Talk:UK Independence Party

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[1] 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)

Thatcherite, must be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.61 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 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)

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how consensus is achieved. Editing from multiple accounts on the same topic is a massive no no.GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for that comment, it has clearly been completely misunderstood. Could we discuss the section. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that sock-puppetry is being used as an excuse for everything. If the sockpuppet IPs and their puppet-master's accounts have been blocked as other editors have said they have.... then this issue becomes a non issue and is just really been used as an excuse for whatever reason. I can only assume good faith but one could be forgiven for perceiving the possibility that this could merely be an excuse to ignore IPs and for a clique of editors with accounts to make the article say what they want it to say....A niggling suspicion, of course I wouldn't dream of making such an accusation ;-) like I say I must assume goodfaith so that is what I shall do :-) 130.88.114.46 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya can't just get around AGF by saying you are when ya clearly ain't. I don't want to be rude, but I really don't think you're helping me, much as you seem to agree with me. 92.15.50.26 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Having seen your edit history I take back my comment about rudeness. 92.15.50.26 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of what passes for "good faith" in 130.88.114.46's eyes, put on my user page under Interests:

Crying myself to sleep' because I'm a fat old balding tosser, who's wife has left him because she said I use to "bore her to death by reading the so called "anti-facist" bigoted articles in the Guardian" - I miss her so much, I'm now bitter and angry and chronically addicted to cheese and red wine whilst sharing my bile on Wikipedia. My only friends in the whole world are User:Bondegezou, User:Doktorbuk & User:GimliDotNet and I haven't even met them :-( Booohooohohoho When will I get to meet my only friends! I'm destine to die alone on the toilet with a mars bar in my mouth and my last words will be "Death to UKIP"

Is it worth debating any further with this person? Emeraude (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I saw, kinda expected instant ban rather than warning.....but this is just making this section even longer without responses to my concerns. 92.15.74.200 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my concern, it seems extremely bias to me however I missed this huge section until now and started a new one. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 18:21, 7 May 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)

Further to this discussion, there is an article in the Financial Times that puts membership at 26,097 as of April 2013 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33d9fc2e-b727-11e2-841e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Sz0lTyMh). The link is behind a paywall but is accessible via Google, if you wish to read it (search for the title). Will update article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

There have been a number of press reports around controversial comments by UKIP candidates/councillors, e.g. this one recently. Covering every incident involving a candidate seems like overkill, but should there be something? Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If we can find enough sources to justify including these controversies, so that it doesn't become WP:UNDUE, then I don't see any reason why not. As an (admittedly irrelevant) aside, I'm surprised at this story, as UKIP traditionally support Israel. — Richard BB 14:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the party itself has a position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. There is a UKIP Friends of Palestine group as well as a UKIP Friends of Israel group. This is unlike the Conservative Party - there is no Conservative Friends of Palestine.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If this were to be mentioned in the article, I would think it to be only appropriate to mention that UKIP have both an FOI & FOP and take no official stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict due to their strict non-interventionist foreign policy. If we are to mention things like this, it is important that we cover it properly. I am in favour of covering this story provided it clarifies the existence of UKIPs FOP & FOI and states the non-interventionist position. If it does that then I don't see how this could be considered undue because it gives policy background which is encyclopedic, this incident reported on its own would indeed be undue and would sway the reader into holding a view that is misinformed. 94.9.107.169 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A national newspaper cite on the broader point: [2]. Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And this. Bondegezou (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooooh, and this has a membership number we might be able to use. Bondegezou (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've stuck a paragraph in the article on the run-up to the locals, including the above and other citations. (Another I've just seen is this.) See what yous think. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Internal factions?

Would anyone else support an Internal factions section, like the ones in Conservative Party (UK), Liberal Democrats, Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United states)? Possible factions could be: Powellism, libertarianism, national conservatism, Thatcherism and fiscal conservatism. Conservatism could be the overall ideology. --Jay942942 (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What citations would you be drawing on? Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall of Conservatism would be incorrect. However I think this is worth doing provided we get the labels right. Happy with libertarianism, Thatcherism and fiscal conservatism. Not too sure about Powellism to be honest, can't see how you'd source it without getting into questionable territory. Instead of national conservatism, I think British Unionism would be more appropriate but then again that is one of the party's comprehensive ideologies such as Eurosceticism. That said there are UKIP members that support Scottish Independence so it could be included under factions but then again, that would be virtually impossible to source. 94.9.107.169 (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point of the original question. It was asking whether there should be a section added to the UKIP article about factions within UKIP. You seem to have taken this to be about suitable ways of describing UKIP's political position/ideology: none of these apart from Euroscepticism would be accurate for the party, though there may be factions within UKIP that subscribe to some of these. To the original question I would say that finding reliable sources would be very difficult if only because UKIP and its internal workings has not been studied academically in the same depth over many decades as have the other parties mentioned. Emeraude (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've not misinterpreted the question. If you go to the Con & LibDem parties pages' and look in their info boxes you will see the ideology and then internal factions listed directly below ideology. It seems that you have misinterpreted the question, that is unless Jay942942 cares to correct me themselves. Of course, Emeraude if you have a separate question to ask/answer please do it in the applicable section :-) or create your own. To repeat/rehash my original comment so that it is absolutely clear: libertarianism, Thatcherism and Powellism would be considered internal factions. Whereas Eurosceticism, fiscal conservatism and British Unionism would be considered ideologies. As far as Right-Wing Populism goes, there is no point in me arguing for it's removal given above discussions but I would argue that that is more of a factional ideology rather than something that is a systemic ideology. The reason I mention ideology in the same breath as internal factions is because the questioner themseves said "Conservatism could be the overall ideology", this is something that would be deemably inaccurate and untrue, especially given the number of ex-Labour and Lib Dem numbers within the party's membership and votership...hence I suggested an alternative. So if you don't mind Emeraude, I'd be grateful if you could take your criticisms elsewhere...perhaps somewhere where they are relevant. 94.9.107.169 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The relevant question is: where are the citable sources of your deliberations. Wikipedia's core content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. --RJFF (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make any criticisms. And I still think you have misunderstood Jay942942's original suggestion which was whether or not there should be a section. He/she did not mention infoboxes, but you have now made it clear that the infobox is what you were talking about. So, you did misunderstand the question after all. That's not a crime; I'm not casting any aspersions. I thought I had identified a genuine mistake on your part and it seems I had. Now, if you want to discuss edits to the infobox, that's fine, but perhaps a separate suggestion would be in order. Emeraude (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just do what you like Emeraude, nothing ever seems to stop you. No doubt you'll try and argue for the inclusion of a facist wing as well.... it's not like the article has to be accurate or impartially written after all. The reality is that internal factions appears within both the info box and the article for the other parties, so no I have not misunderstood anything, have actually read the articles :-). The over arching ideology was also mentioned and this is what makes it specifically relevant to the info box, I was merely stating what should be what. I do not seek to discuss the info box or anything else in the info box other than the subject of this conversation, I am sticking to the subject here, so again may I kindly ask you to take your criticisms, your most unhelpful suggestions and of course your odiously patronising and might I add, down right offensive manner else where please. 94.9.107.169 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with Euroscepticism, fiscal conservatism and British Unionism being the overall ideology. I was talking about the infobox, but some description of ideology and factions in the article would also be useful. Would be cool if some sort of consensus could be achieved. --Jay942942 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This entire discussion is pointless without reliable sources, and so far I've seen none presented. In addition, the IP's egregious lack of good faith only harms their chances to be taken seriously in this discussion. Perhaps they should take their comments elsewhere. Now, does anyone have any real suggestions about including internal factions, backed up by facts? — Richard BB 17:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Given UKIP's attempts at organising in Northern Ireland and the recent Farage spat in Edinburgh, would it perhaps be good to include British Unionism in the ideology section?146.90.82.185 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

EU Jargon

As a non-EU reader, some of this jargon is not obvious. For example, "MEP" isn't a well know term outside the EU and it took way too much time to find out that it means Member_of_the_European_Parliament. Can't you link up some of this jargon for those of us who speak English but aren't in the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-shooter (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've amemded the first occurence of "MEP" to say "Member of the European Parliament (MEP)". Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

Hello people, I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and seem to be have going the wrong way about things so I apologise for any confusion I may have caused.

This is the explanation I posted to another user to justify my removal of two paragraphs of analysis. "I purposely removed the said analysis because I felt it was outdated. UKIP gained 3.0% of the national vote in the 2010 General Election, this is relatively small in comparison to 23% in the last Local Elections and in recent national voting projections. As you can imagine the demographics and characteristics of the parties support will have changed considerably since 2011 when that analysis was published. The analysis was also lacking in impartiality IMO."

I will not continue to revert until I receive feedback. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The study details you removed are part of a section that attempts to describe the background of UKIP's support and is much needed in the article. Studies of other political parties and their support are numerous and show, for example and very basically, that Labour has a largely working class support base and membership while the Conservatives have a largely middle class support. UKIP, as a relatively new and small party has not yet attracted such a wide range of studies, so what there are have great importance. The studies you object to are, in fact, less than 2 years old so they cannot be described as outdated. The authors are highly respected in their field and the studies were published in a peer-reviewed academic journals, the "gold standard" for Wikipedia resources. You are, of course, quite right to say that UKIP's support has grown since, though comparing county council elections with a general election is not entirely appropriate. However, there is no suggestion of which I am aware that the nature of UKIP's support, rather than the volume, is significantly different from what was identified in those studies. If you know of any such academic study, please indicate and it can be considered. Unfortunately, what you (or I or anyone) "felt" and "IMO" are not sufficient justification for editing Wikipedia, where the key is always verifiability. I hope this helps. Emeraude (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the Wikipedia pages of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats and I am struggling to find a similar analysis of the support bases of these parties that is in the slightest way similar to the analysis on this UKIP page. Yes, they do explain the history of the parties and the ideological factions within the parties, however there is no specific analysis of the voters and the supposed reasons behind their voting behavior. I accept your point that UKIP are a relatively new party therefore there will be a shortage of studies however that isn't a reason to use poor ones.

Matthew Goodwin's Wiki page - "His prediction for the 2013 England and Wales local elections was less than fifty seats for UKIP, they went on to win 147 seats, so Matthew was out by a factor of three, (quite large in some peoples estimations)" and "His research focuses on far-right extremist groups". Matthew Goodwin is clearly not an expert when it comes to conservative parties such as UKIP however I know nothing of his peers and they could possibly be more competent. Also this study which I accept might not seem outdated from 2011 is actually based on the 2009 European Elections.

I am currently reading an online study and will come back once again with the results. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

By what criteria do you decribe a peer-reviwed academic article as "poor"? And how do you get to say that Goodwin "is clearly not an expert"? His article clearly shows that he is. And the comment about his prediction of 50 seats for UKIP I have removed - it was based on a clear misreading of Twitter banter and concerned whether or not UKIP would gain 50 seats, not end up with a total of 50. What's the online study you're reading? Emeraude (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If the articles may be out of date, then the text can be changed to note what data from what date they used. However, in critiquing a study like this, we need to stick to key Wikipedia policies here, like WP:RS and WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles are poor because they are outdated, bias and seem to be used in a way which is an exception made only for UKIP. I clearly am not the only person to have found them bias as there is a huge section on the 'Perceptions of the Party?' already. If it is really necessary to have an article on the public perception of the party then why not one on what the electorate think rather than the opinions of self-styled experts and preferably one that isn't primarily based on whether or not UKIP are 'xenophobic' and BNP-lite.

I propose Lord Ashcroft's http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/THEYRE-THINKING-WHAT-WERE-THINKING.pdf

Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be Lord Ashcroft, the Conservative peer and former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party? How neutral is that? Emeraude (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ashcroft's polling analyses are well regarded in psephological circles. I would consider them a reliable source, and I would be happy to see Ashcroft's analysis included as a citation in this section. However, that, I suggest, should be in addition to the current citations.

Sunshinenevercomes, I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on original research to better understand how we use citations in editing Wikipedia articles. And, yes, there was considerable debate about this section before, but most of that was driven by an individual since banned for disruptive editing, so I think it is better to start any discussion afresh. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the section sunshine is obviously refering to was driven by me, never been banned, never edited disruptively, and neither of those two falsehoods would be of any relevance to the concerns raised anyway.92.15.56.160 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right about Ashcroft. I wasn't questioning his bona fides as a psephologist so much as pointing out that others were bound to! Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at other UK parties, they don't seem to have a section similar to "Public perception and political analysis". It doesn't appear to be common with such a section in articles about parties from other countries either. However, the Republican and Democratic parties in the US, have a section called "Voter base". I think the UKIP section we are discussing here should get a similar "Voter base" headline. In particular I think the "public perception" part of the current headline looks out of line and must go. Political analysis shouldn't need its own section, but be implemted in other sections. A new Voter base section that I suggest shouldn't just or primarily focus on the attitudes of the voters, but on age, gender, economic status etc. I think the citing from the research by Goodwin is slightly misleading because it highlights xenophobia and islamophobia first, while the report actually points to euroscepticism as the prime reason for voting UKIP. I also think we should include some more neutral findings from the report, re. socialeconomic background etc. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If a section about voter percetion/voter base is considered acceptable, this new research may well be worth including: New research finds UKIP is becoming patriotic party of England (Cardiff University News). The data is taken from the Future of England Survey (FoES) run by Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre, the think tank IPPR and Edinburgh University. --Rhyswynne (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And then there's Robert Ford: "UKIP’s rise is not just a problem for the Conservatives – they are emerging as the party of choice for disaffected and angry voters from all parties" Emeraude (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete At The Moment

Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. More on the increase in this, which could be proportional to the decrease in the Conservative/Tory group. I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C

62.249.253.61 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

More on this group is needed.

62.249.253.61 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

Forum posts are not reliable sources. — Richard BB 13:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletions of content by Emeraude

User Emeraude is repeatedly reverting sourced material that I have added (I believe in a neutral way). First of all, he takes issue with using the 2010 UKIP general election manifesto support:

" In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil" nationalism of extremist parties. [52]"

I believe an election manifesto is the primary source for policy, and this sentence explicity says where this information comes from, and much of it is direct quote. This passage also emphasises that this is what UKIP claims, and not some kind of objective fact.

Secondly, Emeraude is keen that the word "Xenophobia" is included, based on an academic study. The problem is that the common perception of the word "Xenophobia", taken form the wiki page is: "Xenophobia is an irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange." which is very different to the usage of the word in this academic article which explicitly says: "The items are a mix of questions concerning the value of immigration and hostility to immigrants. For brevity,we term this ‘xenophobia’ – although lower levels of support for this factor could alternatively be interpreted as scepticism about the benefits of immigration or anxiety about current migration levels." So the common usage of the word "xenophobia" is not really appropriate when it is meant in a more academic sense here. Instead, I have substituted "question the value of immigration and hostility to immigrant" for 'xenophobia" which I believe is in keeping with the definition in the article and more neutral.

Lastly, Emeraude keeps deleting a section written in neutral language sourced from a peer reviewed journal. "A further study by the same authors suggests that UKIP voters' core beliefs align very closely to those of the UKIP candidates; particularly so on issues surrounding European integration, which has resulted in Conservative voters switching to UKIP due to divisions within the Conservatives over this issue. [71]". I believe this is both neutral and a fair reflection of what is said in the relevant parts of the article.

What do people think?

Atshal (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your new addition is clearly a sourced and valid academic reference, perfectly fine addition. The ukip policy addition is also clear and referenced with non pov language so also fine. The change to the other source reflects the actual content of the source and replaces emotive language with academic language so i fully support it. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In favour of Atshal's edit, I also thought the use of emotive language was rather bias. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Response by Emeraude

I've been away for a few days and unable to respond until now. It seems I am accused of "repeatedly reverting sourced material" and various other misdemeanours by Atshal. Let us examine some of these claims by looking at Atshal's edits and why I objected to them. I will say at the outset that I believe Atshal has been playing fast and loose with sources and would go so far as to say that he has deliberately misused them in order to progress an agenda that questions his/her neutrality in editing this article. I will include examples of where Atshal has made edits that he/she knows to be based on a false reading or even lack of reading of the sources, and would point out that for one of his/her edits, Atshal stated, "I believe this is both neutral and a fair reflection of what is said" which sounds suspiciously like original research to me. It is not for Wikipedia editors to interpret or reflect what academic authors write.

To look at some of these edits I will give the version before Atshal next to Atshal's edit. I do not claim that the pre-Atshal version is perfect, simply that it is a more accurate version of what sources say. The sources are all reliable

Original In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism.

Atshal's version 30 April 2013 09:31 In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that concern over immigration, euroscepticism and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP.

The source for this is Ford, Robert; Goodwin, Matthew J.; Cutts, David (May 2011), "Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes: Support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament Elections", European Journal of Political Research, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01994.x

I reverted this edit with the rationale study specifically says "xenophobia", not "concern over immigration" (30 April 2013 11:33). At 08:34, 1 May 2013, Atshal reverted with the argument "Outside of the abstract and title, the article does not even use the word "Xenophobia", nor make the claim that is in this article.‎" This is false, and I posted on Atshal's talk page at 08:55, 1 May 2013, the message: "You recently edited the UKIP article with the rationale that "Outside of the abstract and title, the article does not even use the word "Xenophobia", nor make the claim that is in this article". This is completely untrue. "Xenophobia", "xenophobic", etc appear 22 times within the article cited (plus once in the title and three times in the abstract).", and because Atshal had later reverted his own edit ("Going to make a better rewrite of these two sentences to better reflect article shortly"), added "I notice that you have now reverted your own edit." This message was almost immediately deleted from the talk page, but clearly Atshal was aware of its content. However, he has repeatedly rewritten the source to avoid the word "xenophobia" which is a key part of the original journal article and nowhere mentions "concerns about immigration".

Original In the same year, a study by Richard Whitaker and Philip Lynch of the University of Leicester based on polling data from YouGov concluded that "the balance of attitudinal explanations of UKIP support makes its voters distinct from those voting for far right parties." The authors found that UKIP voters had concerns about immigration and a lack of trust in the political system but that the biggest explanatory factor for their support of UKIP was Euroscepticism.

Atshal's version 30 April 2013 09:31 In the same year, a study by Richard Whitaker and Philip Lynch of the University of Leicester based on polling data from YouGov concluded that "the balance of attitudinal explanations of UKIP support makes its voters distinct from those voting for far right parties." The authors found that UKIP voters had concerns about immigration and a lack of trust in the political system but that the biggest explanatory factor for their support of UKIP was Euroscepticism. Furthermore, the study highlighted that UKIP voters' core beliefs aligned very closely to those of the UKIP candidates, contrasting sharply with major difference of opinions between many Conservative voters and Conservative candidates on immigration issues and the EU.

The source for this is: Whitaker, Richard; Lynch, Philip (2011). "Explaining Support for the UK Independence Party at the 2009 European Parliament Elections". Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 21 (Volume 21, Issue 3): 359. doi:10.1080/17457289.2011.588439.

The first part of this is OK. Atshal's addition, however, is not in the journal article - it does say, inter alia, that UKIP voters' and candidates' beliefs were closely aligned, but it does not say anything about this alignment being closer than that for the Conservatives. I removed it with the comment "Misrepresentation - the article says no such thing" (08:33, 10 May 2013‎) At 09:48, 10 May 2013, Atshal undid my revision with the comment "It does say this - have you read it?" (clearly I had!) but at 10:08, 10 May 2013, Atshal himself removed it with the comment "The information is indeed in a different article - will edit shortly". This is a mystery, because by 21:26, 10 May 2013, Atshal has reinsated the assertion, still with the same source even though he has admitted it is in a different article! His justification now seems to be |"The article mentions the Conservatives 49 times with many comparisons e.g. many UKIP voters are former Conservative who disagreed with Tory candidates". That is no basis for the claim he makes about UKIP's voters/candidates being closer than Conservatives'. It simply is not in the article (though it may, for all I know, be the case).

The final issue concerns the addition of a quote from UKIP's 2010 manifesto: "In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil" nationalism of extremist parties." This is referenced to a UKIP website. When I checked, the link was dead, so I deleted it for lack of verifiablity. It was replaced, with the same link, which once again when I checked was a dead link. Now, I'm not questioning whether this is a deliberate attempt to mislead, simply because I was unable to access the source. But wat is interesting is that the accessdate given each time this link was posted was impossible!! The site was not accessible, so we must be suspicious. Atshal reinserted at one point with the comment that "Entire UKIP.org website is temporarily down due to denial of service attacks" - how did he know? And how could he give an accessdate when the entire website was down??? However, I observe that the manifesto is once again online and does indeed say what is claimed, but its origianl use when it was unverifiable was premature.

Emeraude (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor comment Although I have to agree with much of what you said, I think it's worth pointing out that the UKIP website was down, though not because of a DDoS; UKIP were revamping their site, and it was down for temporary maintenance. While the original use clearly had the incorrect (impossible) access date, I can see where Atshal got it from: he retrieved it from the original UKIP site shortly before it went down. — Richard BB 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that and have said as much. I wanted the edit to be put on hold until the site was up again. Atshal actually used two access dates, both at times when the site was down, which is sloppy. Emeraude (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Emeraude. The access date is irrelevant - you can check to see if the material is on the page I claim it is right now. I did access the page on the day I said I did - the site was not down for the entire day. The word 'xenophobia' is not appropriate as the authors use it in an academic sense, not common usage sense, as I explained above. Also, I did make a mistake originally (and so I let your edit stand) because I confused two different papers by the same authors. The current version, which you have repeatedly deleted, is accurate. Also, I do not understand why you quote a version of the article from 30 April, when the current version (which you tried to delete), is different and more accurate. Seems like you are setting up a straw man here. Atshal (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophobia is more than appropriate. This is an encyclopaedia. We do not write things in "common usage"; we write accurately and with a precise use of words, as did the the academic author who chose to write "xenophobia". To rephrase xenophobia (which is what Goodwin, Ford and Cutts wrote) as "concern over immigration levels" (which they didn't) is dishonest. The two are not the same by a long way. Regardless of which version of this Wikipedia article I quote (and I went back to the original before you started misrepresenting academic sources) is totally irrelevant. The current version is not "accurate" and most definitely is not "more accurate" and will not be until you admit to bastardising reliable academic sources to create a falsehood. I can't put it simpler. Incidentally, it is not I who has been warned for breaking 3RR, but you. Emeraude (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As I already typed above, the authors precisely define what they mean by 'Xenophobia' - "The items are a mix of questions concerning the value of immigration and hostility to immigrants. For brevity,we term this ‘xenophobia’ – although lower levels of support for this factor could alternatively be interpreted as scepticism about the benefits of immigration or anxiety about current migration levels." They also explicitly state they use this word for 'brevity' - there is no need for such brevity here. Since the authors' usage of the word 'Xenophobia' is far different from the common usage - "Xenophobia is an irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange." - it is misleading to use the word in the way you suggest Emeraud. Instead we should use the authors definition, which involves answers to "questions concerning the value of immigration and hostility to immigrants", which can also be interpreted as "as scepticism about the benefits of immigration or anxiety about current migration levels". Lets see what other editors think about this. Atshal (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you happier, then I would agree with the use of "scepticism over the benefits of immigration and hostility to immigrants", "anxiety about current migration levels" and have questions "concerning the value of immigration" (all direct quotes from the definition of xenophobia they use) instead of "concerns over immigration" but I feel the latter is more succinct and reads better. Atshal (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the 3RR, you have also clearly broken it but no big deal in my mind. I have not received a warning from wiki admins by the way. I am perfectly open to discussion as I am making clear here, and made clear on your own talk page. Atshal (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that you have been warned, regardless if it was from a sysop. — Richard BB 15:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Long discussion here... but basically I think Emeraude has the right approach. "Xenophobia" is the word used and "xenophobia" is the word we should use. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. — Richard BB 15:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Atshal has made a clear and valid point and his edits should stay. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Emeraude has reasoned his reverts convincingly. --RJFF (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

He has not addressed the point that the way this academic article uses the word 'Xenophobia' is different to the everyday usage, so using the word without explanation of what it means in this context is misleading. Atshal (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gaius that Atshal makes a good point.31.55.2.160 (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed what you, and only you, assert is a different usage of the word. Atshal clearly does not read either academic journals or editors' comments that do not suit him unless he can ignore what they say or twist what they say. To repeat what I wrote before: This is an encyclopaedia. We do not write things in "common usage"; we write accurately and with a precise use of words, as did the the academic author who chose to write "xenophobia". It is not for us to rewrite their studies and we deserve to be struck off if we do. To subsitute "xenophobia" with "anxiety about current migration levels" is simply dishonest. Emeraude (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You are making assumptions in your comment Emeraude; I am in fact a professional scientist and read journal articles most days of the week. It is from this experience (especially with social science articles) that I know that two different articles can use the same word in very different ways. This is why it is absolutely crucial to be clear about the definition in a particular context and why the use of the word 'xenophobia' in an academic sense requires a definition to go with it. This is precisely why the authors of this article go to the effort of actually defining what they mean by the word, since they are aware that it can have different meanings in different contexts. In the context of a wikipedia article the word 'xenophobia' has a particular meaning (e.g. summed up well in the wikipedia acrticle) but in this academic article the meaning is entirely different.

Why are you so resistant to using the definition of the word that comes directly from the article, to avoid confusion? Atshal (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because YOU made it the definition by selective choices of which parts to use. If the authors say "xenophobia", we do. It's really that simple. It's no good quoting what Wikipedia says about xenophobia as a rationale; as everyone knows, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". If you are "a professional scientist and read journal articles most days of the week" you ought to know that you do not rewrite them when citing them in your own work! Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are still not addressing the issue - the authors give a precise definition of the word, why not use it? Atshal (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for local representation

Does anyone have a reliable source for the number local authority seats that UKIP has? An IP did an edit changing the number to 175 but the source had inaccuracies, as well as being a personal website. However, the current source for 201 seats seems to be a Google docs file and is not really suitable. A quick Google search by me turned up nothing. Atshal (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section / Recent reverts

In my view (my interpretation of WP:LEAD), the "high score" of a party in opinion polls does not belong in the lead section of its article. Opionion polls are only of ephemeral relevance, while encyclopedias (and Wikipedia claims to be one) try to maintain a historical perspective. --RJFF (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RJFF seems to think that a poll giving UKIP's recent advances is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, MOS:LEAD, I beg to differ. It is not "breaking news" And per MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." I think recent gains in the polls would be important, and WP:LEDE also says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" How are recent gains in the polls not an "important point"? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)We also have to consider due weight. I think that highlighting the outcome of a single opinion poll in the lead section of an article is giving undue weight. And: no, I do not agree that a party's score in recent opinion polls is one of "the most important points". --RJFF (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

All opinion polls are "single opinion polls" by that criteria we could never use one. I do not see how it is giving undue weight to mention recent success. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF, I don't think polls should be in the lead, lest something very particular (for instance a party polling very high just before an election). In this article, we have some recent election numbers, which is much better. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It was me who added the original poll. I think one of the reasons that UKIP has such significance in the UK political system at the moment is the significant number of votes that they may potentially win from the major parties, so the polling numbers are significant and worthy of inclusion. Possibly somewhere lower down in the article, but I think it is very appropriate to in the lead . I definitely think polling figures should be included in the article, as this is by far the most significant moment in UKIP's history, and the share of the vote is a major story in British politics as a whole. To not include verified information about the level of support means the article misses entirely the significance of UKIP as a whole. Even if these numbers are a 'flash in the pan', and support quickly erodes, it is still a significant moment and worthy of inclusion.Atshal (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"may potentially win" - that is pretty much subjunctive. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It can only report what has already happened. Of course: this opinion poll has already happened. But again: a single opinion poll is not notable for an encyclopedia. This party has existed for twenty years. Opinion polls are published every week by several institutes. (By the way, it is distortion of competition to mention a certain institute in the lead and not its competitors.) --RJFF (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The projected level of support for UKIP is a national news story generating literally hundreds of articles in the UK press. This is why it is worthy of inclusion here. Atshal (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is what I wanted to say with "Wikipedia is not a newspaper": what is notable for news media is not necessarily notable for an encyclopedic article. Especially not in the lead section. --RJFF (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

18% for a fourth party is remarkable. Whether it's worthy of being in the lead is debatable, if only because when the next poll says it's fallen to 9% or whatever we need to edit again. The lead ought to be the part of the article that is least often edited. However, it might also be worth adding for completeness what the report on the poll figures says, that on the basis of this result UKIP will not win a single seat at the next general election. Emeraude (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with this, especially about probably not winning a seat but the significance being in the votes taken from the other parties.

Third party sources

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

In each case, the sentence does not state "UKIP is XXXX", which would need a third party citations, but that "UKIP claims XXXX" or "UKIP proposes XXXX" and so on, which means that third party sources are impossible and only primary sources are suitable to deomonstrate the UKIP proposes or claims such a things. The only other type of source for this would be a secondary source (see WP:third_party_sources) and not a third party source. Atshal (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Third party sources are there not only for verifiability but to establish notability. What you are doing is applying a rule to statements and extending it to cover sections. The entire section needs 3rd party sources to establish notability, just coming from UKIP isn't good enough. Otherwise this article just becomes a news site for UKIP, which is not the intention of an encyclopaedia GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

notability discusses the notability of the article, not individual sentences within an article. If you think a page on UKIP is not appropriate since UKIP is not notable, then nominate the page for deletion. The source of policy for third-party sources is WP:third_party_sources. Atshal (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Atshal, I suggest you have misunderstood here. See WP:PRIMARY for more. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE is not just about articles, but the content within them. Not everything UKIP says or does is notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Also, the link you gave is not policy. WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE and WP:PRIMARY are policy. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see now what you mean about content. WP:DUE is more appropriate here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps we are getting on the same wavelength. If an editor thinks it should be deleted, then they should make the case for it and for some of the content above they well be correct. But randomly adding 'third-party source needed' in places where it is not appropriate (and the WP:third_party_sources is a good resource for deciding this) only clutters up the article.

A nice example is this rather useful BBC page on UKIP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690. I think everyone would agree the BBC is a third party source. However, much (or all) of the material here has ultimately come directly from UKIP statements on policy - since UKIP statements/articles/manifesto etc. are basically the only source of what UKIP policy is (unless the BBC employs mind readers). If we want to include what any party's policies are, which I think should be an important part of any political party wiki article, then ultimately the only source of what that party's policies are, is the party itself. Atshal (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We accept the veracity of the BBC because they are a reliable 3rd party source, it is not our role to interpret statements that the primary source makes. In your Labour example that statement would have no place in wikipedia. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - but the sentences in question do not include any interpretation. They merely say "UKIP claims XXXX", "UKIP spokesperson said XXXX", "The 2010 UKIP general election manifesto said XXX", with citation to the primary source to prove this is what they said/claim/wrote. This is 100% fine according to Wikipedia policy and a third party source is not needed (and will be inferior as it would be a secondary source, with the UKIP claim/statement being the primary source). Atshal (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Third party sources are never inferior, they are always, always, always preferred. Primary sources are, on occasion acceptable. WP:PRIMARY is the policy, WP:third_party_sources is an essay, not policy. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are trying to claim that it would be preferable to cite a BBC article on UKIP policy that takes its information directly from the UKIP manifesto, than to cite the UKIP manifesto directly? That is absurd and I do not believe it is true. Sure, if the BBC has some kind of independent reliable source for what the UKIP policy is then it might be better, but ultimately the ONLY source for what UKIP policy is, is UKIP itself. This is true of all political parties Atshal (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY backs up me up completely. I shall quote the relevant passage: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."

ALL of the statement I put in my original post do not involve interpretation and are clearly straightforward, descriptive statements e.g. "UKIP claims" "UKIP emphasises" and so on. Third party sources are NOT needed, and in case could only ever quote the primary source, making them redundant. Atshal (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You stopped reading too early. See a little bit further down

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

. And a little further down

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

. You are ignoring whole sections of policy and picking out the bits that suit you. You cannot base entire sections on primary sources. Also if you cannot find secondary sources on the policy, there is an argument that they shouldn't be in the article at all. If they are not notable enough for discussion in other sources they are not notable enough for Wikipedia, we are not here to reproduce UKIPs website. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be preferable to cite a BBC article on UKIP policy than to cite the UKIP manifesto directly, because the fact that UKIP finds this part of the manifesto noteworthy is an indicator for the notability of this part of the manifesto. Otherwise, we could cite the whole manifesto from A to Z. Third-party sources decide which parts are notable and which are not. If Wikipedia editors decide which parts are noteworthy, it will be original research. --RJFF (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That argument makes more sense RJFF. If I can be bothered I might add them (there are dozens of references all over the media) Atshal (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article that might be useful in terms of reliable sources discussing UKIP policy: [3] Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Their policies are outlined briefly on their website. No other party has what other people think their policies mean. That is bias and breaches POV.Arsenalfan24 (talk)

No other party has massive sections that are just copied from their website, so what is your point? Third party sources is what gives legitimacy to their inclusion in an encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No other parties have points of view in their policies, they have brief outlines. So what's your point? Clearly this is just bias crap. And we can see the bias element clearly when you keep reverting my changes on a freeze on all immigration. No it's not. The policy has NEVER been a freeze on all immigration. It's been a freeze on immigration for PERMERNANT SETTLEMENT which is actually different. Don't see why you treat Ukip different to all the other parties who merely just list the policies, no rubbish about what someone thinks their policies are about, that's not their policies.Arsenalfan24 (talk)

Can you point out please edits where I have, in your words treated Ukip different to all the other parties? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting the removal of what that academic thinks about Ukip. The 2010 General Election stuff should go as well. The section says POLICY, not 'oh here's what someone thinks their policy means'.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again you side step the question. You have accused me of treating the UKIP article differently from the other edits I make. I would like you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Side step the question? Ok, I'll answer it again then - reverting the removal of what that academic thinks about Ukip.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Policies (Again)

This page is not here to advertise the UKIP manifesto. Unless policies are covered by reliable third-party sources they have no place in this encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The page is here to give an overview of UKIP which, as a political party of some note now in the UK, includes policy. Instead of simply deleting content (which is sourced, although not third party), perhaps spend a minute looking up on of the many third party sources that are available. I have just done this, so the content has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to re-publish UKIPs website. No other major political party has such large sections of self-published material. This is nothing short of advertising for UKIP, not encyclopedic. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No other parties have what someone else thinks their policies are about neither. But apparently it's one rule for them, and one rule for UKIP.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC

And actually what you've said there is untrue. Liberal Democrats have bullet-point lists of their policies, but apparently once again, that free advertising is allowed. Why is it one rule for them and one rule for UKIP? Either you list the policies as they stand, or not at all, I don't see this nonsense about what some supposed author thinks their policies are about, is relevant in any way, shape or form.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ME: No other major political party has such large sections of self-published material.. You Liberal Democrats have bullet-point lists of their policies, can you really not understanding the difference? You're writing like a UKIP supporter, not a contributor to a neutral encyclopedia. That is why your edits are not NPOV. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please do me a favour. The policies section is supposed to display the policies, not what someone thinks of them. NO OTHER PARTY HAS THAT. That is the bottom line and you never answer that point. My edits are not NPOV? Right, because actually telling the facts are not neutral, right ok, let's carry on telling people they want to do this that and the other when actually they don't.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Every WP article should be based on academic sources, not on partisan statements. That other articles do not comply with this rule is not an argument against applying it in this article (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It is an argument for improving the other articles, not for deteriorating this one. You are free to improve the articles on Labour and/or Lib Dems using third-party academic sources that analyse and criticise their policies. That it has not (yet) been done in other articles cannot hold us from doing it here. --RJFF (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Partisan arguments? The source used in the policies section are direct from Ukip website (apart from the bit in the introduction to the policies), so don't try and patronise me.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intention to patronise you. I am sorry if you feel patronised. I have not said "partisan arguments" but "partisan statements". If you find the wording ambiguous, I will rather say "first-party statements" (coming from the subject of the article). And, of course the policies as presented on UKIP's website are first-party statements which should be avoided in WP articles. --RJFF (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there is a WP:COMPETENCY issue here. The core principles of Wikipedia's reliance on third party sources, rather than primary sources just doesn't seem to be understood. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Arsenalfan24, why don't you simply use material from Wp:Suggested sources? If you do this -and provide a fair summary, all experienced editors will accept it -and reinstate attempts to delete it. End of problem. JRPG (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the preference for secondary sources on WP is not so much about not using primary sources at all, but being careful about their use and not using them to build analysis or argument around. The policy page it comes under is of course No Original Research. Simply stating that UKIP have policy X – or, rather, perhaps that they say they have policy X – and sourcing that to their website or manifesto is OK. Nor is it, in itself, POV, so long as its not the only source used, which would be a problem anyway. Both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB are fairly clear on this.

I would also add that the other content that seems to be in dispute here, the sentence re nationalism starting "However, although UKIP's ...", which was reinserted with this edit, reads extremely problematically to me. Yes the source appears a decent one for WP, but material of that sort, which is clearly analysis – and a pretty negative one at that – clearly needs attribution as such, and balance, rather than being presented as clear fact, as currently. This is a POV issue, but the reverse of that suggested in the edit summary. N-HH talk/edits 16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, up to a point, the point being your comments on the sentence beginning "However.." So let's examine this. The preceding sentence was inserted at17:27 on 9 May 2013 by Atshal who I believe is clearly a UKIP partisan. He referenced it to the UKIP manifesto (first party source). At that time it read:

In contrast to the blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties, UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background

At 09:54 on 10 May 2013, he edited this to:

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

And almost immediately, at 09:55 on 10 May 2013, to:

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

And so it remained, near enough, until third party references were, quite rightly, requested. At 09:17 on 24 May 2013, Atshal added as a reference the Mycock-Hayton article from British Journal of Politics & International Relations. The relevant section of this article does indeed support our text about UKIP decrying the blood and soil nationalism of other right wing parties. What it says, in full, is this:

Whilst UKIP have sought to typify other Anglo-British and English ‘extremist parties’ as ‘blood and soil’ ethnic nationalists who threaten the cohesion of the Union (UKIP 2010a), they and the BNP and the English Democrats draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance. (Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, "The Party Politics of Englishness", BJPIR)

Now, if UKIP supporters who edit here want the article to state that UKIP does not support "blood and soil nationalism of extremist parties" then they have to also accept the inclusion of of a peer-reviewed academic journal article that gives it some context. After all, it's a UKIP supporter who put in the "blood and soil" stuff; it's a UKIP supporter who supplied the source. Emeraude (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the history of the text and editing, but I'm not sure how relevant all that detail is to my fundamental point, which you also have not addressed at all, that such material needs to be attributed. Genuinely neutral, balanced and well sourced text would say something like "UKIP say X, although this has been disputed by A and B, who say ..". Instead what have currently is the first part of that followed by, basically, an interpretation that what UKIP say is nonsense, as if such a judgment were fact. The people who say it may well be respected academics, and that judgment may well even be right in some sense, but it needs attribution. And, even worse than that, we have an explicit assertion, in WP's narrative voice, that, given such an analysis, UKIP's position is "compromised", which isn't even in the source, from the excerpt you've quoted. N-HH talk/edits 18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine for individual statements but not for whole sections. Entire sections are being added based solely on the fact they've been published on the UKIP website. We also do not accept the UKIP sources as analysis of UKIP, that's for third party sources GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, indeed it's pretty much what I said already. The problem was that some of the points being made above were going much further than that. I'm going to try to do something with the para that I've queried as needing attribution. Whatever one thinks of UKIP, we're trying to write a balanced encyclopedia, not have political debates by proxy and prove how awful – or, conversely, brilliant – they are. N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It IS sourced (ref no 51) and I also repeated the source just above. But here it is again: Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, "The Party Politics of Englishness", British Journal of Politics & International Relations, October 2012, doi=10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00543.x. The previous sentence, referring to the UKIP manifesto (ref no.50) contains a direct quote relating to civic nationalism. Mycock & Hayton wrote: "But whilst UKIP’s conception of British civic nationalism purports to be ‘inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain’, the party identifies a number of ‘threats to Britishness’ that compromise this stated position." My apologies for not including this above. Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't sourced, nor was that ever my point (other than querying whether the "compromise" point specifically was in the article being cited, which is now clarified). The point was about how to represent what it says. N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought when you wrote "but it needs attribution" you meant it needed a source. (Actually, I still think that's what you meant.) Anyway, it reads better after your edit, though I still think that Mycock & Hayton's point about the "shared narratives" compromising UKIP's stated position is the key issue that needs to be covered. I've unlinked the red links - no need to link every academic and journal, especially when fully referenced. Emeraude (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've consistently said exactly the same thing, and meant exactly the same thing, at each point, from when I first said in my opening post here that "the source appears a decent one" but that the analysis cited to it needed "attribution", as in an explanation of exactly who is making it. I'm not sure how any confusion could have arisen over that, and am even less sure why you would now be saying that you still think I meant anything different or that I've at any point denied there was a source there at all. Anyway, I'm glad we broadly agree on the conclusion in terms of article text. N-HH talk/edits 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, because if a section of text is clearly sourced to authors/article/journal, as it was and is, the attribution has to be the authors/article/journal in the source. Now I see that what you intended was that the attribution should also be explicit within the text. Emeraude (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

General Improvements

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

The article is badly lacking reliable sources for the various figures. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By election

No one seems in a rush to add details of the Aberdeen Donside by-election to this article. Britain's "third party" just finished fifth with 4.8% and a lost deposit. Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Details from Aberdeen_Donside_by-election,_2013 added to UK_Independence_Party_representation_and_election_results#By-elections_2. Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External Links

The last two are dead. The UKIP have revamped their website.79.67.248.74 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. The first two external links are to the main UKIP website and to the UKIP MEPs' website. The dead links are to pages which were, basically, parts of the same sites. I've deleted them both (the first was certainly unnecessary seeing as it could be accessed through ukip.org anyway). Emeraude (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Labeling of right-wing populist

In the info box there is a repetition of right-wing which is clearly unnecessary. To repeat the same label is not a neutral way of writing an article, no other political article does this. I have suggested that the label of right-wing populism is changed to just populism, whilst maintaining the link to the correct(existing page), as directly below this it says right-wing anyway. This solution was not acceptable to some editors, therefore I suggest we just remove the political position of right-wing and keep the link saying "right-wing populism". Come what may, I do not think it reasonable to repeat the phrase right-wing with only 2 words separating it. I shall remove the political position label as it already says right-wing above. Its probably worth noting that the phrase "left-wing" is not repeated in the info box for the Green Party. 1 further note: I am not disputing content, I am disputing labeling/tagging, we need to do this in a neutral way. Many ThanksConsciousKipper (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As GimliDotNet pointed out, right-wing populism != populism. I don't think we need to worry about repeated words in the infobox, as the infobox is there to provide quick facts to the reader rather than being articulate, well-written sentences. If this was in the lead, I'd agree – but the repetition of "right-wing" in the infobox is harmless. I think it's fine keeping the "political position" field filled out, as that, too, provides a nice general overview for the reader. — Richard BB 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree with your description of what an info box is but the whole idea of an info box it is meant to be concise, repetition is not concise. I believe my initial solution to be the best...i.e. retain the political position but change the tag on the link to "right-wing populism" as the phrase right-wing is already there. Repetition of the phrase "right-wing" does not meet the description you just gave of an info box. Provided the link takes you to the ciorrect page (which it will) I really do not see the harm. ConsciousKipper (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

UKIP are described in sources as Right-wing populist. That means we label them so. If the label repetition is too much then take one label out, do not change the content to suit. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

May I just remind you GimliDotNet that I am not for a minute suggesting to change the content, merely the repetition of labeling. My initial edit where I changed the articles was a a genuine mistake which is why I came to the talk page to resolve the issue. I agree with you that we should remove the repetition. Which is why I therefore proposed to remove right-wing as political position as it is already stated with right-wing populism, the other option was to tag the Right-wing populism article as just "populism" as so: populism and maintain the political position label as "right-wing". Since no one has had anything constructive to add, I shall remove the political position label as that would be classed as the repetition. Let me know if you prefer the original solution after all, or have an alternative idea to avoid such repetition. ConsciousKipper (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest, as per WP:BRD, we establish consensus here before changing this. Personally, I don't feel the repetition is a problem. We have one source describing the party as 'right-wing populist' and another as just 'right wing', so let's show both. When in doubt, stick closely to what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have also disputed the source for right-wing, it is research book on the Nordic countries, the UK is not a Nordic country and therefore the source is not directly applicable. There are plenty of sources to say that the party is "right wing populist", so it seems to me that if we are to follow reliable sources my suggestion seems ideal. I really can't see how this repetition is justifiable on this article and not on other similar articles. However, peoples objections have caused me to look into the source for right-wing and I dont really see how it is an appropriate source. ConsciousKipper (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why has the brief section on LGBTQ in UKIP been removed?

This was a well sourced section in the article and it has been removed. I notice that a number of other parts of this article have been rewritten in a less neutral manner than before, this is more than a tad concerning. The removal of sourced material without comment is simply not acceptable.ConsciousKipper (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)