europe" and re-added anti-Islam to the infobox with a cite, because there was no explanation of removal. --Xijky (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem very well stocked with sources of minor academics, is right wing extremism your profession or something? Islamophobia is a major claim and needs a lot of proper sourcing in order to allow it to influence the views of millions of wikipedia readers of this page. Don't forget this is not a political forum, it's an encyclopaedic, you have to cite mainstream theories above WP:FRINGE. One professor at sunderland is not enough to add an inflammatory tag like that. This is an ideologies box remember, and UKIP hardly ever talk about islam. Also, you removed LARGE amounts of content in the form of councils for UKIP. WHY? YOu've been told not to make big changes without consensus and you've just done it on a whim. This is the kind of stuff that get's blocks ok. Don't do it. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

These aren't "minor academics." --Xijky (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

For a guide, see the BNP page and see how well sourced the ideologies are on that page. You can also see how the controversial material is included in the article. Whilst the BNP page is not perfect in my opinion, it has undergone rigerous debate since its initiation and reached a majority consensus about tags such as "fascism" and is well sourced. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• In my view the sources are clearly apt for inclusion - but in the body of the article with clear attribution as views of the named academic, and not as categories or in the infobox.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This is exactly my view. --RJFF (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I wuld agree with this.:Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the "academics" Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford have clear issues with UKIP as anyone who sees their Twitter pages can see. Therefore they don't really warrant inclusion as unbiased references. --Dunenewt (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

lock the page

Please just block editing for a day. This is absolutely ludicrous. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Local Councils

I was the one who added the section in the article about which council's UKIP had councillors in and how many, but now I think its make the article look untidy and its pretty pintless information, especially since most of the councils are only parish or town ones. So I was wondering can I please delete it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daily Blue91 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes. It does not really seem like encyclopedic content. Go ahead. --RJFF (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does take up a lot of space. As long as it's listed how many they have and in which general regions there is no need to list them all. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic Liberalism

Recently the tag Economic Liberalism was removed form the ideologies box. Can we find some sources to back it up because it's obviously true, but we just don't have a source. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Would this link prove useful? I believe some policies in the link seem rather economically liberal? Also, this one might be useful, speaking of free trade? IndependentThinkerUK (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem. As per rules on reliable sources, the source must explicitly state what you are trying to say. Implicit sources unfortunately are not very useful. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

additionally party sites are not generally allowed for sources on the party, unless for manifesto policy obviously. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I just re-added the ideology with sources. I hope they are of use. Both being third party and one being from the Institute of Economic Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndependentThinkerUK (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

One is a reference to free market in a think tank web site and the other is an interview, neither are reliable third party sources. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been added again, and I've removed it. The claim that UKIP have a free-market agenda may be true, but it is synthesis to claim their ideology is Economic Liberalism due to this. A source saying their ideology is Economic Liberalism is needed. 86.174.155.109 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see references to UKIP's economic liberalism, but none to supposed "national conservatism" or "right-wing populism", neither of which are really used in relation to UK politics. --Dunenewt (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to take you seriously when...

1. You do not provide the references to economic liberalism
2. The term right-wing populism is sourced in the very first sentence of the article, which suggests you didn't look very hard.

Over to you? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking much better

In the above talk section I did rather blow my top and tread the line with AGF, due to the frustration of trying to tell Xijky that what he was doing wasn't for the most part within guidelines, not only myself telling him/her, but others too, with the end result of us all getting ignored. The article is now looking much better, now it's not getting trolled by an editor with a clear agenda, so I've removed the neutrality tag. Well done to all involved who have sorted this article out over the last day or so, it's looking much better. Apologies if I went a little too far in trying to tell Xijky create an encyclopedic article and not one with an agenda led person crusade! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing. I did not like what Xijky was saying. I could not find any evidence of racism within UKIP only to control immigration, which is a totally different subject. Pstaveley (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of you are more than entitled to your opinions but you should keep them off wiki. Xijky in the main has provided properly referenced material and the only real question is where it should be placed and if it should be in the information box. Please keep a focus on content issues rather than commenting on the views of others --Snowded ^TALK 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't take Xijky's attempts seriously anymore. He's been blocked for a week for uploading a picture of hitler instead of Nigel Farage, and a nazi flag for the ukip logo. Anyone else is more than welcome to relocate those sources and provide them himself, but coming from Xijky I'm dismissing now. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit made me lose it with the individual, coupled with what Alexandre8's above comment shows this is one editor we can do without. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of well referenced material that most editors have agreed should be included. Uploading a picture of Hitler is silly, but no more silly that some of the personal attacks made here --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources he came up with were awful. "Experts in their field" or not, a quick look at the publisher of each source shows they have a political bias against the subject. Their own bias is going to see things which quite often don't exist, then because they're "experts" they claim to think for the rest of us and know better than the rest of us. I've been though the system, "wet behind the ears" wouldn't be a term misused for most of these "experts". They all live in cloud cuckoo land. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

They are established academics at respectable universities. Your opinions of that system and the people in it are irrelevant --Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, significant claims of racism have been made against UKIP and it's quite proper that these should be included in an encyclopaedic article. Far too many people here seem to think this article is either an advert for UKIP, or an opportunity to highlight things they don't like about the organisation. It's neither, this is an impartial and encyclopaedic account.Obscurasky (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok well get some sources and we can perhaps put them in. But since the guy who uploaded a nazi flag here is blocked for being an idiot, we'll have to use some different material for the minute since he is the holder of these sources and I'm not going back through every one of his hundred edits just to pick out racial slurs. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

"In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being gradually more moderate."

This which was origionally uploaded by user:Xijky (now blocked) is problematic for a number of reasons.
1) Only the original uploader can access the source. He is blocked.
2) The original uploader origionally uploaded this citation in a different form and then re-editied to pass what he saw as the "censorship". This means that we have no idea what is in the original source.
3) This citation was then reintroduced by another user who I assume neither has access to the original source.

Thus, considering that we have no idea waht the original source said, and that we have valid reason not not to doubt the motives and the integrity of the original uploader, can we suspend its usage in the article until which point we can actually view its content. If someone else is able to provide this source directly I don't oppose it's actual content, just its veritibility in light of the changes that were made the citation a few times, and the initial uploader. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who uploaded it originally, and I am rather surprised that you cannot access it, because I have thought that it was free. Please try the HTML version here. I hope it will work for you, too. Regards --RJFF (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope it is inaccessible. Even it were accessible, what makes it notable for inclusion at the forefront of the section?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can access it now, but I've looked at the history and I'm almost certain you weren't the original uploader since Xijky inserted it and then played around with teh wording. It's a hugely long article and essentially just a long rant from a socialist name calling. He identifies the problems, i.e dissatisfaction with immigration, but then calls this dissatisfaction xenophobia. How ridiculous. Just because someone believes in tough immigration doesn't make them a xenophobe. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's nothing more than a transparent smear attack with an anti-ukip agenda. The whole piece is an attack on any desire to limit immigration and it does this by name calling rather than actual research and analysis. It has no place here.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is clearly a reliable source and relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 09:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, so apart from not liking the quote, why should it not be included? Mo ainm~Talk 09:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Standard problem on right wing political party articles. Some editors think that if an academic is a socialist then it's biased. Policy is simply if it's an academic publishing in a reliable source then it counts. Eventually these things get sorted, but you wish people would read policy rather than taking a political position.--Snowded ^TALK 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am disturbed that contributors to what is meant to be an encyclopaedic project see fit to condemn a respected academic peer-reviewed paper as a "transparent smear attack". In the academic world, this is simply not acceptable and would certainly result in widespread censure, if not legal action. Keep to the rules please. Emeraude (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As Emeraude says above this is a peer-reviewed publication, so can in no way be seen as a "smear attack" - it is an academic paper. But it would be preferable if we could report this finding from a 3rd party publication, as stated in WP:PRIMARY. Although I can see no policy that means that this information should not be provided here in its current state. Zangar (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Socking.

There are a number of I.P addresses who have only made one contribution and are coming to the UKIP page just to make reverts. I have a feeling they are the avoidence of blocked user:xijky.

first ip
second ip
third ip
fourth ip
fifth ip
sixth ip

That is six unique I.P addresses all of which are roughly in the same region in the UK bar one. Alarm bells should be ringing. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

user:Xijky has been banned as sockpuppet of Claritas. I think ukip needs to go back to being a protected page. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected at least.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Content removal

Why is reliably sourced, verifiable content being removed? Mo ainm~Talk 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it, agreement is clear above in section "Discussion on allegations of racism" --Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

UKIP is not Right-Wing Populist.

UKIP is a Libertarian and Liberally Economic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.P.D.97 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you read above sections that cover this. Mo ainm~Talk 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Article name/lead inconsistency

In a discussion with me, RJFF (talk · contribs) asserted:

I cannot see what your problem seems to be: UKIP itself uses "UK Independence Party" [1], the Guardian uses "UK Independence Party" [2], Abedi and Lundberg use "UK Independence Party" in their article in Parliamentary Affairs [3], BBC uses "UK Independence Party" [4], [5], [6]... Do I have to go on? Please just accept it: it is their official name. And it would be OR to invent a full name which is not official. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being imprecise: "United Kingdom Independence Party" might be official, but "UK Independence Party" is by far the most common name (which the sources demonstrate), that should be used as the article's title per WP:UCN. If you still disagree, you might want to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Regards --RJFF (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I am not committed to either "United Kingdom Independence Party" or "UK Independence Party" as the proper article name; that is beyond my scope of expertise. But the article name and the lead have to be consistent, and they currently are not. Moreover, there is no explanation of the inconsistency. Either the article should be moved, or the lead needs to be fixed. Someone else will have to undertake that task. --Nlu (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As of right now, the name in the lead and article title are in sync. —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And they shouldn't necessarily be consistent. There are many articles where the common name is used as the title of the article, and the full legal name is used in the introduction. Consider the United Kingdom article's lead: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is…"

Based on that, the best course for this article is probably to leave the title as is and give the full legal name and common short forms in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Party upon choosing the name decided to name it UK Independence Party, not United Kingdom Independence Party. Quote from UKIP History Book by Mark Daniels: "...We agreed there and then that the UK in the name should not be rendered as 'United Kingdom'..." IndependentThinkerUK (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

I added a perfectly valid reference to classical liberalism in reference to UKIP yet it keeps getting removed. Anyone care to explain why? Far more evidence for UKIP being a classical liberal party than a "national conservative" or "right-wing populist" (not terms used in UK politics). Why is it that the Telegraph does not constitute a good reference yet left-leaning papers like Guardian/Independent are? --Dunenewt (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not an article by the Telegraph, it is an opinion piece by Ed West posted on The Telegraph BLOGS (!) Anyhow, a newspaper or a journalist is not in the position to assess ideologies of political parties. Political scientists are. Right-wing populism refers to a study by political scientists. --RJFF (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when I reverted Dunenwt, the Telegraph article only says they "come from the classical liberal tradition", not that they actually are classic liberals. Mo ainm~Talk 22:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense - Ed West has written an opinion piece on the Telegraph website who employ him because he is considered to be knowledgeable in the field. If it was an article written by Billy Bragg or Joey Barton I'd understand, but you fail to understand the importance of journalism in shaping the narrative of these terms. Perhaps rather than idolise "academics", you should do a bit of research, for example Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford, mentioned above in the talk page have clearly demonstrated a dislike of UKIP, as is quite clearly shown on their personal Twitter pages. To imply that UKIP are a solely "national conservative" and "right-wing populist" party as you repeatedly try to do are quite clearly misleading. As I mentioned before, neither terms are used in political parlance in the UK, and you continually do you best to remove any reference to UKIP and liberalism, despite this being clear in many previous edits of this page which referenced several sources in relation to UKIP and economic liberalism or UKIP and libertarianism. May I suggest that we come to compromise and agree on a rewrite several sections of this article, which distinguish between misleading academic sources which are evaluating the party in the past, and recent relevant references which show that economic liberalism is a core tenant of UKIP, as well as the classical liberal tradition from which UKIP comes from. You stated yourself that the article acknowledges that UKIP comes from a classical liberal tradition, yet rather than edit it to reflect that, you simply remove any reference? --Dunenewt (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What something comes from is not the same as what it is, and that's true in a vast number of fields. Steel comes from iron ore; it's not iron ore. Butter comes from cream; it's not cream. There's a direct relationship, but that's all. When discussing people or political parties, the differences can be vast. So, that UKIP comes from the "classical liberal tradition" is most definitely not the same as UKIP being classical liberal now, or at any time in its short and recent history. Other editors have commented on the lack of reliability of your source and they are correct. Your disparaging remarks about the professional integrity of the academic writers cited as sources are very worrying. Emeraude (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Political scientists define political ideologies better than journalists. If we have a choice between academic sources and journalistic opinion pieces, we prefer academic sources. If you like the scholars or not. Parliamentary Affairs is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Oxford Journals. If this is not the perfect exemple of a reliable source, I don't know of any. If you doubt the reliability of any source used for this article, please take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I rather see a problem in this article extensively using UKIP's party programme and website as sources. --RJFF (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the qualifier added in this edit. He stood as a Liberal candidate in the 1970 general election as far as I've been able to ascertain. Strange how the source says he was also a member of the Bruges Group a long time after that (and by definition, closer to when he formed UKIP) the addition made absolutely no mention of his "swing to the right" yet seemed intent on stressing his "liberal" credentials. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including that he was ex-Liberal as the opening paragraph states Farage was ex-Tory. There is no reason to remove it. --Dunenewt (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except Farage was Tory right up until Maastricht, an event which led to the formation of UKIP. Sked was a Liberal candidate almost 25 years earlier, not the same thing at all. And please don't make disputed changes with deceptive edit summaries. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should also be remembered that the Liberal Party of the late 20th century was most definitely not the same as "classical liberalism" (it could even be argued that Thatcherite Toryism embraced more of the classical liberal philosophy!) so the involvement of Sked or any other former Liberal/Lib-Dem members is no justification for the use of the phrase for Ukip. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If he'd gone from Lib Dems (or Liberal or Alliance or whatever they were called in 1992) to UKIP I could see the point in mentioning it. But as I've already said he stood as a Liberal candidate in 1970, almost 25 years ago. After that he was far more involved in right-wing causes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

The paragraph "In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being gradually more moderate." They have not "revealed" nor "showed" anything.
They have "claimed". Changed it to claimed. What is the reasoning of whoever thinks it should be "revealed" and "showed"? Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems blatantly POV to write "showed" and "revealed", especially in a study dealing with such subjective concepts as xenophobia and Islamophobia. The person who keeps writing it quite clearly has political agenda, for which Wikipedia is not the place. Jordi22 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The findings of an academic study by established political scientists, published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot be dismissed as "subjective interpretations". Xenophobia and Islamophobia are not "subjective concepts", but established social science and political science terminology. That the academic study of independent scholars were pursuing a "political agenda" is a severe imputation, for which you do not provide any evidence at all. --RJFF (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The findings were by Matthew Goodwin, who has been anti-ukip for as long as I can remember. Regardless of that fact, that is not why I dispute the use of "shown and "revealed" but because it is blatantly POV. They have not Shown nor Revealed anything, they have Claimed. No editor would seek to pass such POV language in the labour/conservative/lib dem pages and yet you feel it is appropriate here. If you want "revealed" and "shown" then show me another source that proves it is has indeed been "revealed", rather than being an unsubstantiated claim. Claimed is the only possible wording to be used here. If editors insist on reverting back to POV language then lets take this to a higher powerGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

in general we do not qualify properly referenced material. Arguing that an academi. Is anti-ukip isn't the way things work. We use the sources as they are, not as we would like them to be. The use of 'claim' indicates a thought piece not a researched paper so it is equally POV. If there is a counter source then we need to balance, but I don't see any. Another phrasing would be "a 2011 study demonstrated ..." similar but possible better language. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's more than enough that it's attributed already. The wording doesn't say whether the report is correct or not, merely what it revealed. The idea that increasing Islamaphobia can't be quantified is a ludicrous one. If, say for example in 2010 an organisation published one article criticising Islam yet in 2011 they published twenty that's increasing Islamaphobia. I note it's only material UKIP supporters don't like that requires labels such as "claimed". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

12 MEPs

UKIP now has 12 MEPs given the defection of Roger Helmer from the Conservatives to UKIP. I had edited this information into the page, however, it has since been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article currently. It's also flagged as needing a citation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignore the comment - For some reason, the old article was loading rather than the one I edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantmitch1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)