Talk:UK Independence Party

Opinion polls and suggested sources, December 2012.

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

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

"Tories have lost a sixth of their support over the last two months, with much of this going to Ukip" and

"Lord Ashcroft recently suggested that Tory voters are moving to Ukip because they're attracted to its much more draconian stance on immigration and "benefits culture"."

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

Addition of Chart

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

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

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

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

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

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

3rd party Chart - disclude Labour & Tory

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

The Graph above shows opinion polling of voting intention for the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independence Party throughout the year of 2012. UKIP started the year at 4% and finished the year with 10 to 15% of the vote share. The small distance and indeed intersection of the yellow and purple lines shows that the party has been within the margin of error(normally 3%) of their Liberal Democrat rivals since April 2012. This means that the two parties have effectively been in a statistical tie for over 9 months. However, UKIP's claims of being "The 3rd Party in British Politics" are in polling terms, premature. It is worth noting that; in the majority of polls since April, the Lib Dem's have maintained a small lead of around 1%. However, towards the end of the year UKIP have managed to maintain a consistent and on occasion substantial 3rd party lead in polls conducted by Opinium and Survation. Please see Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election for more details, including a list of every opinion polling survey carried out in 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Kookiethebird We are not the same person but yes we have worked closely alonside one another on a number of articles. I regularly click on his/her contributions page to see what they have been up to, I assume this works vice versa! this tends to mean that we edit/discuss largely the same topics. I have done this with other users in the past such as Nick and more recently User:CatCalledJim. This is not unusual, that is why the contributions page is there!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the account and the IP work nicely in shifts and never at the same time. And I know very few users who always put their signature directly behind the punctuation mark without a space. This could be coincidence. But if you just forget to log in from time to time and edit under your IP, I would advise you to better admit it. No one would take offense. Being convicted of sock puppetry and lies is much more unpleasant. If it is really coincidence, please don't take it badly, but there is really a number of signs indicating that you and the IP are the same person. And you know that we have methods to identify sockpuppets. Again: I just utter my suspiscions. Please don't take it amiss.--RJFF (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)]]

Can RJFF concentrate on the subject we are presently discussing. Rather than falsely accusing Sheffno1gunner of breaching the rules of the website. As I have said, what is so misleading about giving the readers factual and current information? Most users agree that we should add that opinion polling graph.(CatCalledJim (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

I didn't intend to accuse Sheffno1gunner. I just wanted to advise him to better inform others if (and only if) he sometimes edits under his user name and sometimes under his IP. It's just better for him to make it transparent. And how can you know if he does or doesn't? If I falsely accused him, he can defend himself. --RJFF (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ok, I take your point about me putting the wrong dates on the sources, that was a genuine mistake due to copying things accross, obviously those dates need changing. Point accepted, sorry for the mistake! The next point is what the sources are being used to justify, those 2 sources are being used to justify the 3% figure, it's to show that 3% is pretty standard, it shows aknowlagements by leading accademics. Those sources were not intended to be used for illustrating that "that the party has been within the margin of error (normally 3%) of their Liberal Democrat rivals since April 2012." The source that justifies that they have been within 3% since April is the BBC Source! If you really want me to, I can repeat the same sources 3 or 4 times in the same paragraph but the point is that if you read the whole paragraph in it's entirity you will see that everything is sourced. Who reads one sentence at a time and then checks each individual sourse? No, one, you read the paragraph and then check stuff out! I will replace them and the text, I will also change the dates on the sources, as this is clearly a mistake on my part, that I apologise for!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We are having a related conversation at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and I would agree with Emeraude. As I've suggested there, Sheffno should review Wikipedia policy on original research as I feel s/he and some other editors are relying too much on their interpretations and not sticking to reliable sources when it comes to coverage of UKIP.

Emeraude and Kookiethebird, I would appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election on related matters. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I was guided by WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:OWN. Might I also recommend we reflect on WP:FOC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Transplant text from Opinion Polling page

The graph shows opinion polling of voting intention for the Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party in 2012. UKIP started the year at around 2-7% (see table below) and finished with 7-15% of the opinion poll share (depending on the polling company). Whereas support for the Liberal Democrats has remained fairly static around 10% with little fluctuation throughout 2012 across all the polling companies that conducted surveys. There has been debate within the media as to whether UKIP have supplanted or are supplanting the Liberal Democrats as the third main party in British politics, as UKIP claim, in part based on these polling figures. . See Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election for more details, including a list of every opinion poll carried out in 2012

This is how the graph appears on the page>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done this because we have decided to remove this graph from the opinion polling page. We have done this to avoid duplication. there is absolutely no point putting the same graph twice on different pages just for the sake of it. Especially when you consider that this is just a condensed version of the graph above it on that page. This is the right place for this text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I broadly concur with Emeraude's position above. I had a very long discussion with Sheffno1gunner on the Talk page of the opinion polling article about text there. The text there now is in replacement of material that (I felt) clearly contradicted WP:OR. The current text improved the situation, but I am not wedded to the text there. I also don't feel that text needs repeating here. I remain concerned about WP:OR issues in both that article and this one. I would urge a number of people in this discussion to pay more heed to Wikipedia policy and guidance, including WP:OR and WP:OWN. I would particularly suggest Sheffno1gunner reviews WP:FOC and WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to apologize, I made a massive school boy error and have caused offense! I actually got Emeraude confused with Doktorbuk. I'm really sorry and did not mean to cause offense. That said I stick with my position on this article but make a full retraction of anything I have directed at Emeraude and sorry for calling you by your first name.

@Bondegezou: I really fail to see how this graph is not relevant to this page. As far as the text goes, if you have changed your mind what do you want it to say. Also you are wrong to state that this is repeated on another page because it is not. Sheffno1gunner removed it from the opinion polling page because of concerns over "duplicity". He said it was best placed on this page with a link to this page on the grounds that it overstated the position of 3rd place was already highlighted to a sufficient level. I think we need a short text on this somewhere, I get why it's not necessary to put the graph on more pages then one, I accept that. This is the right article for this graph and a basic description of what it shows is not unreasonable. Also you did re-write most of it yourself! Why you changing your mind?217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

While it is nice you have apologised to Emeraude, you should not be making intemperate comments at any editor. I remind you, again, of WP:AGF and WP:FOC.

Sorry, I have not kept up with the several edits Sheffno has made, so I didn't realise he had removed all the text from the opinion polling article. That notwithstanding, I don't think such a long legend for a figure is appropriate. Let's have this material in the main text or not at all. Also, what text may be suitable in one place may not be somewhere else. The question now is whether that material is suitable here, and on that point, I concur with Emeraude.

As I sought to explain in my previous comment, the text I wrote, as you describe, was an immediate solution to the problems with the prior text. It was a work in progress. I was being bold and fixing the problem. None of us own the text on Wikipedia; everything remains up for consideration. I have no attachment to that piece of text just because I came up with it.

I remain concerned, as I've said repeatedly, with WP:OR issues. It would be helpful if you and Sheffno engaged more with policy in this area. You appear frustrated with policy on reliable sources, but I'm afraid that is how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am frustrated by Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources but I am more annoyed about how certain editors (I'm not referring to yourself) use certain sources that back up their political views, often making bigoted comments and yes it is bigotry to falsely label something because you don't like it. In particular I'm referring to things like the labeling of "right-wing" populism, many of their views are mainstream anyway! And people attempting to label them far right all the time. Wikipedia is being turned into a Newspaper, I've been trying to address the balance. The more these things happen, the more me and others will challenge them, it's that simple.

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

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

Another personal attack, and another apology demanded. Good job I'm thick skinned! I suggested some wording above but left out the key point, so now suggest this amended version: ""During 2012, UKIP's popularity in opinion polls increased, with some polls suggesting it had overtaken the Liberal Democrats for third place." (amemdment in italics). Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect Emeraude, I don't think another apology is needed. I personally wouldn't have had that little rant the IP has just had but there was no personal attack. When using words like "bigoted" it was in a general sense, I suspect referring to Doktorbuk but I'm not a mind reader. Non-the-less it wasn't directed directly at you, so it's not a personal attack. With respect I think both yourself and indeed 81.133.12.45 need to think about what's just been said. I don't really care who started it, the point is you've both gone over the top. I hope you have the good grace to see fault in yourself! I have seen you try and shut down acceptable debate and it's disappointing! That's by the by though because you do seem to be willing to talk about the text now, which is a positive reflection on yourself! Please, no more fighting!

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

What? 81.133.12.45 names me three times, and no one else, and it's not personal?? Are you serious? And you have still not responded to the questions I raised about your behaviour to me. Oh well. Emeraude (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of that phrasing may not be seen as neutral. "to new heights" is a bit loaded, especially as the most recent polls show a fall. "A number of polls" begs the question how many? Why not just put "some"? And "has overtaken" implies they are still in the lead, which not all polls were agreed on anyway and the latest say is not the case. Emeraude (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheffno1gunner and 81.133.12.45, again, I suggest you read WP:FOC and WP:AGF and abide by their recommendations. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sick of this Emeraude, I'm not normally like this but you seem to know just how to get this reaction out of me! By the way some of what I said was about you but not everything! I did not directly refer to you all the time, just as you say "on a number of occasions". When I did it was for solely those particular things! You call yourself thick skinned - I found that rather amusing! Your reaction suggests otherwise, your overly sensitive and constantly grumpy! It's a bit wearing if I'm honest! I do not want to fight with you! But I will not simply keep quiet on these matters. I stand by my initial apology, I was in the wrong! I try and behave with respect, which is why every other editor on this page has had respect from me, you sir make it difficult. I will not make any further apology, for the reasons I have already stated! If we're going to be able to work together on this, we both need to make efforts here, you can't just act like your Mr Perfect and have done nothing wrong!217.41.32.3 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So, arrogant as well. And from what I can glean, it seems that 217.41.32.3 and 81.133.12.45 are the same person. It seems to me you are always like this, but I can only base that on the evidence of you posts in this talk page which are, without fail, full of personal attacks on those editors who won't agree with you. You admittance that you were attacking other editors and not just myself is pointless - everyone reading this is aware of that - and directly contradicts your statement that "every other editor on this page has had respect from me"! If you cannot bear to see views that do not acord with your own, go and play elsewhere, because you are not adult enough to engage in debate. Incidentally, you might like to quote where I have been "overly sensitive and constantly grumpy", or were you looking in a mirror? Emeraude (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Genius, well spotted, I am both: 81.133.12.45 and 217.41.32.3, depending on which part of the house I'm in depends on which router I'm covered by! You and Doktorbuk are the only 2 editors I have had a run in with on here. Bondegezou seems to be in constant and full agreement with you but I respect their views and the way that their views are expressed because they do not behave such as yourself! My beef is not with your opinion, my bief is with your attitude and treating me like something on the bottom of your shoe! Non of this argument would have started had you not been so patronisingly disparaging and immediately closing down debate in an "arrogant"/I know best manner! So it seems you're the pot calling the kettle black! I am tolerant of other peoples views, the way I speak to Bondegezou is evidence of this, we clearly disagree but treat each other with decency. You on other hand sir have been incredibly intolerant to mine and others presence on here! It's interesting that you are engaging in the exact form of bigotry that you indirectly accuse others of! I'm man enough to apologise for my error but grumpy old men don't do things like that, do they? They say respect your elders, yea, I do but respect is meant to be a mutual concept! 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Your proposal sounds reasonable and convincing. I agree. --RJFF (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Might I point editors here to a related discussion at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#3rd_party_lead:_OR_concerns? Your input would be welcome there. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please do not concern yourself with with the insults heaped on me by the two IPS (who are actually one person). It is really none of your business and there has been no fault on my side, unless you are taking sides as well..... And you have no justification and certainly no right to say that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should not have the last word on the matter; or that I need to show maturity. Who the hell do you think you are?

Stick with the issue. I have proposed and heard no counter, that a sentence be inserted covering this issue that says "some polls". That's accurate, i.e, not all polls, just some. There's no need to itemise every single poll (and, in fact, most polls in 2012 showed LDs third). No polls now show UKIP with a "firm lead" - that is your interpretation of figures and original research. (As you know because you made a big song and dance about it, margins of error can make either party the leader given the small numbers involved.) If we say some polls a ref only need give one or two examples - job done and dusted. Emeraude (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheffno1gunner says, "UKIP now has a firm lead in Opinium, Survation, TNS BMRB and also ComRes". Let's examine this:

Opinium: Latest poll 8/1/13 (so not "now") says "UKIP drop back to 12%" (not a "firm lead") with LDs 7%. They also feel it necessary to explain why it is the only poll to give UKIP such a figure [1] - and it is a web-based poll.

TNS BMRB Latest poll 22-24/1/2013 gave UKIP 12% (down 1%, so not a "firm lead), LDs 8%. Another online poll.

Survation Latest poll 15/1/13 (so not "now"): UKIP 16% and LDs 11% (and notes that "UKIP are still not forecast to win any seats").

ComRes: Latest poll 25-27/1/13: raw voting intention: UKIP 8%, LDs 6%. (p 9) But in answer to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as...?": UKIP 4%, LDs 8% (p 13) and with voting intention weighted to turnout values, UKIP 10%, LDs 10% (p 16)

To compare with the better known pollsters:

Guardian/ICM Latest poll, 20/1/13 gives LDs 15% and UKIP 6%. (p 4)

Ipsos MORI Latest poll 12-14/1/2013: UKIP 9%, LDs 8% (hardly a "firm lead")

And the two most recent polls:

YouGov Latest reports on 31/1/13 for The Sun LDs 10%, UKIP 8% and on 1-3/2/13 for The Sunday Times LDs 12%, UKIP 8%

So, Sheffno1gunner is relying on selected polls which don't exactly back up his case and are contradicted by more recent polls. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Sheffno1gunner and Nick Dancer have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does that not surprise me? I will make the change I suggested. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Emeraude has just done what he/she has accused others of doing! Selective about your information aren't we? No mentioning of ICM, you use to love quoting ICM what with it being an anomaly putting UKIP below 7%. Now, there is not a single current poll putting UKIP below 9%, you are just as biased as anyone else on here! Come on admit it! It's obvious! Who are you to say that internet polls are less valid than telephone polls? What about door to door polls? If others are unfit to edit this page or engage in this discussion then without doubt you are as well! As far as what the other IP's (one person) were saying well it does sound harsh but there does seem to be at least a glimmer of truth in it by the way you react! What other editors have done on here is without doubt wrong but atleast when some of them have made a mistake they've admitted it or kept away, whereas you seem pathologically incapable of accepting fault and then to top it all get really aggressive! This is a truly ugly trait! 130.88.114.111 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

And another personal attack!! I don't have a funny idea of what makes a personal attack - I subscribe to WIkipedia's defintion and so should you and your alter egos. Once again, please point out where I have been selective; it's a serious allegation to make and one you need to substantiate, as you will need to substantiate the suggestion that YouGove is somehow beloved of me. I have attacked no one's methodology - I accept that different pollsters conduct their surveys in different ways, and that is part of the reason why results between them often vary widely. WHat's wrong with that. However, the point remains, despite the slurs, insults, innuendos and personal comments you and your chums have hurled at me, the point of this discussion page is to improve the article. The especific point of this section of the page was to consider the position of UKIP in national opinion polls. That has been done, so it would seem to me that this section should now be closed. If you want to continue attacking me, do it elsewhere, perhaps by making an official complaint about what you allege is my biased behaviour. Of course, that would put your own behaviour under the spotlight. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear 86.161.219.51, might I suggest you read WP:AGF, which is Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith?

Emeraude's comments on Internet polls are sensible: e.g. [2].

And, anyway, we shouldn't be in the business of interpreting polls (see WP:OR), a matter we have addressed a number of times before. We take our lead from reliable source citations. Your argument would be more convincing if you could refer to such. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Policies

I've removed the section on policys, this was beggining to look more and more like a copy and paste job from UKIP head office. The articles for the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems do not have such large swathes of information. It is essentially unencyclopaedic spam. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on being that bold. The material has been tagged for lack of independent sources since November 2011. Editors who wanted to keep these sections have had the chance to find and add non-partisan sources for more than a year. Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability does not only mean that contents have to be attributable to any source, but to reliable and this means non-partisan sources. UKIP's self-presentation of their policies is not an adeqaute source. Users who want to learn about UKIP's own presentation of their platform can easily access the party's website and find it there. It is not Wikipedia's task to simply echo a party's self-presentation without any critical analysis from independent observers. I cannot imagine that no political scientist has ever examined and analysed UKIP's program. Therefore, it should be possible to develop a section on UKIP's platform, main policies and aims from an independent point of view. --RJFF (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the policy material that was independently sourced has been removed[3] with the edit summary: Very selective about sorces here aren't we. If editors can't be trusted to compile this section impartially then we should not have a section on this at all. Far from neutrally written, a lot of very convenient omitions! Maybe the IP editor who made that edit and comment could work with us here to try to improve the Policies section. It's not immediately obvious to me what from this deleted content violated NPOV, and also we have no way of knowing what, in this IP's opinion, has been "conveniently omitted." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It does seem to be an edit made in a fit of pique doesn't it? There's a disconnect between "being bold" and cutting off nose to spite face. Still, the content, as you say was sourced, so reinsert it. Emeraude (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah the anti Ukip brigade strike again, removing all souced ukip policy statments but keeping a blatant anti ukip smear using hostile unproven opinions on the grounds he is an "academic", as if that makes him purer than the driven snow. Emeraude and your gaggle of friends, keep hacking away at this article all you want, it wont make a single tiny bit of difference to Ukips fast growing support. Your agenda has been clear from day one. No one consistently edits a political parties page as long as you have without a reason. Now procede to howl and demand an apology, you wont get one. 87.112.181.7 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Signed other IP editors comment for him/her so that my comment is not confused with his/hers! So that I don't get accused of making his/her comments. Its not that I want to disassociate myself with those comments, far from it! I agree with 87.112.181.7's criticisms. However, its probably helpful that we don't needlessly get into an argument here. Can we just remind ourselves that this is a policy section and that the paragraph in contention does not actually mention or illustrate UKIP policy, therefore said paragraph should be removed. I have done this! This is another very blatant attempt by individuals from the usual crowd to doctor this article and end its neutrality. As I have stated elsewhere, Emeraude has got it into his head that UKIP is somehow a fascist party (Emeraude states an interest in anti-fascism on his user page). This is yet another example of Emeraude clearly trying to create the impression that UKIP are a fascist party by making inferences about their voters using a "study". 81.149.185.174 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This issue has now been added to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others as it helps to give a sense a sense of balance to that discussion. It serves as an example of how editors such as Emeraude have deliberately politicised the narrative of articles and that there are indeed 2sides to the story. This is not merely a case of IP editors (rightly or wrongly) trying to increase UKIP's coverage! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true in any sense. This issue has not been added to Admin noticeboard because of anything I have done. Quite the opposite. It is because of what you bunch of anonymous IPs have done, including making unwarranted personal attacks on me and other editors. For the record, I have nowhere got it into my head, or written anywhere, that UKIP is a fascist party. That's pure nonsense. If you think I have, you are deluded. Please point out precisely where I have said this. (You can't.) My interest in anti-fascism is totally irrelevant to this issue. So is my interest in flying and France! You might also indicate where I have used a "study" and where I have used a study to make inferences. (I presume this might refer to Goodwin/Ford/Cutts which has been deleted as "opinion": it's not - it's peer-reviewed publication which is the highest standard of Wikipedia source. I've replaced it. But I didn't put it in in the first place.) You might also like to point out any edit I have actually made regarding UKIP policy or "politicised the narrative". My edits to this article are actually minimal and all related to matters of fact. Emeraude (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I could just wade in on this, it does seem to me to be completely the wrong section for something like this (whether its relevant or not). It does not explain or elaborate on party policy, it merely gives insights into who might be voting for the party or who is "likely" or "more likely" to vote for the party! That's not policy, its even a big stretch to call it perception of policy! other editors such as Blue Square Thing have previously proposed a section on "perceptions of the party" or something along those lines. That is the only place that something like this could be appropriately included! I'm not wholeheartedly against it's inclusion but as things stand there is not an appropriate section for this to go in. If Emeraude wants to create one, we can't stop him as it is a peer based review (a somewhat questionable one but wiki policy says its not our place to make those judgements). What we can and must do is prevent the narrative being distorted by having something like this in a policy section, when it has absolutely no place in this section! As for further criticisms about this section, e.g. tax it only seems to state the least attractive elements to someone of a left-wing orientation. It ignores the parts of policy that would appeal to someone who might describe themselves as "left-wing", such as a high tax threshold of £13,000, zero tax(inc NI) on those earning the minimum wage. This is another example of how the narrative has been effected, picking and choosing, being selective about what gets included and what doesn't affects the narrative! That you can not deny! In light of this it seems that the IPs criticisms are justified to at least some degree! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can point to a wikipedia policy that states valid content, sourced from a reliable third party can be deleted because someone considers it to be under the wrong heading? If you can't then the information stays. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I see this hasn't been resolved yet! As a sensible compromise I have removed it from the policy section and put it in its own section as previously suggested. Important that we seek not to mislead! 130.88.115.61 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also of the view that it is becoming increasingly hard to assume Emeraude's good faith! I mean I see this as being just as serious as what a number of IPs are being accused of, it seems that Emeraude is trying to subtly paint the party as xenophobic etc (which does have links with fascism). We have one group trying to increase UKIPs coverage and we have another altering the narrative. This has been suggested by others, the narrative of this article has been far from partial but significant improvements have been made. Once there was even a long discussion about the opening paragraphs! I feel like we're starting to take steps backwards. I agree with sheffno1's argument about how the tax policy has been presented, it seems that certain very significant and indeed eye catching things have been omitted while others have been included, you can't help ask why? Also why when this is questioned is nothing done about it? It was proposed that the entire section be deleted. To be honest that would be more favorable than the status quo but I would prefer something neutrally written, that would require a variety of sources and not merely a piece from the Guardian (a very anti-UKIP paper) and one article from the BBC. I'm not saying these sources should be thrown out, merely that they are not suitable to tell the whole story on their own, they need to be supplemented if this section is to remain. I would think we would need at least 5 sources e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail, BBC, ITV, The Sun etc. I want a neutrally written article. We're a long way from that at the moment! 130.88.115.61 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the one source most IPs want to push though is UKIP itself which is totally unacceptable. As for the policies section I don't think it is needed at all. We don't have it for the other parties. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that, quite hapy not to have a policy section, it's better than a badly written one. In any case if people want to know what UKIP's policies are they can go to UKIPs website for that. There is no need for us to attempt to inaccurately regurgitate it on wikipedia! Since we seem to be in agreement on this, I shall perform the change! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheffno1gunner and several of the above IP addresses have now been blocked as sockpuppets. (See ANI discussion mentioned above for more.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yea I think we should remove it or we run the risk of editors picking and choosing which policies are written about and not written about and that would inevitably create a biased article. The other parties dont have this section, so I see no need for it. 2.123.20.148 (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice that there has been no reply to my comment since I was blocked for mistaken identity :( For some reason editors assumed that I was another editor (sheffno1gunner), I'm not sure why, the only reason they gave is that I apparently appear to have an interest in edits relating to the UK Independence Party. Just to clarify my main interest on here is formatting and layout for elections, polling and political articles in general. Admittedly I have paid attention to UKIP more than the other 3 parties because the article isn't consistent with that of the other 3parties, the warning messages also show that this article is controversial and therefore in need of increased attention by editors, so that we get the issue sorted. I really fail to see the reason for my block. It seems to me that I have been blocked purely because someone suspects that I am a UKIP supporter/member or whatever, I am not but even if I was, this is not reason enough. The blocking of my IP seems to be a knee jerk reaction, which is both irresponsible and disappointing. 94.9.35.7 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To provide context here: the IP editor's actions were discussed at WP:ANI; the discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others. An investigation concluded that the IP editor is User:Sheffno1gunner and all the accounts were (temporarily) banned for sockpuppetry: see investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive#06_March_2013. Sheffno appealed the ban and the appeal was rejected: see User_talk:Sheffno1gunner#March_2013. Suffice it to say, the evidence was more than simply a common interest in UKIP.

94.9.35.7, if you dispute the findings of the investigation and wish to appeal the block, Wikipedia:Appealing a block lays out how you can do so. In the mean time, please refrain from making comments that violate Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith.

Everyone else, given the conclusions of the initial sockpuppetry investigation and the rejected appeal, it is reasonable to accept that one individual has been behind Sheffno, User:Nick Dancer and multiple IP addresses. Much of the disputed editing over this article reflects that one person's actions. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

But I'm not Sheffno1gunner or NickDancer, you have no evidence to suggest that I am, how are my edits consistent with theirs? May I suggest that it is whoever blocked me that is failing to assume good faith because I was wrongly blocked for sock puppetry for 72hours. That 72hours has since lapsed, what is the point of me appealing an expired block? I have said or done nothing wrong :( My edits are constructive. 94.2.21.221 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

LGBT ISSUES

We have a problem with editors changing the wording in the LGBT policy section to reflect the government legislation. UKIP are not quibbling about the text the government have written, what they are criticising is it's compatibility with European Law (specifically Article 14 of the ECHR). This is a policy section, the article is to reflect UKIPs policy with the party's reasoning. This was not a problem when http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2625-pm-picking-fight-over-samesex-marriage was a source as it gave direct quotes of what the party's issue was. The problem now is that we have editors changing the wording to reflect the factual content of the legislation. This is not appropriate as this is not what is being disputed, UKIP are saying that this may be ruled as discrimination at European level. We need to cite their policy properly!81.149.185.174 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why this section needs to be here, given that many of their other policies have been removed from the policies section of the page? 86.29.205.102 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The main parties don't have policy sections at all. Which may be sensible. They change over time 'an all, and are by their nature phrased as adverts. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

History

The history section is slanted towards the developments of the last three years. They are described much more detailedly than the 17 years from the foundation until 2009. Could someone please shorten this section to the most important points and cut minor events and occurences? --RJFF (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look and do a first skim213.120.148.60 (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Perceptions of the Party? (now "Political research on UKIP")

Am I the only one who thinks it is odd that the article ends with some random, relatively unknown academics trying to link UKIP to xenophobia, Islamophobia, and the BNP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.251.215 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are. The section is from an excellent source, your ignorance of it's authors is not relevant. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would question the reasons for editors wanting to include such a piece but unfortunately it complies with Wikipedia policy! It does state that UKIP ban membership of organisations such as the BNP and EDL so the piece has been written to avoid bias. Without this sentence the section would appear questionable. Its better now that this is in its own section instead of the policy section which was a bit bizarre! 2.123.20.148 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not even relevant. The page is supposed to give information on the party not someone's view of it. I don't see a section on this for Labour, Liberal Democrat, Greens or Conservatives?Arsenalfan24 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I really don't think we should include this section (and it's content) unless we are going to do the same for the other 3 main parties or even the Greens. Wikipedia is not a newspaper opinion piece. How is this section or it's content of encyclopaedic importance, if people want to hear what others have to say about the party they should go direct, I sense there is a danger of a Chinese whispers type of problem if we're to entertain the idea of doing this for all parties, therefore we must do it for non of them. 130.88.115.11 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that section amounts to a criticisms section, which aren't supposed to exist. Very dodgy.92.15.77.178 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to policy that says that? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorta. It actually says such sections are sometimes appropriate, but I'd argue that for a political party they certainly ain't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section

I'd generally suggest merging into appropriate sections of rest of article, but I'm not sure any of that section should stay. The Heseltine thing is just an attack from their political opponents: including it is just....out and out bias, ya can consider this an edit request to remove that if ya like, though it really shouldn't need saying. I'm not sure the 'study' warrants inclusion either, but if it does, one minor problem: quote doesn't end. Major problem....giving it its own section seems undue weight....and what's with the title of that section? Perhaps there was different content there in the past, but right now that section is entirely about a study of what issues UKIP supporters consider important....NOT anyones perceptions of the party. As I said, I'd happily delete the entire section, but if you want to keep that study, I'd suggest it goes better in a subheading of the policies section (called something like, 'supporters motivations'?), and having info from those yougov surveys which ask which issues are most important to you, then group answers by party. The note that they ban BNP members is odd too, sorta a non-sequitor. Looks to me like it's been added by pro-UKIP people as a defense to what they percieve as the anti-UKIP inclusion/description of the study....when an article/section reads like that, where people have tried to 'balance' positive and negative comments, as if the article is a debate.....it's not a good sign. I'm rambling, it'd be simpler to change this myself, but I can't.....simple question:What is that section supposed to be about? 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Info from YouGov surveys feels close to original research. We should favour secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, for the purposes of opinion polling yougov is essentially a peer-reviewed scientific study, far more RS than the newspapers constantly used as RS on wiki. But I was more thinking something like http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/6715

A more neutral and accurate and up to date description, by someone who isn't an opinion-piece writer for newspapers who're strongly opposed to the subject? That is, if we are meaning to include details of what drives UKIP support...as I said, title of section doesn't match content. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is for removing the section and its content. Only Bondegezou seems to be strongly for keeping it and GimliDotNet< seems to be offering some support. I agree with what the other editors have said including: 92.15.77.178, Arsenalfan24, 174.31.251.215 and 2.123.20.148. 130.88.115.11 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am given to understand that many UKIP topics have been plagued by sockpuppets self-declaring consensus, so we should be cautious about doing so. I'd like to know what that section is actually supposed to be about before I say for certain whether it should be removed, though certainly in an ideal world I'd simply have deleted it, on a poltiical page things are certain to be more complex92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that Essay is not policy. The perceptions of the party section is well sourced, there is no reason to remove it. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your response, and still have no idea what the section currently titled 'Perceptions of the Party' is supposed to be for. The only thing in the section is A) of unclear value anywhere in the article, and B) nothing at all to do with perceptions of UKIP. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's simple really, I asked for someone to point to a policy that says that criticism sections are not supposed to exist (as has been claimed above), and that has not been provided. The title of the section may be vague but that is not sufficient reason to remove well sourced material. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The remaining material is clearly well sourced and references to academic papers are precisely what Wikipedia articles need. The only opposition I see to this section is from IP addresses who, given what has happened previously, may or may not be one individual. Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate there've been sockpuppet problems recently, I am exceedingly unhappy at your implication. I edit as an IP precisely to avoid getting entangled in wikis internal politics & feuds, the idea that IP editors should be ignored or devalued is no fun, and can't be justified, the sockpuppets in question included registered users. If you can't wp:duck, and I'm damn sure you can't, then assume good faith. Don't lump me in with 130s attitude.

To the content, yes yes yes, wiki should cite more academic research and less newspaper opinion....but in this case there's little difference. Arguing about the politicisation of science is kinda moot in political research into specific parties, but even by those standards this particular piece...and especially the way it has been presented, is partisan. The section reads like an argument...it's a common thing to see on wikipedia: an argument over NPOV has not resulted in neutral article, but a series of statements biased one way or the other, trying to balance themselves out. Fuck knows where the old title came from, but it seems pretty clear that the islamoquote was added as an anti-UKIP bit, then some pro-UKIP added in what should be a non-sequitor of how UKIP bans BNPers, then an anti-UKIP heseltine quote, soon to be followed I'd bet...had not the UKIP hydra been banned...by the pro-UKIP rebuttal. The current state of the section is better than it was, but just because its "well sourced" doesn't mean it's perfect. The sentence on refusing membership should not be in the article, any more than it should for any other party....because the previous sentence should NOT read like an accusation of racism. If the section is about political research on UKIP, as is thankfully now clear, and if it is to source that particular piece (which I'm not exactly happy about, its' title is hardly indicative of scientific neutrality)....it should relate the actual statistical findings of the 'study' (which IIRC is simply a rehash of the big yougov poll), and not the newspaper-pleasing-sensationalist quote linking UKIP with racism. If consensus is to have a section like this for UKIP (I don't think the other parties do), and to source that piece, then why not actually use its findings/figures, rather than the one quote from the whole thing chosen to make UKIP sound bad? Then lose the membership details, or at least move them to a more appropriate section. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The history of sock-puppetry around this page has created problems for all of us. The person responsible for those problems is the person who was behind that sock-puppetry and numerous Wikipedians have been busy repairing the damage.

The easiest away around those problems for IP editors is to start an account, and I would certainly recommend such an approach. I don't believe it exposes someone to more of "wikis internal politics & feuds", as you put it. In this case, creating an account gets around the "internal politics" created by the history of disruptive editing from IPs to this article. However, I respect that some people do not wish to edit using an account and I respect their contributions. I ask that IP editors bare with us during this period. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well put. I cannot understand why anyone who wants to edit regularly would not have an account. It is just as anonymous, privacy wise, as not having one, but it avoids the trouble (and suspicions) we have had with anon editors using several different IP addresses. This creates confusion, in some cases deliberate confusion. It is always easier to follow a thread by and respond to names rather than numbers. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"The person responsible for those problems is the person who was behind that sock-puppetry" I accept that, it's not so much the suspicion of sockpuppetry as it has occured, but the....implied devaluing of my comments because I'm an IP: "The only opposition I see to this section is from IP addresses". Getting another account would not make my comments more or less valid. Also, it shouldn't matter if me and 130 and Arsenalfan are one (somewhat nutty) person, there's no edit warring going on and this debate is not a vote. But anyways, don't worry about it:point is...does UKIP uniquely warrant a section such as this, and if so....why is it devoted to (what reads as, even if one is generous enough to assume it wasn't intended as) an attack on UKIP, rather than the actual results: UKIP supporters are more worried than average about immigration, the EU, & crime? Or whatever, I'm guessing based on other polls, can't actually read the source given, but assume it's just a rehash, with liberal (pun intended, why not) reinterpretation, of a yougov survey. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will find it does seriously matter if you 130 and ArsenalFan are the same person (I'm not saying you are). Attempting to subvert consensus by posting as multiple identities is a bannable offence. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's against the rules, but it wouldn't (shouldn't) make a difference to the outcome of the discussion. I was attempting to make the point that my concerns about article content are what should matter, not my not using an account. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ring-wing populist party?

Right-wing and populist are both loaded words, the latter having a very vague and often unclear definition in politics. The three sources stating that the United Kingdom Independence Party were right-wing populists were two sites that nobody has every heard of and a student blog/newspaper. None of them are reliable citations. Andem (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate representation of the citations. [5] is an academic journal (Parliamentary Affairs), and [6] is an academic text. They are both citations of the highest reliability. Bondegezou (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

These sources are insufficient for the following reasons:

• [4] is not an impartial source because UKIP oppose the EU and this is an official EU source. Since partiality is an issue I suggest we remove this source straight away.
• [5] if you actually read more than the headline of this source you will find that it doesn't actually commit to calling UKIP populist as it talks about a split in the party and the different factions. The piece makes a comparison between Anti-Political Establishment Parties (APEs) and office seeking parties for its definition of populism and it says that both these elements exist within the party. This is not a source that concretely states that UKIP are populist because it contradicts itself. Might I also suggest that this source is quite out of date and circumstances have changed since it was written.
• [6] is a broken link and therefore invalid.

2.120.43.176 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read carefully Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources before continuing this strand. You might also look back into the archives of this page to where this topic has been dealt with previously. [6] is not a broken link because it is not a link. It is a properly stated reference to a book and a page in that book. For those unwilling to actually read the book, it even gives a specific and 100% accurate quote from the book. [4] is not an official EU source and to say it is is simply untrue. But even if it was an EU soucre, you could not accuse it of being impartial on the grounds you have. As for [5], your interpretation of what it says is itself partial and is clearly original research. You might like to read the many articles in other peer-reviewed articles that draw on that work and which also classify UKIP as populist (and right wing); 2008 does not make it out-of-date, but even if five years ago does seem a long time, seeing as its still being referenced by other academics, not to mention the press, means it's relevant anyway. And your assertion that "circumstances have changed since it was written" is entirely unevidenced and, again, original research. Frankly, you can't have it both ways: you want to say it's wrong, and you want to say it's now out of date: so was it right in 2008?! Finally, in answer to Andem, neither "right-wing" nor "populist" are "loaded words", any more than other descriptions that are used for policial parties are loaded. Emeraude (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I take your point about [6] being a book, I should have checked this. However, there is no need to be patronising and insult other editors without provocation. I object to the way you make that point and I also want to point out that this source is way out of date. 2006 is 7years ago and in that time a lot has changed: the party has changed its leader 4times, having had 3leadership elections. Its electoral representation has increased (coming 2nd in 2009 is also significant change), its manifesto has expanded with great detail, so it cant really be considered single issue (even if it is true to say it has a key issue). Its standing in the polls has increased exponentially, to the point where media commentators from reliable sources have deemed it to have coalition potential: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9784758/Ukip-could-be-in-2015-Coalition-Government.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258346/UKIP-form-2015-coalition-government-Nigel-Farage-makes-extraordinary-boast-war-words-Tories-rages.html http://www.businessreport.co.uk/article/00780/what-would-happen-if-ukip-got-into-government http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/07/nigel-farage-says-ukip-coalition_n_2423087.html

Sorry but 4 is clearly not impartial, as it uses the European flag, it acknowledges a form of common European political system, identity etc in its many comparisons. This something that UKIP do not acknowledge and was founded to oppose which is where the question of partiality comes in. It also uses terms such as right-wing populism in this one size fits all manner for comparisons etc to illustrate that these parties are one and the same thing, something which is open to dispute.

I have said nothing that is original research for [5] I have merely read what it says. The article does not give such a sweeping statement as the title and does in fact point to ambiguity, when it talks about the party being split right down the middle, it kind of undermines the sweeping statement of the title and merely justifies us saying that factions of the party are populistic. That said this source is also out of date. As a rule I would not say that 5 or 7 years makes a source out of date if the circumstances that it is being applied to havent changed but the reality is that these circumstances have changed, our reliable sources seem to say it has, or atleast there is no longer consensus among reliable sources to use the term populist, that there can be no doubt about. Although I accept that it could be argued that the party has populists elements but to use such a sweeping statement would be wrong.

I also want to say how alarmed I am about how this discussion and others in recent days have been attempted to be shut down by a group of editors. Indeed I was actually blocked and accused of being a sockpuppet for another editor without evidence. Such a loaded accusation was made on the strength that I had appeared to have an interest in the UK Independence Party, no other evidence was presented to me. It seems that whenever someone challenges the consensus among a certain group of editors the policy is to rally round and block them, hide the conversations and pretend like nothing happened. Thats not right, nor is it a fair way to treat other editors when theyre engaging in discussions properly :( Not happy about being insulted by Emeraude and the general tone if Im honest, really not nice at all :( 94.4.150.215 (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to separate your debate on the article from your complaints about being blocked. This talk page is not here for you to rant about perceived injustices, it is here to discuss improvements to the article and that is all. Secondly, there is no requirement for wikipedia sources to be impartial (there is no such thing), the criteria is reliability and not being WP:PRIMARY. If you don't like it, you are free to attempt to get consensus to change the core principles of wikipedia (this page is not the place for that) or setup your own site with your own rules GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This really is disingenuous. We get a claim that a site is an official EU page and must therefore be biased. When I point out it is not an official EU site, we get told that "it uses the European flag" so it is "clearly not impartial"! I wonder if the site has actually been looked at. It has flags of every state and most regions of Europe. It records election results in every country in Europe since 1945, EU members or not. OK, if we want more up to date sources than 2009 the journal already cited (Abedi, A. and Lundberg, T.C. 2009. "Doomed to Failure? UKIP and the Organizational Challenges Facing Right-Wing Populist Anti-Political Establishment Parties." Parliamentary Affairs, 62 (1), 72-87), we may add:

• "Right-wing populism is on the rise - and it is shamelessly courting working-class people. The BNP is unlikely ever to establish itself as a credible party, but it is an ominous portent of what could come. The populist right can also boast the presence of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), ...." Owen Jones: Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, p 245, Verso 2011

• "The List Pim Fortuyn and New Democracy are not the only examples of radical right – or right-wing populist – flash parties: the Schill Party in Germany, the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) in Greece, and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) would qualify as well." David Art, Inside the Radical Right, p 188, Cambridge University Press, 2011

• "But when set against the advances made by the populist radical right in many other parts of Europe, UKIP and the BNP remain minor parties in British politics." Stephen Driver. Understanding British Party Politics, p 151, Polity Press 2011

• "...other British parties had played a leading role in ushering this populism towards the mainstream. UKIP had formed the Europe of Freedom and Democracy bloc,...." Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, p 154, Verso 2012

• "Recent events have created a seemingly perfect storm for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the right-wing populist eurosceptic party that has supplanted the British National Party as the main electoral force to the right of the Conservative Party." Adam Carter Searchlight, June 2012

And I haven't even begun to think about what the press say...... Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very clear on what [4] is, so I suggest removing it and adding the numerous additional cites Emeraude has helpfully provided. Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And what the press say is (a few random recent pieces}:

• "Why Ukip, the Tea Party and Beppe Grillo pose a threat to the mainstream", Guardian, (24 March 2013) ["These populists are asking the right questions, but they don't have the answers. Mainstream parties must revitalise and respond."]
• "Britons have lost faith in George Osborne's austerity plan", The Guardian, (9 March 2013) ["Nigel Farage's Ukip... the populist anti-EU party"]
• "Time is running short to stop Ukip in its tracks", Editorial: The Independent, 5 April 2013 [Farage's "manifest aim now is for Ukip to retain its image as an insurgent force while becoming the dominant party of the right – a new, different right from the Tory variety – shriller, more populist....."]
• "The populist signal is getting louder - and mainstream politics is under threat", New Statesman, 22 March 2013 ["George Galloway, Nigel Farage, Beppe Grillo, and Sarah Palin have little in common ideologically. But they share one thing – they are populists and populism is the major challenger brand in politics today."]
• "Ukip aims tax strategy at swing voters", Financial Times, (29 March 2013) ["But the development of a tax policy – along with plans to revive grammar schools and opposition to onshore wind farms – amount to a broadening of its populist agenda."]
• "UKIP is not the answer to Britain’s problems", Palatonate, (23 March 2013) ["The truth is that UKIP is a glorified protest party. Unashamedly populist, they promise everything to everyone."]
• "The cheap populism and economic illiteracy of UKIP", conservativehome (31 March 2013) (Probably not impartial!) Emeraude (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The grauniad, staggers and the indie.... very non bias eu neutral sources there ems old boy. you play the wiki game quite well, but we all know what your up to 87.113.151.155 (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I just do research and am not selective, as you clearly are when you want to attack my integrity. Note also FT, Palatinate and conservativehome as well as Guardian, Independent and NS - I think that covers the sprectrum and just for the last two or three weeks (after, supposedly, eveything's changed since the wide range of academic publications cited that are, according to the UKIP supporters on here, out of date!). I don't write the sources - I just found them as any of you could have. Google News, try it. You'll see I have not been at all selective. I did not find a single source that says "UKIP is not populist" or "UKIP is not right wing." Now, why is that do you suppose? Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Amazing how many single-edit IPs this discussion is attracting. WP:DUCK applies here me thinks. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll find that there are fewer actual people than IPs! Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the persistent sock puppetry and evasion of consequent blocks, this article has now been semi-protected. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Membership

The membership needs updating again but the article wont let me edit it for some reason, it says view sources instead. The membership has now passed 25,000, can an administrator or whoever do this please. Here are the sources: 3rd party source http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/10/tory-donors-switching-ukip-treasurer and original sources https://twitter.com/UKIP https://www.facebook.com/TheUKIP?fref=ts 130.88.115.11 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

To take these souces in reverse order. UKIP's Facebook page is not a reliable independent source. Neither is UKIP's Twitter account, but all I can find on there anyway is a link to the article in The Guardian that you also refer to, so only one source. However, you are misrepresenting the source (The Guardian, 11 April 2013) which says that the party's treasurer, Stuart Wheeler, said "We have membership now of around 25,000...". That is not "passed 25,000". The Guardian does not say it is more than 25,000. It is simply quoting what Wheeler said. Emeraude (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The current source for 24,000 says "17,000 last year to 24,000"....now perhaps the express waited until UKIP hit exactly 24k, but I'm guessing that actually means 'around 24,000'. Other UK parties pages have precise figures though...doesn't the electoral commission have authoritative yearly figures? Rather than updating whenever the party decides to announce a higher figure to the press? 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, checked the sources given, UKIP twitter clearly says 'passed 25000'...twitter isn't a reliable source, but given UKIP are saying over 25000, arguing that the exact quote used is 'around 25000' isn't good enough to change from 24000 (because it's sensible to round down to the nearest thousand??) seems fairly dodgy 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Any Twitter, Facebook or similar source is unreliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned, especially, in this particular case, one belonging to UKIP because of the clear lack of independence. For some time, the figure in the infobox was 22,000 and this was sourced to a special report in The Independent, which we can assume was a figure that the writer arrived at by means other than simply repeating what UKIP says. It was changed to 24,000 on 23 March by User:Arsenalfan24 who admits to being a UKIP supporter (or even member). That source is the Daily Express, but, crucially, it is not based on any empirical research by the paper's writer and is simply a statement of what Nigel Farage was going to tell delegates to UKIP's spring conference. So it's source is Farage, which is less than reliable in WIkipedia terms. (This is not to disparage Farage: he may be telling the truth, he may be lying, but he is not exactly an independent reliable source is this regard.) It seems to me that the most reliable figure we have had is The Independent's 22,000 if only because it is not a UKIP supplied figure. The electoral commission is not of much use either. It publishes the annual returns that partyies are required to lodge, but makes no claim as to their accuracy. If UKIP or any other party were to pluck a random figure out of the air, the commission would have to publish it.

There is a quite obvious problem here, for any political party or other organisation, when we want to give membership figures. To put it crudely, you can't trust anyone who is directly involved! Emeraude (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@Emeraude I used The Guardian article as the primary source, this is regarded as a reliable source. I then used the other 2 sources to verify this because as you rightly pointed out it says "Around 25,000". The other 2 sources were merely used so that the word "around" didnt cause any disputes. The reliable Guardian source is the one that is being proposed for the article, not the other 2 sources they have merely been used for clarification. I am in utter disbelief that you are trying to say that this Guardian source is insufficient, it seems to be perfectly sufficient for the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties, why not UKIP? You seem to be trying to apply different rules to different parties here, a very concerning approach indeed but non the less I have to assume good faith and hope that is realised by the necessary edit to the article. 130.88.114.38 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on the article, not editors. Emeraude is not responsible or answerable for any edits other than their own and looking through their edit history they haven't been on the other party pages. Please see WP:AGF for more information on how to deal with other editors. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Trying to work out where newspapers get their info, that A Article is unreliable because their source is the party iself, but B article is better because (for some reason) you think the source is other than the party itself? Is there ever going to be any source for these figures than the those which trace back to the party itself, they're the only ones keeping such records? If the electoral comission figures are unreliable because they're self reported....I dunno, seems like your bar for a source for party membership figures is unreachably high. The problem being "which we can assume was a figure that the writer arrived at by means other than simply repeating what UKIP says.". No, we can't. In fact, it's pretty hard to see how they could have arrived at the figure by any means other than repeating what the party said, or repeating what the electoral comission said the party said. What possible original source could there be for party membership other than party records? I can't see any reason to take the older newspaper article over the more up to date, and I can't think what source could possibly be more reliable for this information than the figures submitted to the electoral comission? 92.15.77.178 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I do wish people would read what I actually write and respond to that. The total thrust of what I put above was summarised in my second paragraph which I repeat here: There is a quite obvious problem here, for any political party or other organisation, when we want to give membership figures. To put it crudely, you can't trust anyone who is directly involved! (And, as GimliDotNet points out, I have not edited the articles on Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties, but I would make the same point there if I did.) The key issue is this: Can we rely on unverified (and unverifiable) figures from purely party sources as being reliable? It's OK to write "Farage claims around 25,000 members..." in a sentence which makes it clear that Wikipedia takes no responsibilty for the accuracy of the figure but is merely reporting what Farage says. But in an infobox, this is obviously not possible, so we need to rely on the best available source that is not directly reliable on the party/party leader/party website. One can imagine all sorts of reasons for any political party to be dishonest about its membership figures; this is not to say that Farage/UKIP have been - we just don't know. Hence our reliance on independent and verifiable sources. The trouble with the three mentioned here is that, in reality, they all have the same origin and that origin is Farage/UKIP.

There is a good reasson to take the older newspaper figure rather than the newer and that is reliablity of its source, as I have argued. Besides, it's not that much older. Other sources? Well, check any number of academic journals, but of necessity these are going to be dated to the time that the academic did his research. As for the Electoral Commission, I repeat that the publication of a report by the Commission is 'not a guarantee of reliablity or accuracy; the Commission does no research into such matters and has no option to publish what the party submits. Emeraude (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want to use UKIP's latest submission to the Electoral Commission (published 01/08/2012), its membership is 17,184! (Admittedly, that is as at 31 December 2011.) Emeraude (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think 92.15.77.178 put it rather well actually, this is a point that Emeraude has failed to answer because there is no answer to the point that all these figures originate from UKIP, the same as every other political party and their membership figures. I find it amusing that Emeraude seems to suggest using way out of date "accademic" journals and sources from the electoral commission, when in reality the sources all originate from UKIP. Whether the source comes from an "academic", a journalist or the electoral commission is of total irrelevance in this instance because it is a known fact that they all got the information from the same place. therefore there is no distinction between quality of sources, there is however a distinction between relevance and accuracy, the more recent, the more relevant and the more accurate. It seems to me that the best thing we can do is use the most recent third party source, as per wikipedia policy. Frankly I'm shocked and baffled that we're having to have this conversation. Note: Emeraude keeps saying Farage said this, Farage said that, when in actual fact Farage has nothing to do with membership figures, that is the Party's General Secretary's job Jonathan Arnott, he is the one who keeps track and publishes the figures, it has nothing what so ever to do with Farage, other then that he is the party leader, he has no direct involvement. If we follow Emeraude's logic/argument then really we need to remove all membership figures from all political parties' pages. I assume in good faith that the latest source will be used, either that or we start a full and proper discussion regarding removing membership figures from the pages of all political parties. 130.88.115.46 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point( Emeraude), I just don't agree with it, for two reasons....one, WP:selfsource. I don't think there's any doubt about #s 2-5, or that the claim is 'exceptional'....perhaps it could be argued that giving membership figures (particularly in the context of announcing new higher figures at a time when membership is rapidly expanding) could be 'unduly self-serving', but I disagree.....it's standard practice for political parties to give out these figures, even when the membership has fallen...

Two, and the main thrust of what I was trying to get across up there: There is no possible source for these figures that does not originate as given out by the party itself. Pending some sort of hacker/leaker thing as happened to the BNP, the figures given out by the party are the only figures in town. There is nowhere for any academic, or reporter, to get non-made-up figures other than asking the party, or asking someone who asked the party (primarily the electoral comission). If we discount figures that are originally sourced to the party, then there is no source, anywhere, ever, for membership figures of any UK political party that hasn't recently been BNPed.

It is a shame the EC apparently has an 8 month delay on publishing the figures, I imagine there'd be a lot of objections to using such out of date numbers....but I still say that the numbers submitted to the EC are as authoritative as there ever can be for this information. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@130, "Whether the source comes from an "academic", a journalist or the electoral commission" EC numbers are (IMO) least likely to be mislead by a party, least likely to be mistaken, most accurate (precise, rather than "around Xthousand"), and would be consistent across parties (imagine UKIP were overtaking greens or lib-dems for membership, there could be new figures every day, each trying to update their new 2-3 members joined that evening...POV disputes could be possible about one party using figures it announced today, and another being 2 years out of date etc. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In that very hypothetical situation, I'd say we should have a restriction on the frequency of edits to the membership figures. Once a month is probably a bit too restrictive but I'd find that acceptable I guess. To assume that UKIP or any other political party would be less honest when publishing their figures to the press than they would be to the EC is failure to assume good faith. Besides as with all political parties UKIP releases its figures in exactly the same way as it would to the EC, there is no difference, the most recent source should apply. Especially since the word "around" has been sufficiently rebutted, with the primary source. The from the horses mouth source obviously cant be used in the article but it clears up any vagueness caused by the word around for the purposes of this talk page. In any case, I know the source for Green Party and Tory membership figures are "around" Xthousand. The Liberal Democrats are the only party to have exact numbers because they are the only party who's most recently published figures are exact. So what are we to do, remove membership figures from all political party pages or use the most recent reliable sources as per wikipedia policy? 130.88.115.46 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again I have to say that I do wish people would read what I actually write and respond to that. I have not said we should use way out of date "accademic" journals and sources from the electoral commission - quite the contrary. I said that these were less than satisfactory, precisely because they are dated! I don't give a toss who is responsible for UKIP's membership figures. The reason I said that Farage said things is because the newspapers referred to said that Farage said things! That's really quite simple to understand isn't it? (And those particular papers were offered as sources by UKIP supporters wanted to boost the membership figure on this page. I didn't choose them.)

"If we follow Emeraude's logic/argument then really we need to remove all membership figures from all political parties' pages." That wasn't my logic/argument but it might not be a bad idea. My argument is that baldly stating that a party's membership is what the party says it is fails on so many levels. (And I repeat that this is not about UKIP - I have already said that this applies to any party.) Putting in the appropriate place within the article text something like "Farage claimed that UKIP membership was over 25,000", followed by the paper/journal/bulletin reference where he said this is absolutely fine. In that way, Farage takes responsibilty for the accuracy and not Wikipedia. To just state that UKIP's membership is over 25,000 (as in the infobox) when the only source is UKIP/Farage is to give the impression that Wikipedia endorses the figure, which would be false. If the figure comes from a reasoned press article, and is not simply a direct or indirect quote from them, we may assume, rightly or wrongly, that the paper has at least done something to verify its accuracy. (And don't tell me that the press is not always reliable or duly diligent - I know.)

The EC does not "publish the figures"; it publishes parties' reports. If you had checked - a simple piece of research taking less than 2 minutes - you would see that the EC did not have an 8 month delay in publishing UKIP's submission. It was submitted by UKIP on 19 June and was published on 1 August 2012. (The apparent delay is for the EC to examine the accounts and to redact detail that are not to be published, such as personal addresses.)

Interesting that when the BNP's membership was leaked it did not match the numbers stated by the BNP, but that's really another issue. However, it does suggest that even a party's own membership list may not be a reliable guide.

As Wikipedia editors we assume good faith to each others' edits. Good faith does not extend beyond that. As I have said, there are all sorts of reasons why parties would issue inaccurate figures and so, rather than assuming good faith (on the part of politicians!) we should be sceptical. Emeraude (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going around in circles trying to understand your argument, and I just can't, we'll have to agree to disagree, seems the consensus is against either of our views anyways. :) 92.15.77.178 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)