Talk:UK Independence Party

Right wing populism

Right-wing populism is the same thing as centre right, far right populism does not exist.86.136.58.132 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That is nonsense on so many levels. Populism can appear anywhere on the political spectrum; it is, in itself, neither left nor right not centre. The key issue is whether UKIP is right or centre right and given that sources in the article do not say it is centre right - the position usually ascribed to the Tories - and UKIP is to the right of the Tories, UKIP cannot be centre right. Emeraude (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting one, I think just "populism" would be more accurate. After all some of their positions are in line with left-wing populism, ie no Tax (inc NI) on the National Minimum Wage, scrap tuition fees completely and campaigning against the "snoopers charter". I'm obviously not saying that they are a left wing party but what I am saying is that the label "right-wing populism" isn't an accurate one, in light of these distinctive left-wing populist policies. All in all as far as "populism" goes, UKIP a mixed bag, a bit of everything, so I think it would be more accurate to change the label to just "populism". After all, it already says the party is "right-wing" under political position.Owl In The House (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The only bench mark we should use is what reliable 3rd party sources call them. I would point out that tabloids and comment pieces are not really considered strong sources for this kind of information. As far as I can see most sources describe them as Right-wing, if they also describe them as populist them Right-wing populist is a fair enough term to use. We should not however label them as Centre-right unless that can be reliably sourced to 3rd parties. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Having one or two policies (though it's hard to say - they deny having a manifesto!!) that are generally considered to lie to the left doesn't change their overall position. No party is 100% right wing (or left for that matter) and we need to consider the full party programme. We must also consider not just the UK position but the wider field of politics. For example, I cannot think of a single party in the UK that opposes the National Health Service, including extreme fascist groups. In the US, support for a NHS is most definitely a left position, but it doesn't make the BNP left wing! Emeraude (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with GimliDotNet. We follow what reliable 3rd party sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I take on board what GimliDotNet said, reliable sources is always the way forward. With respect, I'm afraid I shall disregard the comments made by Emeraude as they haven't really added anything to this discussion and ignored the point I was making. I once again restate that the party has both left and right wing populist policies but I also acknowledge that the overall categorization of the party's political position is "rightwing". Emeraude makes the point about overall position, that is reflected in the article by the political position label. What is not reflected is that the party has both left and right populist policies, UKIP can not claim to be a leftwing party, so it seems to make sense to just call them "populist". The BBC acknowledge their tuition fee stance here as a policy abandoned by the left What does UKIP stand for?. Owl In The House (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Have allowed plenty of time for further responses and not received any, so I shall WP:be bold. I shall change "right-wing populism" to "populism" as the party does have a number of left-wing populist policies as stated. Emeraude's argument is covered by the party's overall political position. Emeraude's argument is that "UKIP is to the right of the Tories", in the specific instance of "populism", that case is difficult to make when UKIP has some populist policies that are to the left of the Tories (eg: Tuition Fees). Just in case anyone chooses to assume bad faith and take my last sentence out of context, I am not arguing to change the party's over all political position, merely the populist part. No one has provided sufficient evidence to say that they do not have left wing populist policies, so I am being bold and making the edit. Owl In The House (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Slow down there. Having "allowed plenty of time for further responses" you might have noticed that there are none to support what you are doing: Wikipedia works on consensus and you have not demonstrated any for your proposal. Emeraude (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Owl, there is clearly no consensus for this change. It is not "being bold" to make a change after a discussion has clearly opposed it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you both give a response to my additional source? Also I have an alternative proposal: As opposed to labelling the party "right-wing", why not label it Big tent/catch all. The research of Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford certainly points to this, i.e. UKIP appeals to a wide variety/big contrast of sections of the population. From what Farage calls: "retired half colonels living on the edge of Salisbury plane" (Those on the right of the Tory party) whilst also appealing to the "left behind" working class voter who hasn't voted for over 20 years, often exLabour voters, as well as ex-LibDem voters. To me the current labelling situation does not bare resemblance to the reality, the sources used and the description do not reflect a variety of analysis out there, what they do is follow a specific media narrative.

Big Tent/Catch all, not Right-wing

If we are unwilling to simply change the ideology from "right-wing populism" to just "populism", then we should change political position from "right-wing" to "Big tent" or "Big tent/catch all" to best reflect the reliable sources that are available. Thinking about it, it is best to drop "righ-wing" and adopt "Big tent" because it seems more accurate and it can be much better sourced, especially considering the Goodwin/Ford research, among other sources, even the BBC are acknowledging this. Owl In The House (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Big tent is not a term widely accepted within the academic field of political science. Note that none of the references given in that article are from political science academics. It has about as much meaning as fascists describing themselves as "nationalist" just to hide their true nature. What you are proposing is that we accept your own view for the simple reason that it is your view. Wikipedia does not and will not do that - we depend on what reliable sources say, and it has been pointed out again and again that those sources (including Ford and Goodwin) agree that UKIP is right wing populist. They do NOT use the phrase "big tent"; they do NOT say it is left wing; they do NOT say it is not populist. There is really no point in prolonging this. Emeraude (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also worth noting that of the online sources quoted on the Big tent page, only one mentions the phrase, and then in inverted commas, and that the non-BBC sources are not exactly neutral.) Emeraude (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "neutral" in this context. BBC are certainly not at all neutral. It's farcical for any to suggest otherwise -- they're one of the most brazenly selective and biased sources of "news" there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for change. We have sources supporting the current wording. Most editors are happy with the current wording. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I do not have the time to give a full response to this or compile the sourcing but I will say that I have never encountered such an abrupt, discourteous and down right rude manner from an editor on a talk page, than I have yourself Emeraude. I am not as you suggest trying to force my view on to wikipedia, I am merely saying that the selection of sources is very selective. Indeed, it doesn't actually include Goodwin&Ford's book! Not sure if you've read any of it yet but it has actually been released and it is not currently sourced. Also you make a comment about sources not being "impartial", I have noticed some of the sources that you yourself have used for certain edits are far from impartial, so I will take no lectures from you on that but aren't most if not all sources in some way partial. May I remind you, that you are obliged to assume good faith and remain courteous, you haven't done either, I therefore dismiss your comment.

I will provide a proper sourced response when I can find the time to do so but for now, I'll leave you to address your poor manners. Owl In The House (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote - I have not been rude at all. You, on the other hand, have assumed that whatever you think goes, despite the weight of evidence and a clear consensus against your personal views. To pick me out for abuse is totally unfair and reflects the blinkered view that you have demonstrated throughout this debate, that, to be honest, should have ended ages ago if you had not repeatedly attemtped to introduce new irrelevance into a discusssion that has consensus, bar one participant, yourself. You are right - the article does not include Goodwin/Ford as a a source - no one said it does - you raised them as a source, I responded. Have I read their new book yet? No, not yet, and I never claimed otherwise (but I have read numerous reviews and articles they have published about the book). You may dismiss as many of my comments as you like - it remains the case that you have lost the argument and are clearly a bad loser and Wiki time waster. Emeraude (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Far-right?

I see attempts by some users to defame the party as 'far-right'. This is marginal minority view and does not belong in the infobox. The idea that a libertarian (!) party could also be 'far-right' just reveals how insane the PC mafia have gone in their hopeless defense of Anjem Choudary, the communist UAF and the holy Sharia.
According to their logic every individual who does not preach white guilt, does not hate their own fatherland and does not promote the idea that the hideous cult that calls for death to apostates, 'adulterous' women and homosexuals is the height of progress - that he is 'far-right' for opposing all that - well, that view does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

go read WP:AGF then come back, apologise and try to have a discussion. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've assumed enough good faith here, but smearing even UKIP as 'far-right' is too much even for me. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no attempt to discuss the issue, just the start of an edit war. You need to explain why you are removing cited content rather than accusing other editors of bias. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lokalkosmopolit, your comments about a 'PC mafia' and claiming Unite Against Fascism is 'communist' (which reliable sources state that?) show you have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article. Your personal politics is getting in the way of the reliable sources that clearly describe UKIP as far-right. Please read the following WP:RS, WP:AGF andWP:COI. Your comments describing Islam as a 'hideous cult' and making seriously questionable claims about is clearly against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. LordFixit (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the idea that UKIP, whilst opposing same-sex marriage and calling for a ban on the burqa could be 'libertarian' is seriously questionable. LordFixit (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:COI 'reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of your party'. Please explain why you deleted the description which was reliably sourced with three sources? LordFixit (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

UAF was founded as a front organization of the Trotskyist socialist Workers Party.
Where did I mention Islam? Did anyone recognize the holy Islam in my comment?
To sources. Ashley Lavelle just mentions UKIP passing-by under the heading 'far-right' with no further comments. She's a self-professed Marxist [1]. Would you also support a characterization of the Labour Party based on a BNP political scientist?
Gunlicks just mentions the UKIP as 'far-right' (and 'anti-immigration') without substantiating his view in any manner. Colomer mentions the term 'far-right' twice in his book in connection with the UKIP. No further comments from him either. How is that supposed to prove the Red Flag claim that the UKIP is 'far-right'?
The policy that exceptional claims require very good sources in order to avoid giving fringe views prominence is the policy applicable here. The general view is that the UKIP is right-wing ('centre-right' is a minority view, hence I did not supporting introducing it, when some editors proposed it, the same goes for 'far-right'). Any more questions? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's step back and put this in context. An editor amended the infobox, with four refs, to say that UKIP's position was right to far right. This wa deleted by Lokalkosmopolit with the reason "rmv minority views from the infobox. some of these even don't mention the word far-right. POV pushing!" I partially reverted this because, as I wrote, three of the sources do state specifically and unambiguously that UKIP is far right. The fourth strongly hints at it, so not worth pressing the point.

Lokalkosmopolit reverted again, saying "consensus is that the party is NOT far-right in any sense. if you think otherwise please prove at talk)". GimliDotNet has now returned the page to include the three sources that describe UKIP as far right, but seeing as Lokalkosmopolit wants it in talk - here I was going to bring it anyway - here we are; but I see it's already here.

Firstly, It is disingenuous to accuse an editor of POV pushing as he did in his first revert, especially when higjly creable reliable sources are being used. Secondly, to claim that "some of these even don't mention the word far-right" when, clearly, three of them do is downright dishonest. For the record, the sources referred to say the following:

Under the subhead The Far Right, Lavelle writes:

"While some forces on the left have benefited from New Labour's abandonment of social democratice politics, there is evidence that Far Right parties such as the British National Party (BNP) and United Kingdom Independence PArty (UKIP) have been boosted by Labour's abandmonment of social democratice polices." (Dr Ashley Lavelle: The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century, 2013, p104)

Gunlicks writes:

"Because of the party list proportional representation system, small parties have also had some success in EU parliamentary elections. Indeed, a new far-right, anti-EU and anti-immigrant party, the UK Independent Party (UKIP), cames in second to the Conseervatives in the voting for the EU Parliament in June 2009." (Arthur B. Gunlicks: Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, 2011, p121)

Margetts writes:

"Meanwhile, Conservative voters gave strong support to the far-right with their second preference; 41 per cent chose the UK Independence Party, and 10 per cent chose the British National Party...." (Helen Margetts, in Josep M. Colomer (ed): Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, 2013, p51)

So there we have it. The words far right do appear in the sources, in the correct context, unequivocally. Emeraude (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

there are very limited sources that describe the part as libertarian, the best one being a comment piece from the guardian. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that describe the party as libertarian, just make a little search at google Books. I'm not saying these are all very in-detail analyses but the number is much larger than those claiming it to be 'far-right'.
@Emeraude: nothing in your reply managed to show me where is the consensus to label it as far-right. No-one cares what two or three cherrypicked sources (you also included the commie in there, that's really telling) mention passing by. The bottom line is, the infobox has to reflect the article and the article has to abide verifiability policies, which include the demand for exceptionally good sources for exceptional claims. I wouldn't be opposed at all to mention the 'far-right' accusations in the main text if any substance is found for it. Unfortunately, as of now nothing has been presented that could be mentioned in the article. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

if there are numerous reliable sources that describe the party as libertarian feel free to provide them as it stands that claim is exceptional. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Libertarianism is based on limited state intervention and maximum individual liberty. The UK Independence Party, however, believes in a bigger government (e.g., war on drugs, re-introduction of capital punishment, and the state-ownership of the Royal Mail)and opposes civil liberties (e.g., opposition to same-sex civil union as well as same-sex marriage); hence it is an antithesis of libertarian ideas. If I were an editor of this article, I would have simply described UKIP as a non-dimensional "populist" party with both far-left elements(e.g., opposing any sort of military, including humanitarian, intervention and the absurdity of blaming the Ukrainian crisis on an "expansionist EU"), and right-wing elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.147.233 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: You do not seem to understand what consensus means in this context: it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, obtained through discussion, as to what should appear in the article. We do not look for consensus among reliable sources, and if there is a clear disagreement or lack of clarity in the sources we say so. In fact, that is what is happening - the infobox plainly says "right to far right", reflecting the reliable sources that cover the issue.

But the real issue is your refusal to accept what the given sources say and, worse, to attack the integrity of the academics who wrote them and, then, to attack the Wikipedia editors who quote them ("you also included the commie in there, that's really telling"). What's really telling is your use of such methods.

There is no reason why a "commie" cannot, as an academic, write honestly and accurately on their subject, just as there's no reason why a Spurs fan cannot say that Liverpool is a superior team and deserved to win! For the record, the writers quoted in the sources are a political scientist and Oxford Professor, a retired professor of political science from University of Richmond specialising in comparative politics and European politics, and the "commie". Actually, Lavelle is a former member of the International Socialists in Australia (so, not strictly a "commie") and is a political scientist at Griffith University: his research was part funded by the Griffith Business School, hardly a hotbed of commie subversion one would have thought!

Incidentally, to go right back to your first comment: "I see attempts by some users to defame the party as 'far-right''". Why on earth would anyone think that being described as far right was defamation? Emeraude (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts... I think the political labels in the current version of this article are the best I've seen in this article, though far from perfect. I think the central problem is that the left-right paradigm is of limited use, if it's even valid at all. It doesn't deal with the fact that, for example, many people are anti-immigration and anti-market, which, if you think about it, makes more sense than being anti-immigration but pro-market or pro-immigration but anti-market, because the labour market is a part of the market, and a truly free market would have free migration. I'd like to see Wikipedians abandon the practice of right-left labelling for that reason. But, as I said, in the absence of such a radical re-think, the version we have now is pretty good. I also think that mentioning that UKIP refers to itself as libertarian, rather than our labelling UKIP as libertarian, is fair. On some issues, some parties are more libertarian, and, on other issues, other parties are more libertarian. But, UKIP's policies are not especially libertarian, even in the British context, which is admittedly more authoritarian than, for example, the US context. Royal Mail privatization is now mainstream British opinion. UKIP opposes it. The free movement of people is mainstream British opinion. UKIP opposes it. People accuse UKIP of being a one-man band, but, if that were true, UKIP would favour drug decriminalization, which is what Nigel Farage personally supports. I think the 'right-wing populist' label is pretty fair. There are definite tensions behind the public image, between libertarians, social-conservative ex-Conservatives, Thatcherites, social-conservative ex-Labour, etc. Remember when the youth wing was purged a while back? They were actually anarcho-capitalists: as far as I'm aware, the first anarcho-capitalist faction in any major British political party! Renren8123 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Membership

Can anyone explain why UKIP are not RS for their own membership numbers? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added an Economist citation which claims 35,000. It's good enough for now, although I do not dispute the 35,081 figure. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

UKIP are not a reliable source for controversial facts and claims. That's why we require third party sources. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely a third party source could only get the information on membership numbers from UKIP themselves? It seems as if we're putting something in the middle that doesn't need to be there.CH7i5 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. How would a third party get the info except from UKIP itself? Renren8123 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(Old) Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Numerous reliable, academic sources describe UKIP as far-right. Please see some here:

• "While some forces on the left have benefited from New Labour's abandonment of social democratic politics, there is evidence that Far Right parties such as the British National Party (BNP) and United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have been boosted by Labour's abandonment of social democratic polices." (Dr Ashley Lavelle: The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century, 2013, p104)
• "Because of the party list proportional representation system, small parties have also had some success in EU parliamentary elections. Indeed, a new far-right, anti-EU and anti-immigrant party, the UK Independent Party (UKIP), cames in second to the Conseervatives in the voting for the EU Parliament in June 2009." (Arthur B. Gunlicks: Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, 2011, p121)
• "Meanwhile, Conservative voters gave strong support to the far-right with their second preference; 41 per cent chose the UK Independence Party, and 10 per cent chose the British National Party...." (Helen Margetts, in Josep M. Colomer (ed): Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, 2013, p51)
• Ruth Wodak; John E. Richardson (2013). Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. Routledge. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-0-415-89919-2.

These are all relativley new sources, and they all describe the party as far-right. Should the party be labelled as right-wing to far-right in the Infobox? LordFixit (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note User:LordFixit has been indeffed as a sock for ]]WP:Abusing multiple accounts]]. Collect (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (appending as one editor objects to use of "sock" here) Collect (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Emeraude (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of reliable source citations describing the party as right-wing and perhaps fewer describing it as far right, and also some describing it as centre-right. The question, i suggest, is not the one given above -- are there RS sources describing the party as far right -- but what is the best way of summarising a range of sources with different views in the infobox. My feeling at the moment is that that is best done with just "right wing" (not centre-right, not far right) in the infobox and with a longer description in the article text, but I haven't devoted time to a fuller analysis of the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Bondegezou, a persuasive argument. When you say a lot of reliable source citations do you mean ones that are already in the article, or other ones that we should add? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support the Infobox description of the party as "right-wing to far-right" for its political position, using referenced sources.--Autospark (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Right-wing, yes, Far right, no. "Far right" in the UK suggests extremist nationalist groups such as the National Front or British National Party, not a mainstream political party such as UKIP. The opinion of a few writers, who probably have their own agenda (and who don't, from their names, generally appear to actually be British and so maybe are used to using different terminology), is not a good reason to give this label, usually seen as a fairly unpleasant one, to a party. It undoubtedly has some far right supporters (just as the Labour Party has plenty of far left supporters), but I don't think it's reasonable to describe it as a far right party, since its policies aren't particularly far right. Labelling a mainstream party in this way suggests to me a distinctly POV political agenda on the part of editors which is not backed up by the facts (I'm not saying there is such an agenda, just that that's the way such a label would appear). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? What evidence do you have that the academic sources have 'their own agenda'. Your racial comment are irrelevant. You say labeling UKIP as far-right is not backed by facts. Didn't you see the multiple credible academic sources above? LordFixit (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note User:LordFixit has been indeffed as a sock. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Actually for WP:Abusing multiple accounts Collect (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you just imply that I was racist? You need to wind your neck in, my friend! I didn't mention race. I said that foreign sources may be using terminology different from British terminology, where "far right" is generally not a compliment (just as "liberal" is not a compliment as far as many Americans are concerned, but is generally regarded as a good thing in the UK, except by the far right!). A handful of offhand mentions by largely foreign sources does not equate to fact. These are opinions. Academics are not the founts of all knowledge just because they're academics. They have opinions just like the rest of us. Is it described as a far right party in the reliable British media, for instance? No, it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinions should be cited and ascribed as opinions. We must trust readers to weigh those opinions appropriately, and need not state them as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. The least contentious term should be used in an infobox in any case -- the infobox is not a complete article, but designed to give Google a snippet to use <g>. (In the case at hand, I suspect "right wing" is that term) (I trust this is in accord with the actual positions of others here) (coming from NPOV/N) Collect (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should examine the multiple, reliable, academic sources above. LordFixit (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note User:LordFixit has been indeffed as a sock. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on the political spectrum, and the problems therewith. Academics can, and do, express opinions as opinions. [2] Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge By Roger Eatwell; Cas Mudde; Routledge; says the UKIP has some "former extremists" (page 77). [3](page 156) The UK Parliament calls the UKIP "right wing." the far right British National Party (BNP) and the antiEuropean, right wing party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). is found in Devolution in the United Kingdom Russell Deacon and Alan Sandry; Edinburgh University Press page 21 [4] making a clear distinction between the positions of the BNP and the UKIP, And all strong academic sources. Such right wing scepticism as in the case of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and certain sections of the Conservative Party considers itself as ... [5], and so on. Sorry -- there are lots of strong academic sources only using "right wing" about the UKIP. NYT [6] Harsher critics, particularly on the left, have sought to link UKIP to two far-right fringe parties, the British National Party and the English Defence League, that have plied a politics tinged with racist and Nazi sympathies. But as the ballot counting for 2,300 council seats was completed, results from widely separated areas of England, including districts that will be swing-vote battlegrounds in a general election set for May 2015, showed that UKIP had drawn levels of popular support not matched by any insurgent party in an electoral contest with the mainstream parties, mainly the Conservatives and Labour, since Labour’s rise in the 1920s. clearly ascribes the "far right" pejorative to "harsher critics" and states that it has a broad base of support not matched since "Labour's rise in the 1920s." Several hundred more cites available on request. And the "neutral wording" for the RfC, ain't. Collect (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support They stand as good sources and it is only quite recently that UKIP tried to change their perception as a Far right group. I would see the intent behind this request for the sources removal as dubious considering the upcoming elections next year Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, UKIP has never presented itself as a far right group. Evidence? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, we know there are sources saying UKIP is "right wing" - that's not the issue. Nor is it correct to say that "far right" equates with extremism. Ever heard of "extreme right"? The issue is a very, very simple one: should the infobox, in the light of a collection of reliable academic sources, say "right to far right"? We have one editor here saying, inter alia, that the political spectrum is not precise. Precisely why "right to far right" is appropriate. We have others attacking the academics who wrote these - totally unacceptable - and suggesting it may look like some editors have an agenda, not that they are making accusations you understand, but it may look like they have. (Funnily enough, they were happy to make those slurs earlier - see above.) And we still get comments that "right wing" and "far right" are somehow perjorative terms. They aren't. And just to show that academics aren't entirely out of touch with the populace, The Independent today published a survey that shows that 40% think UKIP is far right, 38% don't (though what that 38% did think is not reported).
  • Yes, "far right" is usually considered to equate to extremism and is usually considered to be a pejorative. Nobody said "right-wing" was. No doubt it's me you're implying is "attacking" the academics. In what way was I? You are clearly either unable to understand what I wrote or have not actually bothered to read it. And are you really and truly saying that academics aren't frequently politically biased in their work? Seriously? Neither was I implying that any editor had an agenda, whatever your snide remarks to the contrary. I quite clearly said that adding "far right" would appear that they were, which is a different thing entirely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Where's your evidence that academic political scientists equate far right with extremism?? In 40 years as a political scientist I have never heard such a thing! Or that it's usually considered pejorative?? I never said you were attacking the academics, I wasn't thinking about you at all. I was referring as much as anything to the earlier debate on this topic. But to accuse another editor of being "clearly either unable to understand what I wrote or have not actually bothered to read it" is not acceptable. I know you said it would appear; consider how that statement appears. Emeraude (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Consider how aggressive yours appear! Whether or not you consider the term to be a pejorative, clearly others do. This being the case, why are you opposing the requests to retain a NPOV by adopting the less controversial form of words? Yes, UKIP have been described as "far right" by some sources. They have also, as cited above, been referred to as "right-wing" or "centre-right" by far more sources. Surely it's better to use the less controversial term to avoid accusations of agenda-pushing either by Wikipedia or by its editors? Which is what I was quite clearly saying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

People keep saying they have been described as center-right and right-wing by far more sources and then not producing sources. WP:NPOV would mean we go with what the sources say, not our interpretations of them. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources have been cited in this discussion that do not use "far right". Just scrolling up for two seconds, to contributions in the few days prior to the above claim that people are "not producing sources" shows ones that appear to use the more general "right-wing" as well as even – oddly to my mind as it happens – the "centre-right" description. There really is no point if people are going to either not read or not acknowledge what others have posted and/or assert that only the sources that back up one side are going to count rather than the totality of them. N-HH talk/edits 10:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose noting that the claim that "they all describe the party as far-right" generally is only true when one only searches for that term -- Questia found zero academic sources for calling it "far right" and a goodly number calling it "right wing" and I searched for both terms. (!voting finally -- looks like a consensus is here) Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: If Questia found zero academic sources saying "far right", and we have three listed here, there's something seriously wrong with Questia!! And "they all describe the party as far-right" obviously refers to 'all three'. Emeraude (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

 – A very similar discussion is taking place at Talk:Right_Sector Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "far right" as an unqualified description or assertion. The use of the term in UKIP's case is relevant, sourced and worth discussing on the page in a broader analytical context but as a straight adjective to be used in passing, especially in the lead or infobox, the broader and more encompassing "right-wing" – with perhaps the addition of "populist" as currently or "radical", both of which are just as well attested as "far" right at least in raw Google Books numbers – is more appropriate. Unless there's something close to universal agreement on the use of "far right" for UKIP, and what exactly is meant by that – which there clearly is not, on either point, in media and academic sources – it should be avoided both as a matter of sourcing numbers and because, in some but not all definitions, it implies outright racism and fascism. Saying "right-wing" doesn't mean they're not far right, or contradict those sources that do use the term, it just avoids zeroing in on a contentious label and asserting it as fact while also catching those who prefer, for example, "radical right", "single-issue right-wing party" (in a book entitled "Radical Right"), "hard" and "populist" right and "radical-right populist". N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unqualified use of 'far right', as per N-HH and as per Far-right politics, Far right in the United Kingdom which largely (and correctly in my view) concern the Nazis, KKK, NF and BNP - no mention there of UKIP. Certainly it's worth analysing in context in the body of the page though. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As a ocompromise, put the sources with caveat as saying so, but add that it has certain policies that are considered classical liberal (sovereignty etc)Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Helen Margetts, Peter John and Stuart Weir: "Latent Support for the Far-Right in British Politics: The BNP and UKIP in the 2004 European and London Elections", Paper to PSA EPOP conference, University of Oxford, September 10-12 2004

Anne Delouis writes: The British far right is split into two political organisations, the BNP and UKIP, which has been more successful in recent by-elections. ("When history becomes a metaphor for the present and the future: recent far-right discourse about immigration in the UK" in Lexis 8: “Metaphor Studies in the English Language" (Lyon University), January 2014, p30 (online) Emeraude (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No one's disputing that the term is sometimes used for UKIP, in both academic writing and the media – indeed most "opposes", including the one being responded to here, have specifically acknowledged that. The issue is about the overall view across divergent sources as a whole and how to present that on a WP page, as well as the different implications of the term depending on who's using it and in what way. Throwing more cherry-picked one-off cites isn't moving the discussion forward at all but just clogging up the page (even if it is the usual way these discussions tend to get conducted and usually leads to individual contentious descriptions in WP content being footnote-bombed, as if collecting multiple examples of use proves everything in itself). N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Entirely agree with N-HH's comment here. Atshal (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The most neutral description for the info box is the summary phrase, "right wing". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as a main or unqualified descriptor, for example in the infobox, first sentence or para. The term is powerful and pejorative but imprecise, and as many equally reliable refs could no doubt be found denying this. To say UKIP are sometimes so described is fine. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the most neutral stance would be 'right', because this is a British article we should use British English terms, in BE 'far-right' is classes as an extreme position akin to the likes of the KKK or BNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CH7i5 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are several regular editors of the UKIP page who regularly attempt to introduce bias and POV into the article, particularly to paint UKIP as racist and extreme. Often this involves the manipulation of sources, or selective use of sources. This is another example. Clearly it is better to use the highly accurate and undebatable 'right wing' to the POV, debatable, label of 'far right' or 'right to far right'. Atshal (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation to make. Please restrict your comments to the issue, not your unfounded attacks on and antagonism for other editors. Emeraude (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of anything, Emeraude. This is a clear example of the selective use of sources in order to insert a particular description of UKIP that is odds with the common description. The comment I made was very relevant to the issue at hand, and I made it to justify why I oppose this change. One of the issues that interests me on Wikipedia is bias in articles, particularly political articles, and I feel this is a clear example of that, hence why I am commenting. You have had your say on this issue, please leave it to others to discuss it now in this section - I have also had my say so will leave it at that too. Atshal (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and before I go - people in glass houses should not throw stones. I seem to remember you accusing me of bad faith and being affiliated to UKIP because I made edits that removed POV from the article (edits that were upheld by other users, I might add) Atshal (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do people feel we've reached some sort of conclusion? It appears to me that there is no consensus among current editors to include "far right" in the infobox. However, there may be scope to include some of the citations found in the main text of the article. Would it be appropriate to say this RfC is over, but also to look at using some of the citations unearthed elsewhere in the text? Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that there is insufficient support for such a controversial change. The point that was raised that the current description of 'right wing' is already consistent with any description as 'far right', is also a good argument against the need for a change.

As for including a mention of the 'far right' sources cited earlier in the discussion, I think great care is needed if we think about including them. I think editor N-HH hit the nail on the head with his comment at 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC). The term 'far right' is used in different ways by different people and often implies fascism or outright racism, so inclusion of this material will need qualifiers as to exactly what each author means by 'far right, and an acknowledgement (with sources) that in the media and popular discourse UKIP are rarely labelled as far right. Care would also be needed to make sure the article remains internally consistent, as there already exist several sources in the article (for example in the voter base section) that state UKIP is quite distinct from groups that definitely exist on the far right, such as the BNP. Atshal (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I have had a look at each of the references given at the start of the discussion. In each case, UKIP is not the topic of discussion, and are mentioned as an aside. At no point in these sources do the authors discuss whether or not UKIP are actually a far right party, or provide any justification for this label. As such they are not terribly useful sources for justifying why the label of 'far right' is appropriate - rather they are simply examples of when an author has referred to UKIP as a far right party, while actually discussing an entirely different topic. So in my opinion these sources can not be used to support the statement "UKIP is a far right party" but can support the statement "Some authors have referred to UKIP as a far right party". Then we should ask the question of why we particularly want to include this statement in the article in the first place, based on these rather obscure sources - it certainly feels like source mining in order to be able to force a particular term into the article. Atshal (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Another example of this type of source mining is the source provided by Emeraud. That quotation is taken from a publication called "Metaphor Studies in the English Language", by a French academic, and is contained entirely within a footnote to the article (which then goes on to explicitly state that the article will not be about UKIP at all). Atshal (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? I never commented on the quality of the source (though it's better than you intimate), merely pointing out to another editor that there are more sources that are available. Emeraude (talk)

Keep in mind that many of the theories or methods used by academics in social sciences are normative: you have neo-Marxist sociologists saying that the ideologies of right-wing parties are bad per se. But certainly they can be mentioned if they are notable, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. It's just hard to form a balanced article with varying, critical and less-critical views. That's the main problem in Wikipedia in my view, anyway. --Pudeo' 21:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

New source Locates UKIP within the spectrum of euro-sceptic parties across Europe. Might be useful. The enemy invasion: Brussels braced for influx of Eurosceptics in EU polls Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the RfC tag. Thanks, B. musculus for the new source. That's an article explicitly discussing where various Eurosceptic parties sit and, thus, seems a more useful citation than some given previously describing UKIP as "far right" but which do so merely in passing. I broadly agree with Atshal and Pudeo: articles describing UKIP as far right in passing may warrant a "Some authors have referred to UKIP as a far right party" statement but are of less value than articles specifically about the party and the political spectrum. B. musculus' new source supports "right-wing" as a label, as we currently have.

That said, I support inclusion of material discussing the arguments around various UKIP members having very right-wing and/or racist views. There's enough there to warrant coverage. I also support discussion of UKIP's position and appeal that goes beyond a unidimensional political spectrum: we describe the party as "populist". I see sources using terms like "anti-establishment" and even "anti-modernist" that may warrant inclusion in this article as well. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've readded the tag due to this Rfc not reaching the point where it can be closed. They normally last 30 days. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs for my reasoning. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that's a misinterpretation. The default length of time is 30 days, but it is entirely acceptable for them to close earlier. "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Bondegezou (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend getting a neutral admin to close it at WP:ANRFC just to be safe --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There are seemingly reputable sources out there that can be cited to attach pretty much any label to pretty much any political party. For example, many professors would refer to the Labour Party as 'right-wing'. That doesn't mean that that is what Wikipedia should say. It's just not the consensus! Furthermore, if UKIP were to be labelled 'far-right' on here, I think it would be the first party to be labelled 'far right' on here that does not admit, and has not in the past admitted, to being racially motivated. The Front national in the past admitted it. The British National Party still admits it. UKIP would be, as far as I'm aware, the sole exception, and, especially during an election period, that would come across as political propaganda. Renren8123 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lenny Henry ‘does not have to live with whites’, said Ukip’s William Henwood

Would it be relevant to include the latest UKIP racism controversy from William Henwood (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/27/ukip-farage-racism-lenny-henry-politics-europe) or is it not notable enough due to it being just a single member who made the racist remark? It doesn't seem like he has been requested to leave the party like the usual baggage so I suppose this depends on media coverage. Either way, I'm asking for consensus/opinions before adding this particular racism controversy to the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm always wary of including current news stories anywhere - you nver know how long they will be important enough for an encyclopaedia - but this story does not involve just the one UKIP candidate and his Lenny Henrey comments. Emeraude (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with in principle with Emeraude but note the Telegraph article says it may be relevant in the 2014 election campaign & hence to the article. Much will depend on Farage's actions & whether UKIP policies -recently torn up -are actually what candidates think they are. JRPG (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the point I was trying to make. This may (or may not) have more than passing significance. Emeraude (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Did he really say it? Well, that was a right thing to say IMNSHO. What's 'racist' in claiming that if a black person does not like life in a democratic white country then he/she can emigrate to a black country? This was a very sensible statement and I'm sure Ukip just won many patriotic votes thanks to such honest statement. Greetings from Copenhagen. Danish Infidel (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Very briefy, Lenny Henry was born in Dudley in Birmingham UK, and speaks -like myself as a UK native and Brummie. JRPG (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Troll may be confusing 'a black country' (countries have colour?) with The Black Country. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Remarks not made by an actual official of a party speaking as such are valueless entirely. Candidates are on their own -- and obviously do not represent official party positions, no matter what country or party is involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth a mention, but not extensive direct quoting, which gives it undue weight. I would suggest waiting till the dust settles a little to see the outcome, and reevaluating the importance of the episode then. 90.222.71.124 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been a series of these. If it were just one member then it wouldn't be notable, if it's a series of them then it starts to look like a trend. Examples 1 2 3 4 5 Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, it is definitely not the one member who has made racist remarks. That said, I'm not entirely sure it would not be synthesis to include a list of racism controversies and connect them ourselves. What we would really need is a good source that links together these instances and writes on it, like an article that talks about the different candidates that have made racist comments in the same place. There are certainly a lot of examples though and I would argue that, with better sources, we could include a racism controversies section --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use individually non-relevant factoids and then link them in any way whatsoever. That is one of the purest forms of SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11

32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this reasoning I'm afraid. This was a significant news story and provoked a huge amount of discussion. Whilst I'm not sure an entry dedicated to Henry is justified, I think not including a controversies section – in light of the Bloom comments, references to gay marriage leading to flooding, Farage's recent comments about the fact it's understandable people wouldn't want to live next door to a Romanian family – fails to accurately represent that UKIP is considered a contentious party in the UK and has received significant backlash for its comments. This doesn't count as SYNTH in my eyes: it's just consistent with how Wikipedia handles any controversies attached to a subject. 5.65.239.37 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It has to be said. This whole discussion has been pretty poorly thought out. We have had instances where Labour Party members have been caught protecting people involved in paedopholia and just recently a Labour Party Councillor has been on trial accused of molesting a little boy. Yet I wouldn't even contemplate attempting to edit the Labour Party page to suggest they support paedophiles or encourage that kind of activity. It seems to me that people are more than willing to "pack out" the UKIP Wikipedia page, and all linked pages such as Roger Helmer with every single news story they can lay their hands on. Be it local or National news sources.

You wouldn't see this with regards to any other main political party so I ask. Why should it be acceptable for UKIP? (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

Styling of Ukip v. UKIP

The British press routinely refers to the party as Ukip, not UKIP, so why is this article presenting it as "UKIP"? 172.56.37.39 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Never mind: I see I was incorrect on that. While the Guardian uses Ukip, the BBC uses UKIP. 172.56.37.39 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

British standards generally use a mix where an acronym "recognizable as a word" is involved (thus "Aids" and not "AIDS") but where it is not a word, the acronym is kept as upper case ""HRH" and not "Hrh" etc.). Where the acronym is not a word but is pronounceable, some go one way, some the other, though many ("MIT") are very rarely mixed case. "UKIP" appears to mainly be in all upper case overall. Collect (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The BBC do absolutely mad things with capitalisation. On BBC News Online, I've actually seen "Wpcs" (as in Women Police Constables—back when they made a formal distinction between PCs and WPCs) which—if the BBC is following its own style—should be pronounceable (try it: it sounds like flatulence in Welsh). Wikipedia's Manual of Style insists on all caps for acronyms like UKIP (quite rightly in my mind). Tom Chivers at the Telegraph has a post about the writing of 'Ukip' under their style guide, incidentally. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah there is a lot of lazy journalism, especially from the BBC and the Grauniad. It is UKIP. Argovian (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drat - I was looking forward to calling Elizabeth II "Queen of the Uk". Collect (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, UKIP consistently refers to itself as UKIP, not Ukip or UKip. I did go through the article on 18 February 2014 and changed everything to UKIP with the rationale "Standardised Ukip and UKIP as UKIP (Party's preferred form) except in quotes and refs." Emeraude (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not lazy journalism, it's just an alternate style choice. It's not a big issue surely one way or the other, so long as this page is consistent within itself, ideally in line with what MOS suggests. N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And now The Guardian have a piece about why they style it "Ukip". We absolutley should continue following both the official usage of UKIP, which happens to match up with our own Manual of Style. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

POV tag, why

All the accusations of racism and comparisons to the BNP are undue in the lede and are a terrible breach of our neutrality policies. I am pretty sure that crap was not there a few weeks ago, so it needs to be removed then discussed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Crap"? "Removed then discussed"? I just posted a large explanation of why the lead is like it is and this is your best refutation, two sentences on how it is "crap" and must be removed before being discussed? Great job, man. Zozs (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Terrible breach of neutrality policies"? How's that? If something is described by reliable sources as whatever, we say so. How is that not neutral? You might argue about the sources (I'm sure you will), but if it swims, waddles and quacks it's a duck! "Undue in the lede"? Why? If a duck is a bird we say so in the first paragraph, not near the end (or nowhere). Emeraude (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Have removed tag as Zozs' "crap" is now gone. Emeraude, if you really think attacks from their political opponents belong there you should reconsider your involvement with political articles. 92.1.34.203 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this. There has been substantial discussion in the media about whether UKIP is a racist party. I am not saying that it is our job to say it is or isn't. But it is certainly our job to report what is: UKIP is a contentious party and is facing accusations of racism. I think bias has creeped in on this point. These aren't 'attacks from their political opponents' – it is serious media coverage. Including a balanced selection of their coverage is vital. Not including that under the above reasoning actually jeopardises the neutrality of this article and does Wikipedia's audience a disservice. 5.65.239.37 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's only UKIP opponents who call it racist. Even then, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have all refused to call Farage a racist or UKIP a racist party.--Flexdream (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Only UKIP opponents"???? You mean the vast majority of the population?? Everyone who votes for or supports any other party? Get real. The fact that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have refused to call Farage racist could be because they're scared of him or UKIP, or it may be because they do not consider him racist; neither explanation makes him or UKIP not racist. You might, though, have pointed out that numerous other politicians have said UKIP is racist, but you chose not to! Indeed, a number of commentators have said that Farage is not racist, even though they say the party itself is. All of which rather misses the point: the purpose of this discussion is not to decide whether Farage or UKIP is or is not racist - that's not our job - but to consider whether or not the POV tag should be at the head of the page. Emeraude (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

UKIP differs from the other parties in that it has no support in reliable sources. Neutrality does not require that we exclude their opinions just because they happen to view UKIP unfavorably. TFD (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should well-sourced information about the UKIP having been widely accused of being a racist party in the media be mentioned in the lead?

Several scholar sources qualified the UKIP as a far-right party, though others disagree. Should that be given a mention in the lead? (not the infobox, which a previous discussion was about)

For example it could look like this:

UKIP's proposed immigration policy has been criticised. The party has been accused of racism, of being a fundamentally racist party and/or having racist candidates by a variety of sources. The party has denied being racist. Nigel Farage launched a campaign to attempt to clear the party of the "racist" label. The party has also been qualified as "far-right" by a number of publications.

Zozs (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Collect already went through those sources, [7] According to him they are misrepresented. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- the reliable sources support a claim that a Labour minister member of a "cross-party group" said the UKIP was running a "racist campaign" and that a poll showed 27% of those polled said the UKIP was "racist" (albeit with no definition of the term), The rest are mainly opinion sources, or sources iterating the same information. The material is then presented in an inflammatory and non NPOV manner designed to have Wikipedia's voice be used to denounce a group, whether it be truly evil or not. The "far right" bit was discussed here at great length in the past, and revisiting it here after the matter had an apparent consensus is not a great idea. Collect (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That was about the infobox though, which is completely different. If several reliable publications qualify the UKIP as far-right it should definitely be mentioned. Zozs (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Comment I think, in fairness, Zozs has since changed some of these citations. Still, I was unhappy to see what seemed a blatant POV-pushing exercise (I say this as an entirely neutral party) - not only was much of the material Zozs originally imposed WP:UNDUE in the lead section, but also a good deal of it grievously misrepresented the sources which it cited. I notice the version Zozs is now presenting is the version after I had cut some of the most grievous POV material. While some of the material *perhaps* should be considered, maybe for the body of the article rather than its lead, I do suggest that Zozs has clearly demonstrated their inability to edit this article according to WP:NPOV so I would oppose their taking part in that process. Alfietucker (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to comment that, having edited on other articles with you recently, it is unlikely that you are "an entirely neutral party" in this. Your edit history attests to potentially Islamophobic edits on Sharia patrols (London) and Anjem Choudary, as well as other edits on related articles such as the English Defence League. I would not usually hold a user to their edits in this way, but to accuse another editor of failing to meet WP:NPOV is hypocritical and ridiculous --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, excuse me - since when has it been a crime to edit these articles? And can you actually point to where I have made "Islamophobic edits"? Have you actually looked at my editing history to establish such a thing? I suggest you should not be so ready to jump to conclusions on so hasty and ungrounded a basis. And do you seriously dispute what I have observed about Zozs' edits in this article today? Alfietucker (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And since when is editing an article like I did a crime? Obviously something has to be improved by others after originally being submitted. Thank you for your contributions to my paragraph, Alfietucker. Zozs (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for your appreciation; that doesn't entirely remove my actual objection, is that you attempted to impose your material without discussion or even any attempt amendment, despite my editing comments as I cut or removed them, here and here. This seemed to me the opening moves of an WP:Edit war rather than a collaborative process. If you mean by your latest message that you are now open for such a collaboration, then I am happy to give you another chance - though as far as I'm concerned you have been shown the yellow card. Alfietucker (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair you did the exact same (don't start with rhetoric now to attempt to prove it was different), though I think you may be right about removing the poll from the lead, but I think it may still be good for the comparisons with the BNP to be there. But sure, I can accept a compromise and I requested for comment because I want the article to be exactly like consensus wants it to be. Zozs (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"To be fair you did the exact same" - nope, as per my previous reply to you. Just to spell it out, there's a difference between my cutting material - as opposed to deleting the whole lot - with comments why I was doing so, and your reverting in an attempt to reinstate the whole lot with just an amend of the poll sentence which had blatantly misrepresented its source. Now let's move on, please. Alfietucker (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Per [[8]], although that administrator used the word racist, rather than Islamophobic. I would happily be convinced otherwise though, and yes, I have looked through a few hundred of your edits and haven't seen any edits to the contrary --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If that is the best you can come up with, then you should have seen I thoroughly refuted that accusation in that same discussion. If you want to pursue this line further, I suggest you do so on my talk page rather than here where this matter is irrelevant. I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by "haven't seen any edits to the contrary" to start with. Alfietucker (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in taking it further. There are plenty of editors on here who seem to hold different political beliefs to me and that is perfectly okay. It was your accusation that the user Zozs was editing from WP:NPOV, along with you saying that you were a neutral party, that I felt needed challenging. Otherwise, you are right, this matter is irrelevant --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I have mixed feelings concerning this. Although they have been widely accused of racism, I would be wary as to include it in the lede. That said, the accusation of racism is something that comes up repeatedly. UKIP share similar rhetoric to racist parties such as the BNP, using the same scare tactics regarding immigration (something that is in itself complicated) and a BNP candidate actually complained of UKIP that "They've stolen our policies... and now they've stolen our slogan". It would be difficult to judge until the party actually has some significant policies though, what with Farage claiming that the previous manifesto is being rewritten. All of that said, I don't think UKIP are quite extreme enough to warrant that in the lede. I would definitely support a section focusing exclusively on the racism controversies though, as it is something that repeatedly comes up regarding the party, and I am open to be persuaded otherwise --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The far right discussion has been done to death on the talk page, and it was agreed to leave the description as "right". The main reason the "cross party" thing and racism accusations should not be added at all is that we are dealing with politics - it is in the nature of politics that mud is slung and politicians are critical of other politicians. Including every thrust and parry is not appropriate for a page about a political party. Certainly not in the run up to an election! Wait until after the election and review the appropriateness of what material to include from this EU election after the dust has settled - events should be given due weight and this one election should not be allowed to dominate the page of a party that has been in existence for over 20 years. 137.222.207.11 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

137.222.207.11 - just to politely point out that this discussion is about what is going into the lead. If you wish to object to the material you have just deleted, I suggest you at least don't confuse the issue here and open a new topic on this page. Alfietucker (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are inserting citations that are being discussed in this talk discussion - part of the discussion is whether they are appropriate at all, and the content in the page is related to what is in the lead. Clearly this discussion is directly relevant to your edits, and you should not make unilateral changes with such controversial content - content that IS being discussed here. What is the hurry? Why not wait till the discussion is done? 137.222.207.11 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would still suggest starting a new section for that specific removal. It makes it easier for uninvolved users to comprehend the discussion and contribute --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose In lead, and in body as it includes material not supported by the reliable sources named, and incudes some material from sources which are not RS for claims of fact. I would note the "racist" term appears in the current body, and this is thus duplication of material properly cited and sourced, and this proposal then adds material which was discussed in the past and found wanting in weight for use in this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you twice before (see above) which you regard as not being reliable sources: BBC News, Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News, CBC News, politics.co.uk plus several academic books and journals? (I'm in two minds on Huffington post.) Emeraude (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I had thought I had made it clear -- HuffPo and some others are purely "editorial opinion" and not usable as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. The reliable sources do support ([9] indeed specifies) virtually all media outlets reporting that the campaign had been "branded 'racist'". Which indeed it had by the Labour Party. Which is not the claim asserted in your proposal. The lagniappe addition of sources for "far right" is a real problem, especially since we have had discussions that they are far more generally called "right wing" and this insertion implies that it is generally called "far-right." To conform with policy we would have to add "some sources call it centre-right, while most call it right-wing'" Something of this sort might be used in some articles in the body of an article, but for use in the lead, it fails miserably, especially since it conveys no added information to the reader. Lavelle mentions UKIP only en passant -- with a lot of text on the BNP and none on UKIP. The single sentence mention looks far more like the result of "google search for anything at all" than a serious claim made by an academic. Gunlick (same google search, it appears) also mentions UKIP in only a single sentence. And Margetts -- clearly the same "find anything google search" -- one lone sentence. It is disingenuous for us to claim "academic sources" where the sources use "UKIP" in single en passant sentences in lengthy tomes. And the cbc? Single sentence use, implies that all "anti-EU" parties are "far right" (which is debatable as a claim of fact - "far-right, anti-EU parties are likely to pose a major challenge" seems to connect the two attributes entirely ) and nothing more to support a quite over-broad claim for the body, and insignificant for the lead. Collect (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So just to be absolutely clear, you are saying that BBC News, The Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News and politics.co.uk are not reliable sources? (And a correction, I have not made any proposal.) Emeraude (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think he is saying that opinion pieces, which many of these are, can be problematic to use as sources for controversial inclusions on wikipedia pages - particularly politically motivated opinion pieces. I agree with this and based on your previous comments I think you do too. Atshal (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that he could be saying that, but he started by saying the sources were non-RS. Only later did he suggest that some of the sources were being misused. He still has not said that they reliable sources. This remains unclear and leaves the suspcio that the objection is because he doesn't like what they say, rather than their (non-)reliability. Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Having edited on this article for a month or so now, I'm fairly sure you are right about that Emeraude --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose User:Collect has done the work I was about to do. Neutrality between two views is neutrality (although that is not to say that the majority view should not receive more weight than a significant minority view, which may, for example, be the view of the article's subject). We are to exercise special care over issues that implicate NPOV, especially when they involve contentious labels as they do here. For these labels, op-eds, blogs, and sources with political leanings should be avoided. When labels like racist are made, attribution is encouraged. Thus, it is sufficient to include an opinion of someone notable like David Cameron, but not in the lead in this case. In addition, NYT states that linking the party with far-right and racist sympathies is a move particularly done by critics on the political left. On balance, I do not find it appropriate for the lead here.

I also encourage caution with the far-right label (which does not seem to be the main subject of this discussion), per NYT above. There is space between center-right and far-right (e.g., hard-right parties, and many national conservative, national liberal, and right-populist parties), despite the fact that many commentators are quick to make this leap. --Precision123 (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The article should have a section about what kind of party they are and could cut back on the various policies they support. That would be a good place to describe allegations of racism. Until it is in the article, I do not think it should be added to the lead. The alleged racism is probably subtle rather than overt. But that is already in the lead. It says it is a "Eurosceptic" party. TFD (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to tell if they are a racist party or are simply appropriating the rhetoric of racist parties to pick up votes. They have disowned their 2010 manifesto (the one that included plans for the London Underground's Circle line to be changed so it was shaped like a circle again) and that leaves the party with little substance to criticise. I certainly feel less safe with that finger pointing down at me from their billboards. I agree that it deserves a section though, allegations of racism come up frequently enough, and we have plenty of sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Time may tell how extreme they are. TFD (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Party Membership Figures

There appears to be disagreements between editors on this page over acceptable sources for party membership figures (something I have not edited and am not involved with). I think we should have a discussion about this to stop the endless edit/revert cycle. The issue of contention is whether party published figures for membership are acceptable sources for membership, or whether only independent third party sources are acceptable.

My opinion on this is that, since the only source for party membership figures are the party itself, that party published figures are acceptable. All the third party sources quote the party published figures, so anything in the Guardian/BBC/Sky etc. is only as good as the original source, which is the party itself. Whether or not these figures are accurate is not the question - it is whether the figures are verifiable. There is no independent third party source for party membership figures. Look at the membership figures for other major parties - every time the source quotes directly the figures published by the party. If we require an independent third party source, then we should not include the party membership at all (something I am not averse to, as it is a constantly changing and not especially important figure in my opinion)

I am also of the opinion that this figure should appear on the info box on the right, and nowhere else in the article. Currently the membership figure is in the lead, and quite possibly elsewhere on the page.

To summarise, I believe there are two options:

Do not include party membership anywhere on the page, since third party verification does not exist.

OR

Include membership and use source directly from UKIP, which all other sources are based on.

Atshal (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who is not aware, this has been discussed here before. (See archive pages.) The gist is fairly well covered in the previous comments. There are all sorts of reasons why the figures given by any party cannot be unquestioningly accepted (they're politicians, for a start!) and that is why, within the text of the article, it has been usual to say something like "UKIP claims 12,345 members". The numbers can't be verified and we are not blindly accepting them or endorsing them, but the claim can be verified. The problem with infoboxes, despite their eminent usefulnes, is that there is no space to make such qualifications; what goes there must be brief and sourced to independent sources, which rules out UKIP (or whatever party). It's a fact that newspapers suffer the same problem, but we can at least use them as a reliable source! So, if The Times says "UKIP membership has grown to 23,4500" we can assume that The Times has got its figure from UKIP, but it has at least found it plausible enough to give it its blessing. That rather lets us off the hook.

Membership figures must be covered in articles on political parties somewhere, otherwise a party with two members can be as prominent as one with millions. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to wait until another organisation quotes the figures - the media takes figures from all the major parties at face value, simply citing a newspaper article that does this, does not make the figure any more or less reliable. My vote would be to have the membership figures in the info box, with a citation from UKIP (the only source for such figures) and not to mention the membership figures elsewhere in the page. Atshal (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course, if you want to believe everything that UKIP says. Presumably you would also blindly accept membership figures from other groups that have a vested interest in presenting inflated numbers. I'm reminded that the National Front in the 1970s regularly described itself as Britain's fastest growing party - it wasn't, and everyone knew it wasn't. There needs to be some measure of quality control here as elsewhere, and blindly accepting any political party's statements is simply presenting a platform for their claims with our endorsement. In this specific case (UKIP), they have already been caught out with lies in their election leaflets and their campaign director (or whatever his title is now) is a proven "liar and a cheat". Caution, caution, caution. Emeraude (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY does caution against this kind of thing, so I support Emeraude's position. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the sources used are just quotes from the primary source of UKIP. Other organisation quoting the UKIP webpage, or saying "UKIP claims to have xxx members" does not make the primary UKIP source more reliable or more verifiable. It seems silly to quote the BBC quoting UKIP, when we could just quote UKIP directly. Either we treat the figures as reliable to include on the page, or we don't include them at all. Atshal (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There are more than just these two alternatives. Emeraude (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporters are able to assess sources and determine whether they are accurate. We cannot do that. In this case it is suggested that because a reliable source confirmed the accuracy of UKIP's figures, we can rely on any statement made by UKIP about their membership numbers. TFD (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS are core elements of Wikipedia and should be respected. (Although I note WP:PRIMARY allows some leeway.) Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree about the secondary source criteria. What do people also think about restricting membership info to the info box, rather than having a blow by blow account of membership changes, as seems to be regularly added/deleted by various users? I don't see the purpose of having a section detailing every announcement of membership figures by UKIP every couple of weeks. Atshal (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you write about a political party and never mention its membership? Any figures given in the text should be subject to the same criteria for reliablity as in the infobox. I do agree that regularly updating figures from dubious, or at least, non-reliable sources is wrong, as was the table of month-by-month stats that I deleted a while back, but there must be some figure given. Emeraude (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Cross-party campaign against UKIP

I started a new section under this heading in the article, only to have it removed by an IP who has since become scarce - though both another editor and myself invited them to start a new discussion about this. It seems to me the cross-company campaign widely announced in the press is a legitimate subject: no doubt what I wrote could be improved, and I would welcome this - but to have it removed altogether seems to me unwarranted. Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point, it seems primarily to have been a Labour press campaign which has not caught hold in the population. Such "campaigns" are announced with great fanfare, and then melt away - giving it much weight past a sentence would be improper at this point. Collect (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you determine this less than two weeks after it was launched? And as it is, we don't even have a sentence on it in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Alas - find me actual on-going coverage of the "campaign." So far, only the initial PR material seems to be around, which means it was quite likely - PR material. And precious little indication that it is "cross party" other than in name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't have its own section. The article is already weighed hugely towards the current European Election and the events surrounding it. Most parties run campaigns like this towards others, Labour have also run campaigns against the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats recently (in fact, I was just watching a Labour broadcast criticising Nick Clegg last night) My point is, having an entire subsection based on this is undue weight, it deserves a sentence in a relevant section at best --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To include a full two paragraph section on this campaign against UKIP seems to violate WP:recedentism WP:notnews and undue. If it should be included, it should rather be a sentence or two in the past 2013 history section. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with others. It's too soon to view this campaign as notable. If it proves to have legs, we can cover it, but our default isn't to cover everything and see what lasts, it's to wait until events prove their notability. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I see your points, but rather wonder if it's significant that such a campaign, backed by Migration Matters Trust, has been thought necessary (due, apparently, to UKIP's apparent rise in support measured by the polls mentioned in the sources). For now I'll certainly hold fire until I see more media attention or some further news breaking over this. Alfietucker (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's probably best. What we have is parties opposed to UKIP opposing UKIP. Er..., that's just politics as normal. The fact that there has been some announcement that the parties opposing UKIP oppose UKIP is the only event; what has come of it or will come of it is just business as usual. Emeraude (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to include anything about a cross party campaign against UKIP. This is just electioneering in the run up to the EU election. This page is about UKIP, not about the 2014 EU election, so there is no need to have anything about this in my opinion. Atshal (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Though I agree with many of the statements here, I think it is worth mentioning the ongoing campaign against UKIP organised by the UAF and, reportedly the SWP as well Kezzer16 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Would we also be reporting the contents of the campaign by Unite Against Fascism and HOPE not hate and the issues that they raised or just the matter that they campaigned against them? I don't know if we all want to go through the "are UKIP far-right" debate again but including information about the protesting by anti-fascist groups in article would be suggestive of this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to integrate these different threads -- questions about whether UKIP is far-right, embarrassing racist claims by certain candidates, cross-party or UAF campaign -- into one succinct piece of text? Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the issue of whether UKIP is "far-right" or not as been pretty much done to death, perhaps it would just be best to mention that the UAF/SWP has a campaign going on against UKIP. Kezzer16 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My point was, if we were to discuss this campaign, we should also list some of what their issues with the party are. This is linked to the content that has been removed concerning the racism controversy as well as the far-right issue. We can't just say two anti-fascist groups campaigned against UKIP without at showing why these groups felt such a campaign was necessary. Otherwise it would not be giving the issue due weight. It fits in the tone of an article like the British National Party to just state outright that Unite Against Fascism and HOPE not hate have campaigned against them, but not the one that currently exists for UKIP. Maybe a section can be structured that combines both the racism controversies and the campaign by UAF and HNH? Otherwise it would read like UKIP are a perfectly moderate political party that anti-fascist groups regularly lobby against which is hugely confusing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know this is just my opinion but, I think the term "anti-fascist" is applied too liberally in this day and age. I would not class UAF as "anti-fascist"; UAF attacks political organisations it doesn't agree with, it just so happens that arguably Fascist organisations are one type political organisation it disagrees with. Though I don't necessarily agree with UKIP, I do happen to believe that they are a perfectly moderate political party that 'anti-fascist' groups regularly lobby against. The problem with making a comment about racism controversies would be the fact that it may blow the issue out of proportion and ignore the fact that Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories all have controversial characters, but we do not see much of those. Kezzer16 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Previous so full of personal and contentious opinion as to be practically worthless in this discussion Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal and contentious opinion is littered throughout the discussion and throughout wikipedia. The fact that you disagree with my position does not, in itself, make it "worthless in this discussion". Kezzer16 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, Unite Against Fascism is an anti-fascist group. Anyway, this is all independent research, take the discussion of UAF to the UAF page. While UKIP are clearly not a fascist party, their previous manifesto and the comments of party members show that they are anything but moderate. The fact that you and some other editors see the racism controversies as blown out of proportion but the fact that political groups felt the need to make them as hugely relevant to inclusion is questionable. Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy against UKIP specifically and that this is more relevant to the article than the racism controversies that would make up such a conspiracy? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drowninginlimbo. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is, we do not make a judgement on a political party based on previous manifestos or past major policies. If we did we would be changing the Labour party's wiki page to "pro-war" or "interventionist" for starting two major conflicts. In regards to statements made or actions committed, are you aware of the Lib Dem councillor convicted of racially aggrevated assault? Or the Lib Dem councillor imprisoned on terrorism charges? Or the Lib Dem councillor charged for child sex offences? Do we say the Lib Dems an extreme political party based on these grounds? I would assume No. I do not assert a conspiracy, but I do make mention of a seeming double-standard. You need to demonstrate that UKIP is extreme, if you truely believe that it is. Kezzer16 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well no, you're right that this was a few years ago, and I understand that the party is going through a substantial rebranding [10] change in policy, but there isn't much else to go on. This is starting to go off topic anyway so we should get back to the matter at hand. Do you still think we should include information about the campaigns by groups like Unite Against Fascism and HOPE not hate and if so, do you think we should detail the content of these campaigns, and what it is the groups are saying? [11] [12] If so, I don't think we should describe it as a multi-party conspiracy when many of these groups do act independently, and when you get so many different organisations and parties campaigning against a party, we should at least depict their concerns as substantial --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To use Kezzer16's words: Actually, "the fact of the matter is, we do not make..... judgement"s on a political party. This is an encyclopaedia, but what we write will be "based on previous manifestos or past major policies" simply because they are what defines a party. Emeraude (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Kezzer16: the Labour Party (UK) article does cover the Blair administration's wars and the controversy this caused. As for the comparison between certain individual LibDem councillors and certain individual UKIP councillors/candidates, the judgement is not up to us. The judgement is up the reliable sources we cite. We have reliable sources discussing UKIP as having a problem with the number of candidates saying unfortunate things. You, Kezzer16, may believe what you wish about a double standard, but editors' personal views are not used as a basis for editing Wikipedia. What reliable secondary sources say is. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope people don't mind of I interject into the conversation here. I am genuinely interesting in trying to make this page as neutral and high quality as possible, and generally do not have strong pro- or anti-UKIP feelings. I feel that making large numbers of edits in the run up to the EU elections are counter productive to the quality of the page. Clearly UKIP is getting massive coverage in the media and attention from other parties at the moment and there is plenty of potential material to include, but we have to be careful not to include any and all media/political coverage. UKIP is likely to poll as the largest party in the upcoming election, and the election is probably worth a small section of its own for this reason - but this section is far better written after the election, once the usual political sniping is over, and various implications of the result clear.

As such, I suggest that there is a moratorium on adding large amount of new material until after the election, which is only a couple of weeks away. Then we can reflect on an appropriate section on the election to add to the article. Perhaps this "cross party campaign" is worthy of inclusion, but only as part of the larger 2014 EU election story, which itself is only part of the history of UKIP. With the number of articles that are published each day (in excess of one per day in The Guardian alone) we run the risk of giving far too much weight to recent events. I see no particular urgency to add this material until we can have a better idea of the most relevant and useful material. Atshal (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Two recent news stories

Asking for opinions concerning the two most recent UKIP controversies.

• The first is the story of policemen asking blogger to remove negative tweet about UKIP. While this is certainly notable, I think we should maybe wait a few days or so for the story to run full course (because, naturally, there will be a "no we didn't... yes you did..." until there is definitive truth. Having read quite a few articles on this from both sides, as well as the bloggers information, I am leaning towards the evidence being that it happened. That said, I still think we should wait a few days. Police ask blogger to remove tweet about Ukip The Guardian, 2014.

• The second is the UKIP candidate suggesting that voter rights should be changed quote from UKIP candidate Magnus Nielsen, who is running for a council seat in north London, and this is definitely verifiable. He is quoted as saying "I sometimes think the people who fought for the vote in 1832 and 1888 and so forth, trying to extend the franchise were probably doing the wrong thing. Generally speaking when you start taking things away, or threatening to take things away, people start clamouring and say they really want it. I think maybe we should start reducing the franchise." Although the story has been reported as such, he isn't specifically referring to the suffrage, but the limitation of voters rights is still a strange policy to make. Ukip candidate: 'Take away the right to vote to improve election turnout The Independent, 2014.

I have the feeling that the police story in particular is going to be expanded upon in the next few days. What are other editors opinions? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Members saying or doing stupid things is typical for this type of party. I like the approach taken at Reform Party of Canada#Public controversies regarding Reform's policies. (Reform was a right-wing populist party that merged with the Progressive Conservative Party before Wikipedia began, hence it is not based on daily news reports.) Instead of listing all the incidents, it uses a reliable source to identify the issue, then provides some illustrations. TFD (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the approach taken there too, there is certainly a pattern appearing with these controversies (mostly relating to issues of race, nationality and sexuality) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• A third story from just now concerning young UKIP member Sanya-Jeet Thandi feeling the party has descended into racist populism - "A prominent British Asian supporter of Ukip has announced that she is leaving the party on the grounds that it has descended into a terrifying "form of racist populism". Prominent British Asian Ukip supporter quits over 'racist populism' --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any of this making the article. It all seems to be barely news, while I can see the police tweet one theoretically gaining traction, as the police have suggested between the lines that the (overwhelmingly biased) bloggers account of the visit is wrong, it doesn't seem likely. This just seems to be newspapers campaigning politically, unless any of the three individuals involved get their own wiki page, I don't think any of it is notable enough for wiki, certainly not this article. I'm not exactly happy with the way these things are being listed on the talk page. The police scandal? https://www.google.co.uk/#q=ukip+%22police+scandal%22&tbm=nws only returns a blogspot, in which the phrase 'police scandal' is talking about something entirely unrelated. 92.1.34.203 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why look at a Google search blog when the first paragraph above gives a link to the article inThe Guardian? Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just putting news stories forward for debate and collecting potential future sources, but if you would like me to change the titles, I will do so. You will find most of these stories were widely reported, not just in "left wing newspapers". Do you have anything to say other than WP:JDLI? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's a better idea to calm down for a while now that the elections will be going on and atleast not start edit wars whether a single member resigning from the party is notable or not. The media buzz seems to have a climax right about now, literally every time I check the front page of the Guardian there is always something about the UKIP. So instead of going on with the election fever and add a news story to the article every day it's probably better to stick to an adequate, stable version. --Pudeo' 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Race row erupts after Brent UKIP candidate slates Muslims in ranting email - "Heino Vockrodt, who is standing for the Dudden Hill seat on May 22, accused Muslims of grooming sex slaves, compared a Willesden road to war torn Helmand Province and claimed Islam was an ideology not a religion." Race row erupts after Brent UKIP candidate slates Muslims in ranting email Brent and Kilburn Times, 2014 --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet more stories today - this time about UKIP members apparently paying for prominent positions on the EU election lists and a UKIP candidate getting a brick through his window and claiming this is politically motivated. There is going to be at least one of these stories per day until the election, given the nature UKIPs role in this election. I say we hold off adding this mass of stories until after the election, when we can have a better idea of what is notable and construct a succinct paragraph or two summarising this election. Atshal (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You might consider a "Timeline of the EU elections (UK)" article. Then you list all these things without violating neutrality. Two articles might be useful for comparison. The Tea Party movement was built from daily news reports and is a POV nightmare while the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal has attracted few edit disputes. And of course the Reform Party of Canada is a good example of how to write a neutral article. Unfortunately the same types of sources are not available for topics in the news. TFD (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Whether they win or not the events leading up to this election have been highly significant in the parties history, and I believe there is a good chance that the Guardian at least will write a "UKIP in the Timeline of the EU elections" article among others. In fact, if they do win, there will possibly be a book or two written on the topic. Unless something very important and controversial comes up, most likely the actions of Farage himself (as he seems to be the only party member who is not excused for his actions as "part of the old UKIP"), we should we careful adding new content to the article. Given the climate in my area at least, tensions are going to keep increasing as the date draws closer, and we will see more and more news stories appearing up to the election --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Another article concerning the opinions of a UKIP candidate - My rivals should be hanged for treason, says Ukip candidate [13] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The repealing Human Rights Act would not remove the UK from the Council of Europe and thus the ECHR

> UKIP wants to repeal the Human Rights Act and thereby remove Britain from the European Court of Human Rights.

This is wrong because the membership of the Court is not governed by the HRA, but rather by the European Convention on Human Rigths. It would be better to remove the "thereby".

79.76.246.149 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) jfc

Sounds reasonable, I see no reason not to make that change. Check the source backs up what the new sentence says and go ahead and make the change. Atshal (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The UK was subject to the Court before the HRA. In fact, there were very many famous Court cases, such as Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, which legalized homosexuality in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. Renren8123 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Voter base

The article generally lacks detail on members and supporters (I'm thinking sociological/demographic detail here). There is an interesting article in The Guardian today ("Ukip poll finds fans of Farage more likely to feel alienated and angry") based on a survey that ought to be useful in updating what is in the Voter base section. And then, of coure, there is Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin's book, Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Routledge, 2014), which I'm personally saving for holiday reading. Emeraude (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian a preferred source on the UKIP? Yes, much like the Daily Telegraph is the ideal source on the Labour Party. But seriously, wording like the "fans of Farage" isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia so the results of the survey, if inserted, should probably be without that kind of third party editorialism. --Pudeo' 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We do not deal with "preferred source"s but reliable sources. The Guardian is a reliable source in its reporting. And yes, The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source for reporting on the Labour Party. In any case, it's the survey that would be the source, not The Guardian's headline reporting of it. Emeraude (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Scotland

Scottish Community Councils are strictly non-political, thus there are no Ukip Community Councillors. Dubh-Iolare (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

They may be politically of no great significance, but they do have elected members. However, the link in the article supposedly claiming UKIP representation is dead (as is much of UKIP's website) and I have tagged it as such. Emeraude (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

legally candidates cannot stand on a party-political ticket, so any claim by UKIP to have elected Community Councillors is false. Dubh-Iolare (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with you removing it, especially since the claim appears to be unsupported in the first place. Atshal (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an "established user" or whatever so I'm not able to change it, Could someone do it for me?Dubh-Iolare (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed due to lack of working links, and CCs requirement to be non-political --Saalstin (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit hasty! Where is the evidence that Community Councils have to be non-political? How can any elected body be non-political? If councillors are elected as members of UKIP how can they be non-political? It's a bit like saying that CCs cannot be elected on the basis of their race and therefore there are no black councillors!! The article said "UKIP has elected councillors on a number of Scottish community councils" which appears a straightforward matter of fact - some of the Community Council elected councillors are members of UKIP, regardless of what's meant to happen (if it's the case they should be "non-political" - still not shown). Of course, the fact that we have no evidence that UKIP does have CC members rather negates all of this.... Emeraude (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

According to angus.gov.uk, a community council has a role & responsibility (g) to be non party political in all its activities. Aberdeenshire.gov.uk describes community councils as "non party political". falkirk.gov.uk says community councils should always act in a non political manner. The Association of Scottish Community Councils says under the Act they have to be non party-political. No, I really wouldn't call agreeing that they have a requirement to be non party political "a bit hasty". There may be members elected who happen to be members of UKIP, but this doesn't mean they were elected as UKIP (indeed, it appears this would be unlawful) --Saalstin (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Even though acronym may be more often used, there is clear consensus that due consistency and clarity issues the move is not warranted. (non-admin closure) Staberinde (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

UK Independence Party → UKIP – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the party is almost exclusively referred to as UKIP rather than its full formal title (on the BBC site for instance, UKIP is used 148,000 times and UK Independence Party fewer than 10,000 times, with most of the primary hits being for the party's election broadcasts, which I think have to use the official name). Number 57 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per COMMONNAME and the fact that there own website uses UKIP virtually everywhere. Wait a minute, that's now in my browser history? Bugger. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per COMMONNAME. 92.15.61.75 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party, Social Democratic and Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Social Democratic Party (UK), British National Party. I'd suggest that all of those are more commonly cited by their initials than their full name. This applies internationally as well - Bharatiya Janata Party, Social Democratic Party of Germany, African National Congress, again are more commonly the BJP, SPD and ANC.

Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, consistency and recognisability would seem to favour UK Independence Party or United Kingdom Independence Party over UKIP, and I don't think the other three criteria swing it the other way. I can see the case by COMMONNAME, but I think it can be taken too far. Kahastok talk 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• • @Kahastok: The difference between UKIP and all the parties above is that "UKIP" is spoken as a word, whilst the others all have their initials read out – i.e. it is not U.K.I.P, but "Ukip". Number 57 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't view the distinction you draw as significant, particularly in a written medium. Kahastok talk 09:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Why? One is a word, the others are acronyms. Number 57 09:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
        • No. "UKIP" is an acronym for "United Kingdom Independence Party". I'm afraid I considered that to be obvious? It's pronounced as a word, sure, but as I say, I don't see that as a significant enough difference to justify deviating from the established practice, particularly in a written medium. Kahastok talk 11:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have some sympathy for the common name argument, but I think Kahastok makes a lot of good points above. "UK Independence Party" has very common usage and I do not think changing to UKIP adds any additional clarity to the article. Atshal (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so a search of the BBC site is not a good test. Googling "UKIP" produces 8.74 M results, "UK Independence Party" 87.7 M and "United Kingdom Independence Party" 44.3 M. What's the "common name" now? Ground Zero | t 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ground Zero: I think you may have messed up your search (perhaps by not including quote marks around your latter two searches). I get the 8.7m for "UKIP", but only 1.2m for "UK Independence Party" and 254,000 for "United Kingdom Independence Party". Number 57 08:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You are correct - I made that error. However, on the basis of clarity and for the sake of the international audience, I continue to oppose the move. Ground Zero | t 08:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • On what grounds is clarity an issue? What else could UKIP be? As for the international audience, it's fairly clear from articles like this that UKIP is the widely known name. Number 57 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per COMMONNAME, more often than not the media uses the phrase UKIP as opposed to UK Independence Party plus the fact that UKIP themselves use the acronym much more frequently than the full length version Guyb123321 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The party name is commonly referred to as 'UK Independence Party ". That is the most common name people use in general discussion, and is the usual name used in the first instance by journalists. A name change would be a terrible precedent given, for example, 'LibDems' and " SNats' doktorb _words^deeds 19:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's just untrue. All the evidence provided so far shows that the party is commonly referred to as UKIP. Number 57 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless we also move Conservative Party to Tories, British National Party to BNP, Social Democratic and Labour Party to SDLP, etc etc etc..... This is an encyclopaedia - we should not be guided by what the media writes nor by what common usage does but by what is correct. Emeraude (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per reasons given above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, ditto. Argovian (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. More clear if not abbreviated. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
• Support per common name. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as Kahastok said --Gdhgfgfh (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok and Emeraude. This is quite a different case to other acronyms which are used as article titles on WP: for example, how many people could expand NASA? That organisation's full name is barely used, but UK Independence Party is in quite common usage. BethNaught (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok & Emeraude - Pointless having acronyms - UK Independence Party is just fine!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Kahastok. If we think acronyms should be used, then the correct approach would be to change the naming conventions for political parties, rather than argue on each article. TFD (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok. This change is unnecessary. If people look for UKIP or link that abbreviation in writing a Wikipedia article, they will find this article. If the party officially dropped the expansion of its name to use the initialism only, I could support this move, but that hasn't happened. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't do this for any other parties whose name forms an acronym and is rarely said in full. The official name of the party concerned is the "UK Independence Party", not "UKIP", not "Ukip", not "ukip" and not "United Kingdom Independence Party". If people search "UKIP" wikipedia takes them to this page as does google. No need for a change at all unless the party officially changes it's name, even then an acronym as an article title isn't standard practice. Owl In The House (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I thought I'd correct some of the misconceptions about the "official" name repeated above. The Party's official name, according to the Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties, is "UK Independence Party (UKIP)" in English, and "Plaid Annibyniaeth y DU (UKIP)" in Welsh. "UK Independence Party", "United Kingdom Independence Party" and "UKIP", while registered as alternative descriptions, are not the official primary name. Of course, just because a name has official status doesn't mean that we are obliged to use it for the article title, and I don't think the information I've presented here changes consensus on the move discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

Diff here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK_Independence_Party&diff=prev&oldid=609743245

Comment says "appears a political rant" - of course it is as it is the UKIP manifesto. But it gives the information needed part way down the page, from the official UKIP site, and is the obvious place to go, seems to me, to find what their policy is on this topic. Surely it is best to refer to material produced by the party itself saying what their position is rather than material from other sites reporting what their position is? And the other refs didn't say what their position is on human rights. Or am I missing something?

I can't imagine a better ref to cite than a party's manifesto, when referring to their policies.

I have no connection with UKIP and have totally no wish at all to promulgate their views. Actually was researching because they are the main opposition to the Green party MEP in the current elections in Scotland, who I support in this election. Robert Walker (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You added a footnote, "The European Court of Human Rights – which the Lisbon Treaty forces all EU member states to sign up to – still wants to give prisoners the vote. It also prevents convicted terrorists from being deported. UKIP will leave the EU and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Parliament should decide fairer human rights laws - UKIP Manifesto 2014." "forces" is an odd phrasing. If one freely enters into an agreement, whether a treaty or contract, it is odd to say one is "forced" to perform actions to which one has agreed. The treaty does not prevent the deportation of terrorists, but merely requires that persons convicted of terrorism be treated the same as any alien convicted of criminality. The U.K. does not deport people when they face torture or the death penalty. It implies too that the existing right to vote and human rights laws are unfair.

Primary sources are not good sources for organizations, except for non-controversial information.

TFD (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My fault for not explaining properly - I was not suggesting the editor was guilty of a "political rant" in his editing. I think TFD has explained the objection to primary sources, which we do need to use, but to quote them entirely uncritically is to risk endorsing what they say, however far that may be from the intention, and to accept that what they say is correct. In this case, there are so many errors of basic fact that to quote is totally inappropriate: to take just a simple example, "enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable" - there is absolutely nothing in the Human Rights Convention that stops any state from doing that providing human rights issues are considered; neither does the EU have such restrictions. Indeed, police forces in member states may request criminal records on any person for three months after arriving from their home state and EU rules specifically permit their expulsion if deemed not conducive to the public good or national security. (Of course, if UK withdraws from Europol as the government keeps threatening this can't happen!) Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

UPDATE PARTY MEMBERSHIP

UPDATE UP TO ELECTION RESULTS 2014 94.175.50.0 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The final Council election results are still being counted, and European election results will be announced tomorrow. I think people have wisely refrained from making premature edits before the full results are in. Rest assured, the results will be included once they are announced. Atshal (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

He wants the page updated to reflect the recent election results. This will be done when the election results are announced. 5.71.92.204 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Local Councillors

Has the Infobox been updated to reflect the increased number of local UKIP councillors now these elections are over?Guyb123321 (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. See section above. The figures show an addition of 161 seats; however, I wouldn't rely on them, because they do not include any seats that UKIP may have lost, the edit was made beofre all results were properly published, and updating requires a definitive reliable source, and none is given. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

Should add Stuart Wheeler as a registered officer of the party (Treasurer) in the opening summary. Titusthomasacb (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article.
The only mention of Stuart Wheeler on the page is that he gave a donation, and the reference says nothing about him being Treasurer of the party - Arjayay (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since when has a Wikipedia article mentioning or not mentioning someone been a criteria for whether such an inclusion is made?? According to the Electoral Commission's searchable database, the party treasurer is John Stuart Wheeler, so there's the reliable source. Whether or not party treasurers should be inclusded in infoboxes is another issue. Emeraude (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

London

I don't know where information like this should go and how to express it. Voter base is a good place to put it, and I'm sure that the other broadsheets have voiced their opinion that London is an anomaly in UKIP's results. And as this isn't a forum, don't debate me this - I already know they flopped in Manchester and Birmingham too. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if we could use that exactly, but maybe if you could find a political commentator commenting on UKIP don't do so well in major cities then it could be added in without people bringing up the possibility of straying into original research? The european elections in London did indicate some rise in support, around 10% if I remember from BBC News (I will look it up if needed), so I'm not sure how factor that in. I wouldn't say they 'flopped' as their vote share still went up in almost every area I believe. CH7i5 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also evidence that UKIP does badly in other cities (as opposed to the EP constituencies which contain them) but no definitive study has been done on this yet. It will happen, indeed BBC last night was breaking European constituency results down into parliamentary constituencies and there was an interesting pattern of support/non-support. Voter base would be the place to cover this but, I suggest, it's too soon. Emeraude (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify that, the breakdown was by local authority - European elections are counted by district council, some of which are similar/contiguous to national constituencies. Each council website contains the local results (e.g. Bristol, South Gloucestershire, West Somerset, all of which form part of the South West constituency). As you say, surely analysis on this data will be performed in short order --Saalstin (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A historic victory

"It is over 100 years since a national election has been won by a party other than the Conservatives and Labour." from the BBC [14] Somebody add this to the introduction, please. --Gdhgfgfh (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No. It should be "more than" not "over". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Except it's wrong. This was not a national election in the same sense; it is part of an international election. Wait until they win the general election next year........ Emeraude (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Except your bias against UKIP is obvious. It was an election held on national level. You can interpret it the way you desire. --Gdhgfgfh (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There's not bias for or against UKIP in what I wrote so if you can see some I can only surmise it's because of your bias for it, and you can interpret it the way you desire.... The fact remains, the election resuts (local councils and European) have made not the slightest bit of difference to the national political picture - there are still no UKIP MPs in the cabinet, no councils controlled by UKIP and no suggestion by any commentators that there will be any UKIP MPs in the next national election! Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are biased against UKIP, as evidenced by your editing history, and this affects your ability to be impartial in this article. In my opinion, the attitude of other editors towards the edits you make is coloured by this, hence why you seem to have so many problems with so many other editors on this page. You have no interest in producing an impartial article. Please don't pretend otherwise. Atshal (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, non-Brit here. Is this election not a nation wide election for international representation, not an international election for national representation. Ergo, the assertion in correct, yes? GraniteSand (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"National election" is a verifiable description from at least two reliable sources (e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-european-elections-political-earthquake as well as the source above). Hence this decription is acceptable for inclusion on this page, if editors choose to make this change. Atshal (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth adding that all articles I've read in the Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, & Independent emphasise that its much easier to win the EU elections than 1 or more seats at Westminster. This is partly because the UK first past the post electoral system is very much harder on 3rd parties than the EU elections. According to Tom Clark in the Guardian In repeated electoral cycles, Ukip – like other protest parties before it – has done far better in the European vote than in the subsequent general election whilst Michael White in the Guardian points out that Tory & Labour share of the votes increased -just the Lib-Dem vote collapsed. More than a little wp:Crystal would be needed to predict 2015 from this election & it is notable but cannot yet be described as historic. JRPG (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't debate any of this. But clearly these elections are significant on a national level - this is not my opinion but the opinion of every major news establishment in the country. Simply look on the front page of every broadsheet since the council/euro voting day. I am no particular fan of UKIP (never voted for them, likely never will) but the significance of these elections - both in UK and across Europe e.g. National Front in France - is hugely significant to the political picture in the UK and in Europe. This is the opinion not of me, of of multiple reliable and verifiable sources, hence why it is appropriate to be included in Wikipedia. It, of course, should be given due weight, and this is the debate we should be having. Atshal (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In a sense it is true they have won a nation wide election, but they won an election that very few people in the UK actually take seriously, and on to a body that in truth had very little actual power. I do not think it should go into the lead (wikipeida is not about news, but long term impact).Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1. The lead has what is important to the topic of the article, and clearly this election is considered highly important to the UKIP.

2. It appears that a quite large number of people voted, thus we can not assert that we "know" they did not take the election seriously.

3. No one has any idea abut "long term impact" of anything in a sense - what we must do is use what the reliable sources state.

The result is that eliding this material from the lead would be of nugatory value to readers, Collect (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You consider 34% a high turnout? it's almost half that voted in the last general election GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, given that UKIP received more votes than either of the two main parties there should be a mention somewhere. I object, though, to using newspaper hyperbole and describing it as "historic" (that can wait for real historians in the future) just as much as I would object to describing it as an "earthquake". (Did the earth move?) "Remarkable" perhaps? "Noteworthy"? Emeraude (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First -- 34% is a higher turnout than was anticipated, and second the victory was certainly "unpredicted" especially as to size and range. Collect (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember another famous protest vote, the Orpington by-election, 1962 and the ludicrous speculation about a Liberal government. Whilst I don't think for a minute it is an historic victory, our opinions don't matter, the simplest compromise solution may be to specifically attribute the word 'historic' to the those reliable sources which use it.JRPG (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the wording is accurate. It was an EU-wide election, not UK only. UKIP won 24 out of 751 seats. Compare with the wording of New Democratic Party (Canada)#Official Opposition, death of Jack Layton. The Party won most of the seats in the Province of Quebec in 2011, which it had never done before. No claim is made that it "won" a provincial election. TFD (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand how anyone can deem the combination of both these national elections as not being significant, both for UKIP and for the wider political picture in the UK. Have any of these people read the papers over the last few days? I fully support a verifiable description such as "national election" or "nation wide election" for which there are countless reliable verifications, and support a brief inclusion of the significance of UKIP's performance to the national political picture - of which many notable commentators and new agencies have covered, in numerous formats. Clearly these elections are hugely significant and worthy of inclusion in the article, but of course it is important to retain an impartial/neutral tone, and be wary of include, for example, direct quotes from the likes of Farage/UKIP which are likely to overstate the importance, and stick to the reliable and neutral sources. What matters here is not the opinions and feelings of editors towards UKIP (which many here seem to be relying on), but to produce a balanced account of the elections based on the coverage in reliable sources. EVERY broadsheet newspaper and UK news agency has covered these elections in depth and deem UKIPs performance in them very significant both to UKIP and the national picture, and this is what we should base the section on this article on. Atshal (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

are you as keen to include the fact that their local election vote dropped by 6%? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not "keen" to include anything - or exclude anything, unlike you. What should be included is what is verifiable, and what should be given due weight according to the coverage given in the media and other sources. This is not about scoring points, or your political opinion. This page is not somewhere to forward your own political opinion, but somewhere an objective article about the UK Independence Party can be produced. Atshal (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And there we go again, unfounded accusations and bad-faith assumptions. I have not said anywhere that this information should not be included. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to keep the article neutral, that is all. Atshal (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Atshal, please see my earlier comment about attributing 'historic' to a particular source. I agree the victory is notable -as was Orpington -but I don't think its historic ..nor could I find a wp:rs that used the word. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not a national election but a supranational election, and UKIP did not place first. Council elections are not national elections either. TFD (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There are issues about recentism and whether it needs to necessarily be in the lead, but the fact they emerged as the largest single party in the European elections and that this is the first time in around 100 years that neither Labour nor the Conservatives have topped a nation-wide poll is surely significant. As for the terminology and language, I agree we should avoid explicitly using loaded words such as "historic" even if some sources happen to use them. The "national election" phrase is confusing and, even if it is is the term used in a large number of media sources – which it appears to be – is probably better avoided (in a British context it does make more sense, as what might also/alternatively be called a "national election" elsewhere is pretty exclusively a "general election" here, and the use of the term "national" obviously is intended simply to indicate that, as with general elections, the whole UK votes at the same time in European elections; whereas local elections tend to be staggered, with different parts of the country voting in different years). Given that, the current section down the page seems OK in itself, if possibly a bit brief. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good post N-HH. I have no particular like for the term "national election", but this is certainly the term used by most (all?) of the broadsheets when describing the significance of this election (I know this is how the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph and Times at least have described it). I see no particular reason not to include it given the broad usage of the term - wikipedia is more about verifiability then "truth". I agree with having a section down the page, probably a sentence in the lead. Atshal (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, it was not a national election, but a European election. UKIP won 24 out of 751 seats. The Queen will not ask Farage to form a government. There was no EU in 1929 when Labour won first place. TFD (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What matters is what is verifiable, and the description "national election" is, based on multiple reliable sources. Atshal (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me put it like this.

I know at least 5 people who voted UKIP, none of them voted UKIP in the council elections, and all have made it cleat that they would not vote UKIP "in a election that mattered", this was just a protest vote. Yes this is anecdotal and OR, but it answers the question "why do I think this means nothing".Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V it is not up to any editor here to make assertions - we can only use what is written in reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be careful of this "verifiablity" vs. "truth" game. It's possible to verify all sorts of things - doesn't make any of them true, and we don't include things that are patently untrue. (I'me talking generally, not about this particular UKIP issue.) We don't include things just because they are verifiable; there has to a reason to include material. I said earlier, it is not for Wikipedia to describe anything as "historic" and no one should describe anything as historic that happened two days ago! That's totally misguided. So WE don't do it, but it seems there is a move to have UKIP's election results so described because newspapers so described it, and newspapers are reliable sources, and can be verified. Pardon me, but that's claptrap. Historians decide what's historic, not tomorrow's headline writers. UKIP scored a notable number of votes. Fine. Say so. But don't attempt to gloss it with misguided comment that may or may not stand the test of time. Next thing you know, we'll have UKIP described as "racist" because Nick Griffin said they were, and that's verifiable! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple to phrase what one wants to say and use a Google search engine to find a reliable source. That does not alter the fact that the election was for the European parliament and was not therefore a national election. TFD (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Emeraude I must disagree outrightly with your opinion: This was not a national election in the same sense; - yes it was, the whole electorate across the United Kingdom had the opportunity to vote just as in a General Election. You do have a clear anti-UKIP bias, however I'd expect you to at least come up with a better reason than that. UKIP's feat was impressive in that they are the first party in more than 100 years that is not Labour of the Tories to win a national election. It is verifiable fact and incredibly note-worthy. Just to add - it may have been a European wide election, however it consisted of each country had its own parties standing in their ow country, with those countries conducting their own counts. For all intents and purposes it was a national election taken place at the same time as quite a few national elections all to select representatives for the European parliament. Such pedandtic hair-splitting. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why pick on me? I'm not the only one saying a) it's not right to say "historic" or b) it's incorrect to describe it as a "national election". And I would like you to point out where I have shown "a clear anti-UKIP bias" in my editing or comments on this issue: that's a serious accusation to make against any editor. I do not support UKIP, true; in that respect I am like to majority of the UK population. Are you suggesting that I am therefore not allowed to edit here? And the majority of the UK population? As it happens the list of parties I am 'biased' against is pretty much covered so I think that can be taken as even-handed. Emeraude (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The "national election" phrase is not wrong as such, and is widely sourced, but its use is confusing as it depends on what people are referring to by "national" (ie either "nation-wide" or "for the national legislature"). The fact of this discussion is proof of that. Anyway, I was agnostic about noting this in the lead at all, and agree that the attempted insertion removed with this edit was badly phrased, but I think it is odd to highlight the 2013 local elections as an example of UKIP success there, as we do currently, when the 2014 European election results are both more recent and arguably more "impressive". And btw, as a minor side-point, is "As of .." really an Americanism? It looks and sounds OK to me. N-HH talk/edits 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Really Emeraude, don't touch my edits and revert like that. Its hardly an Americanism. You clearly demonstrate your outright bias here. It was a national election so far as all mainstream media outlets is concerned. Touch my edit again and I will report you. AdamFouracre (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"don't touch my edits" Who do you think you are? Pompous or what? And you still have not shown where I demonstrate an "outright bias" so I presume you are still accusing me of showing "a clear anti-UKIP bias" in my editing or comments on this issue. Where? Just one example would be appreciated. Put up or shut up. Emeraude (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that at 18:57 on 30 May 2014‎, AdamFouracre called me a "scrote" in an edit summary. He may like to report himself for that. Emeraude (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In U.S. presidential elections, it is individual parties running in individual elections organized by each state. But we normally refer to it as a national not 50 state elections. Also, like the U.S., while each member state may have its own parties, they normally belong to a supranational party. Labour for example is a member of the Party of European Socialists, which came second with 191 seats. Farage will not be able to form a government in the UK or EU and will not even be able to use his "historic victory" to pass legislation. TFD (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I am sure that my adjustments of the wording satisfies your concerns, however baseless I may find them to be. AdamFouracre (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well in fact, after all the squabbling and micro-editing, we are left with a bit of a grammatical and thematic mess currently in the second paragraph of the lead. N-HH talk/edits 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know this is precisely what happens when you have people who equivocate over mere technicalities of language such as the European elections being a supranational rather than national election, and who "won" - because they came first but didn't get over 50% of the seats... It really is nonsense but apparently we have to address these concerns otherwise our edits get vandalized and removed. AdamFouracre (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

More accurately, it's what happens when lots of people, many of whom seem overly invested in the topic, scramble to insist that their favoured micro-"fact", phrasing or description simply must be there and when people, albeit with good intentions, for example change verbs such as "held" to "won" thus losing the consistency of verb-type within a sentence. We also now seem, despite the long discussion held only recently and the consensus that broadly emerged from it, to have pointless edit wars over the political position section of the infobox. Sorry, but one source suggesting "centre-right" or a YouGov poll categorising the views of potential voters do not prove anything by themselves. Nor is a random polemical blog post on the Telegraph site a suitable source, let alone a definitive one. The point is that you cannot cherry-pick terms, even from authoritative sources, in this fashion when they are all going to say different things. The agreement was, quite sensibly, that the broad description "Right-wing" covers all those variations, as it encompasses the various shades of right-wingness within it. And, given that of course, what does "Right-of-centre to Right-wing" mean anyway? N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you seem to be directing a rage over the dispute of an infobox right, centre-right categorisation at me, when I couldn't really care less. I have reviewed and changed the concerned section in the header which I hope you will find more satisfactory. AdamFouracre (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, my point was aimed at the collective incompetence and the overall changes, to both the lead text and the infobox entries. The "you" when talking about the infobox specifically was a general "one"-type you, not one aimed personally at any one editor. Your latest changes edit-conflicted with my attempt to do something similar. N-HH talk/edits 08:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well that seems satisfactory mostly - I have just adjusted two words. Good edit AdamFouracre (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well between the two of us we have made it read better at least, I hope, although arguably the focus on their recent "success" is a little booster-ish (I'll leave that for others to worry about if they wish, although I think it probably is justified ultimately as being a relevant and up-to-date reflection of where the party is currently). N-HH talk/edits 09:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Libertarianism/Classical Libertarianism

One editor is repeatedly adding Libertarianism into the infobox, sourced to a Telegraph blog post, and declaring that removing it is tantamount to vandalism. Not only is the piece a dubious source in the first place for such a bold, unattributed assertion, but we have the usual problem of different sources saying different things and people cherry-picking those they happen to agree with. For example, here are two similar comment-style pieces saying the exact opposite, from a journalist writing on the Spectator site and a self-described "Libertarian Conservative" writing for the Huffington Post. We have to look at the broad spread of analysis – which currently would not allow us to offer this unqualified epithet in the infobox. The main text of the lead already notes, and attributes, UKIPs claim to be a "libertarian party", as early as the second sentence. That should be enough. N-HH talk/edits 14:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether that description should be included, but I think there is more than enough sources to justifiably say that it could be included as a valid and verifiable description e.g. within the article itself there are a couple sources for the description "libertarian", and as you mention this is also how UKIP describes itself. The are plenty of "comment" style article in newspapers that use the terms and UKIP seems to even get a mention on the Libertarianism in the UK article on Wikipedia. The question for me is whether the libertarian aspect of their policy and attitudes is central enough to UKIP warrant such a prominent place in the page - I don't know. Atshal (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In one of my previous (since deleted) edits, I posited that one of UKIPs ideologies could be Libertarian conservatism and its position "Right-of-centre to Right-wing". The sources that I cited are among many that describe UKIP as, "libertarian", "right wing", "right-of-centre" or even "conservative". I realise that part of the reason my edit was deleted was because for such a significant edit there should have been discussion about it. Well, I'm glad we're having that discussion now. In my opinion, if one reads the Wikipedia article on "Libertarian conservatism", I think UKIPs ideology aligns rather well with the descriptions given. Regarding the politcal position (understanding this point might be more appropriate in another section), the term "right-of-centre" is used in many Wikipedia articles and I am currently trying to get Centre-right politics and Centre-left expanded and renamed "Centre-Right/Right-of-Centre politics" and "Centre-left/Left-of-Centre politics" respectively, as I feel there are important differences between these descriptions (btw, any assistance in this endeavour would be appreciated). In any case, referring back to the "Libertarian conservatism" article, it seems to me such a person or politcal party (like the examples given in said article) could quite accurately be described as "right-of-centre" more than "Right-wing". Regarding, however, the outcome of previous discussions on that point, I believe it would be reasonable for UKIPs political position to read "Right-of-centre to Right-wing" and for "Libertarian conservatism" to be included in the list of its ideologies. Those are my thoughts and I welcome any and all constructive dialogue and suggestions. MBFCPresident (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but "I think it fits as a description" is not enough. WP content is not based on people's individual assessments (see WP:OR). Beyond that, definitive and absolute descriptions need to be not only sourced but broadly agreed upon across the range of authoritative sources. That was my opening point, and applies whether we are talking about "libertarianism", "libertarian conservatism" or anything else. As for your points about left/right terminology, I am not sure I understand them. If someone is "right of centre", they are "right-wing" – the two things are broadly synonymous and using them both here would be tautologous and cumbersome, not to mention rarely seen as a description. I'm not sure what benefit would accrue from renaming the main pages on the centre-right and centre-left either. N-HH talk/edits 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As N-HH said, that's original research. The only two things that matter for the purpose of this article are: what do UKIP describe themselves as and what do independent reliable sources with demonstrated expertise in evaluating claims of political ideology think of such claims. UKIP's constitution claims that it is a "democratic, libertarian Party", that they "favour the ability of individuals to make decisions in respect of themselves", they "seek to diminish the role of the State" and "lower the burden of taxation on individuals and businesses", and they want to "strengthen and guarantee the essential, traditional freedoms and liberties of all people in the United Kingdom". I'm no expert, but that seems like a pretty good prima facie claim to be libertarian. Claims and counter-claims about this can be discussed in the article and baed on reliable sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added Libertarianism to the UKIP info box only to have it angrily removed on several occasions. Has to be said, this really does bemuse me. The vast majority of UKIP spokespeople not only recognise themselves as being "Libertarian", they easily define themselves as being "Libertarian". I myself am a UKIP member, I define my political views and stances as being "Libertarian". Nigel Farage defines the party as being "Libertarian", yet people affiliated to other parties seem desperate not to link UKIP to Libertarianism as it is such a logical construct.

Libertarianism is defined as being "a policy of leaving things to take their own course, without interfering which involves political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens". A core component of UKIP's domestic (County Council), European Election and General Election policies are that the individuals and people make decisions for themselves and do not stick to a "party line". I can cite 3 examples in all 3 instances. 1- (County Council) UKIP's Louise Bours on BBC Question Time said that UKIP's policy on the issue of creating a new 3rd runway at Heathrow would be to allow the local community to decide as to whether this would be acceptable. With air pollution and noise pollution to be taken into consideration. It should be the locals choice not big business or Government. 2- (European Elections/European Parliament) Italy's Five Star Movement have joined the EFD on the condition they can vote their own way, and not be forced to keep to a group line. This has been agreed to. During the European Elections UKIP prospective MEPs were allowed to campaign individually according to their own stances and not a party line. 3- (General Election/National stance) The main focus on UKIP's standing in the 2015 General Election is that they feel the people of the UK should have a Referendum on EU membership. They want their influence to encourage the people to have a choice. This is a key element of Libertarianism. Allowing the people to have the choice and not forcing the choice on the people from Government level. This clearly proves UKIP 'is' Libertarian, and as such this definition should be added to UKIP's profile page on Wikipedia.(talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

Sorry, but the problems here have been clearly and concisely explained already in the initial posts in this thread. Arguments along the lines of "I'm a libertarian and I'm a party member" or "this individual policy, if you think about it, is pretty libertarian" really don't address those fundamental issues or override those concerns. In any event, as also already noted, the recognition of the party's assertion of its libertarianism is there in the second sentence of the lead. N-HH talk/edits 10:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a school of thought called right-libertarianism which seems to suit UKIP better than pure libertarianism, how about using this term? (Until a couple of years ago they seemed more libertarian but some of their views about reducng immigration are now sounding like they are socially, rather than economically, motivated. Social control would put them to the right of regular libertarians. Similarly, my local council UKIP candidate is campaigning to spend more money on bus shelters and to control rural house building, both for right-social rather than free-market reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.13.198 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All the reasons set out above as to why "Libertarianism" on its own is problematic apply to this option too, including the point that the idea is not for us to try to work out what we think happens to be the best term to describe some aspect of the party's beliefs. Indeed, there are probably even fewer sources for that specific phrase than there are for libertarianism. In any event, when people do refer to UKIP as libertarian, it can be clearly taken as read that they mean the right-wing sort of libertarianism rather than that the party are, possibly, some sort of anarchist group. N-HH talk/edits 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Which countries are ment ?

Article states "UKIP advocates leaving the European Union, resulting in stopping payments to the EU and withdrawal from EU treaties, while maintaining trading ties with other European countries." Which other European countries are ment ? Switzerland, Norway, Albania, Serbia, The Vatican, Andorra and Russia ? If EU is ment, the UKIP must be misleading the people of the United Kingdom. The UK surelly cannot expect fully continued trade with the union they so hard struggled for to join in the 60's (but was blocked by Charles de Gaulle) IF they now really will split the union from inside, rather than improving it. (Just look at the new border troubles at Gibraltar for a start) 83.249.169.163 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These all sound like reasonable questions to ask about this policy.But while it might well be a dreadful policy to hold, with loads of holes in it, apparently it is their policy, and this is what is being stated in the article. I think it is better if Wikipedia articles don't contain judgements or opinions on the consistency or validity of this type of thing - something that is also general Wikipedia policy. Atshal (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that UKIP favour an "EFTA" style free trade agreement, meaning that the UK would be in the same situation as Switzerland & Norway, Outside of the EU but still able to freely trade. Guyb123321 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

They are indeed "reasonable questions to ask" but they should be asked of UKIP. This is not the place to ask them but to discuss the quality of the article. As Atshal say, regardless of (in)consistency, it is UKIP's policy (or it was; they keep saying they have no manifesto) and that's why it's in the article. Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Euroscepticism in ideology section of infobox

My understanding is that Euroscepticism is political doctrine rather than ideology, so it seems to me a touch misplaced in the ideology section of the infobox, much as it's a huge part of their platform. Dolescum (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it sits slightly oddly under that heading, in that it's arguably not an "ideology" in the technical sense. I'm not sure if there's a better option though or what it might be. N-HH talk/edits 08:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And now we also have "Opposition to immigration" as an "ideology", which is just as if not more dubious. Nor do we need three sources to "prove" that UKIP has issues with immigration: we know this is the case, it's just whether we need to add the term to the growing bloat in the box, especially things that are not even really broad "ideologies" as such, just specific political positions and views. N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The economic plans outlined by UKIP have been called into question by The Times, who have highlighted a “£120 billion black hole

Is this relevant? Are we going to have to point out what has been questioned and disputed for every party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchoGhost (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also can we remember to Assume_good_faith in edits and not assume it's a act by any one party or supporters of parties,as we have no evidence to support this and is to surmise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchoGhost (talk • contribs) 10:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a legitimate criticism from a reliable source. Wikipedia articles aren't there to gloss over uncomfortable critiques. If reliable sources provide similar critiques of other political parties, they ought to be included in the relevant articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

wp:npov allows most definitely allows criticism by political opponents, particularly a key economic point. However given Farage has scrapped the manifesto, any statement by non-UKIP members could be deemed unfair. I have always found WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV a useful way of avoiding raised hackles when working with colleagues with different viewpoints. JRPG (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'm fairly new,so I think my ears are still ringing with the stuff I read upon coming here. AnarchoGhost (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is difficult when faced with a WP:DUCK GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Having contributed to several major newspaper stories, I know that a key aspect in the UK is the subject's right of reply to any criticism. I believe it should be breach of wp:npov not to include the subject's response. JRPG (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wish it were true, but there is no such thing as a "right of reply" in the UK which rather calls into question the writer's opinion and bona fides. Emeraude (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Emeraud that sounds a trifle like a personal attack! If a UK newspaper makes a potentially libelous statement, you will find a statement either giving the subject's response or a statement showing that they made reasonable efforts to get a response. A journalist I was working with was threatened with libel proceedings and told me printing this right of reply was crucial. Every single potentially libelous sentence was checked by lawyers for documentary backup. I have said I believe the subject's response should be included in Wikipedia. Hope that clarifies it. JRPG (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that does sound a trifle like a personal attack, which was not my intention. But I repeat, there is no such thing as a right of reply in UK law. Neither is there any obligation on a newspaper, in law, to allow subjects of their stories to comment on them and only hazy procedures under the present press complaint procedures. UK newspapers frequently make "potentially libelous" statements, but "potential" means not tested in law. I agree that journalists are often threatened with libel actions and badgered into allowing a reply, but this is a sad indictment of the sometimes gutless behaviour of editors and publishers trying to avoid court cases that they could win but at great expense. There has also been a worrying trend recently for people to threaten individual journalists rather than their publishers as used to be the case. Emeraude (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Emeraud, sorry for the delay in responding, & thanks for the explanation. The paper had previously been threatened with an injunction & the reporter was terrified of a personal libel bill for printing allegations of misfeasance. She said that it was imperative to print the subject's response in the same article which she referred to as the right of reply. However it's a voluntary right. JRPG (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1- How can anyone call into question UKIP's economic plans when no party UKIP included has even brought out their 2015 manifesto yet. 2- The Times has been on a UKIP Witch-Hunt for the last couple of months and it is really getting boring. The latest story this morning is that Nigel Farage is liable to be imprisoned. It's pretty desperate nonsense even for them. 3- Did the person who created this section really cite and link 'The Times' in the topic title. Deary me! I get criticised for doing that on Twitter let alone Wikipedia. Pathetic. If political activists applied as much time and effort into their own respective parties as they did trying to damage UKIP, they might actually win a General Election with a majority! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

The above is totally pov biased. So no party has brought out a 2015 manifesto! Does that surprise anyone given that today's date is 13 June 2014?? What's more significant is that UKIP (or Farage) has totally repudiated its previous manifesto and seems to have contested the recent European and local elections with NO manifesto at all! Do what you like on Twitter: Wikipedia has much higher standards that I hope will prevail. Emeraude (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You show your complete ignorance when it comes to politics when you make that statement "What's more significant is that UKIP (or Farage) has totally repudiated its previous manifesto and seems to have contested the recent European and local elections with NO manifesto at all!" UKIP had a European and Council Election 2014 manifesto. [15] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for the personal attack, but you're right - they did have manifestos which no one knew about including most of their candidates when interviewed! So when I wrote that UKIP "seems to have contested the recent European and local elections with NO manifesto" that was correct. This section of discussion, though, concerns their national manifesto, which does not exist. Emeraude (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

Libertarian was in the info box for a good long time, it was removed without consensus, so do not think adding a note saying "do not add Libertarian without consensus" is going to fly. Consensus needs to be reached to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced to the party's constitution, which is not a reliable source. Also, it is not clear what is meant by the term. From the context it appears to mean that they support civil liberties. But there is a real question whether they actually do. TFD (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced to the Guardian. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

guardians comment is free falls under WP:NEWSBLOG because it's opinion not journalism. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. The party is used as a source for some quotes saying it is libertarian, but the op-ed was used by you for the info-box. But editorials are only reliable sources for opinions not facts. Otherwise you should have no objection to saying that libertarianism defends class hierarchy and is "committed to other forms of domination", including racism and was the guiding philosophy behind the expropriation of native Americans, and is virtually the same as fascism - all of which is in the editorial. TFD (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a separate thread about this just above. To back up what others are saying, as noted there, yes you can find op-eds and news reports, and UKIP members, describing UKIP as libertarian; however, not only are these not reliable sources in themselves, but you can also find similar sources explicitly saying that the party is not libertarian. Given that, we should not give UKIP this definitive epithet in the infobox. The lead notes already the claim to be libertarian. That seems the right way to do it, with due weight and attribution. As for reverting and consensus, it's hard to pick through the history but in fact, rather than it having been there "for a good long time", AFAICT the infobox simply stated "Euroscepticism" and "Right-wing populism" for some time, until a slew of recent edits attempted to unilaterally add "Libertarianism". The lack of consensus relates to its inclusion, not its removal. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why is CiF OK to use for Civic nationalism in the infobox? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tad confused. You said that I could not cite UKIP.org as a reference for UKIP membership numbers. You cited "The Telegraph and The Guardian" as reliable third party examples as references. Why then is The Telegraph not a reliable enough source to reference or cite UKIP as being a Libertarian Party. Question: Are The Telegraph suddenly not a good enough source or reference for you? [16] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (You are confusing,Really very confusing) 02:30, 18 June 2014 (GMT)

You are struggling to understand the difference between WP:RS and WP:NEWSBLOG. You also seem to be confusing which user is making which edit. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

News articles in newspapers such as The Telegraph and The Guardian are reliable sources, opinion pieces published in them are not, according to "Reliable sources" policy. TFD (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@GimliDotNet: Yes, it is Darkness Shines (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

CiF on the Guardian is a news blog. It is not considered as high quality source as if it came from the newspaper itself. It is not to be used if the assertion is controversial. 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite apart from issues about what specific sources are "reliable" or not (about which, imo, people tend to be a bit too yes/no definitive about – context always matters and, for example, WP should surely rate, for some content, a comment piece guest-written by an academic above a news piece written up by a generalist journalist), as already explained surely, some of the outrage above is ignoring the other problems. We have different sources saying different, even contradictory, things about something that is a matter of interpretation. Regardless of whether we try to declare one source always "better" than another, we simply cannot grab the one we like and take its conclusion or assertion as therefore a definitively sourced, unimpeachable fact. One can say that the Telegraph is broadly a "reliable" source for news reporting of basic facts and that its comment section is a reliable source for the views of those writing in it, but it's quite a leap from there to say that anything written in any part of the Telegraph can and should automatically go in as if it were uncontested fact. This is something that 1001 WP editors fail to grasp. N-HH talk/edits 09:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

ps: and as for the CiF/Goodwin and "Civic nationalism" point more specifically, @Darkness Shines, the fact that it is being used is not the same thing as it being OK to use, nor have I offered an opinion about whether it is OK to use, since you asked. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

UKIP as a source

While primary sources are ok for something's, WP:PRIMARY is clear, any facts that could be controversial need to come from a 3rd Party. Unfortunately we have the situation again, were despite being discussed multiple times on this page there is an attempt to push UKIP.org as the primary source for membership figures. The user in question is then getting upset and accusing other editors of having an anti UKIP bias. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Parties are never rs for their membership figures. TFD (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

However unreliable, there probably isn't anything much better than the primary source for this or other party membership status unless we get audited figures. I have a soupçon of suspicion that less experienced editors of political articles confuse efforts to achieve WP:GA status with efforts to get a better manifesto. It's absolutely essential to attribute the source. JRPG (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This argument is utterly pathetic! The Liberal Democrats use a primary first-hand official source for their Membership figure. But yet again UKIP are deemed "unreliable". This is what I (the user in question that Mr Gimli is hinting at) is taking issue with! I don't care what status I am on Wikipedia. All I know is I have been editing on this site for over 10 years now and I have been threatened with blocking because I object to being told that a Official source is unreliable when it is for another mainstream political party, and that I need to wait until the figure is published in the "Guardian or Telegraph" before editing the page to reflect it's current membership number. Let's not forget for a second that these are the media sources that have been attacking UKIP the last few months on a nigh on daily basis. I am a member of this political party, and I have been subjected to all kinds of threats and abuse. I have had people trying to incorrectly label me as "far right", "fascist", "racist" and "homophobic" because of the kinds of edits that have been allowed to exist on Wikipedia. The last few weeks I had to contend with some pretty serious negative editing being allowed on Roger Helmer's Wikipedia page. In fact the only candidate in the Newark By-Election that had a Wikipedia page funnily enough. Multiple edits accusing the man of poor character were allowed to stand on there, yet I get threatened with banning by an admin because I object to someone who has been accused on his talk page of trying to edit UKIP's party status with a "Far Right" label [17] and has also followed me onto another Wikipedia users page where I had been talking about his edits and referenced that on my own talk page! [18] As I have said. I am not trying to portray UKIP as something they are not. I am not trying to ignore other people's opinions. But some of the edits that have been allowed to stick on the UKIP page such as not allowing "Libertarianism" when it's something the group is widely recognised as being and allowing Civic nationalism as it came from the Guardian is an absolute joke! I can reference numerous UKIP and Conservative Party members who talk about UKIP being a Libertarian party. Yet admins and people such as Mr Gimli will undo them and threaten me with banning. Yet a label made by the Center-Left Broadsheet "Guardian" that has journalists such as Dan Hodges who labels UKIP and it's members as being "racist" is allowed? Are you kidding me?! {At the risk of being threatened again I feel I must point out I am exasperated at the completely unbalanced and biased point of views being allowed to stand on the UKIP Wikipedia page whilst inaccurate edits are allowed to stick whilst official information is not} What will happen next? Exerts from the 2015 General Election UKIP Manifesto won't be allowed to be added as they are cited from the official website so we will have to talk about the Broadsheets picking them apart negatively? When does Wikipedia go from a fact referencing encyclopedia to a propaganda pushing hate filled biased website? I fully expect to wake up tomorrow to find I have been blocked from posting. I only hope this biased behaviour doesn't extend to removing my 'talk Comments' as I would like people to know fully well what is really going on here! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2014 (GMT)

See ""Reliable sources" which explains Wikipedia's policy. If you do not like it, then get it changed. Otherwise we are obliged to follow it in this article is in every other article. TFD (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

any good ? http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/16/UKIP-Closes-in-on-Lib-Dem-Membership-Figure - it's always going to be "according to the party" but at least the independent report makes the figure noteworthy Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So long as we make it clear that these figures are "according to the party" that seems ok. Part of the problem is Infoboxes, which don't deal with this sort of thing well since people often ignore footnotes. I don't see any way around this. Without independent audits we simply have to attribute. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if Breitbart is a reliable source. However, assuming it is, we could only say that UKIP claimed x number of members, and that does not belong in the info-box. And it is not "always going to be "according to the party"". There are reliable sources for the memberships of many parties, for example True Blues discusses research on the membership of the Conservative Party on pp. 21ff.[19] TFD (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is equivalent to Drudge. I'd suggest a consultation with RSN, even if the intention is to use "according to the party". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've partially reverted the last edit which was by an IP, perhaps RoverTheBend who claims to have edited Nigel Farage but obviously not with that account. I've prefaced the membership number with "UKIP reports" which I believe is ok by our guidelines and even required. We don't need to say 'claimed' at all, just 'reports'. I also changed a sentence slightly to make that clear. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, in response to the long post by the same user above, Dan Hodges writes for the Telegraph, not the Guardian, and the Guardian piece criticised as a source for civic nationalism – although it appears in the CiF section and actually I'm not sure the label warrants inclusion – was co-authored, FWIW, by an academic specialising in the radical and far right rather than any old random journalist/blogger. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And although RoverTheBend's edit of my edit was not too bad, along comes an IP and simply once again makes the Infobox state it as fact with no attribution in the box. I'll revert to RTB's edit. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The ONLY source for party membership figures are the party itself - this is true of UKIP, Labour, Tories. All other sources repeat the figure quoted by the party itself, and generally do not add additional reliability or verifiability to the figure. To keep pedants happy I would suggest keeping the original source from the UKIP announcement and an additional source that quotes the UKIP announcement from an established media source. Atshal (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

that's not true though is it, given Labour and Tories have their membership figures sourced to third parties. We do not take party claims at face value, that's not our job. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true. Where do you think these third parties get their information from? It is the figures released by the Tories and Labour. Party membership figures are not a matter of public record. Atshal (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, we require the third party source because we accept a good third party source will audit the figures. We cannot and do not do that. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not read my post. Direct quote - " I would suggest keeping the original source from the UKIP announcement and an additional source that quotes the UKIP announcement from an established media source". Please stop making things up. Atshal (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

again you are ignoring the main point, which is that UKIP is not a suitable source. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is YOU that is missing the point. UKIP is the ONLY source for UKIP membership figures. This is the same for every political party in the UK, as party membership is not a matter of public record. Look at the Conservative wiki page - the third party source simply quotes membership figures given by the Conservatives. This is because the Conservative party are the only source for membership figures of the Conservative party - the records are not public. It is the primary source and there is no independent third party sources - only third party sources that directly quote the primary source. Having a third party quoting the primary source might be a requirement for notability, but since we have chosen to include membership figures in the info box, notability is not the issue. Similarly, a third party source quoting the UKIP announcement does not make the announcement more reliable. The wiki rules for third party sources are clearly not applicable or relevant for this particular situation.

However, to satisfy the pedants who invoke irrelevant wikipedia rules, it is probably easier to just include some meaningless newspaper article that quotes the UKIP announcement of party figures, as if this makes the figure any more reliable (which it obviously doesn't). Atshal (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You really don't understand the rules of Wikipedia and the reasons we don't use WP:PRIMARY sources do you. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it appears that you do not understand why those rules exist. It is not so official figures released by organisation can not be reported until a newspaper article mentions that the organisation released those figures. You are pedantically attempting to impose rules that are clearly in place for other reasons e.g. they most certainly SHOULD be applied in the recent discussion on whether to classify UKIP as libertarian. However, those same rules are clearly redundant in this example, because of the nature of the information being reported means there is no independent third party source, and sources that just quote the figure add neither notability (which is already established), verifiability or reliability to the figure itself. Instread, these sources add reliability and verifiability to the fact that UKIP announced those figures, but NOT to the figure itself. I stuggle to understand why you cannot see this, being an experienced Wikipedia editor yourself. However, as I have now said three times, to satisfy such pedantry, we should probably include both the primary (and only) source of the UKIP membership figure, plus a newspaper article that quotes that announcement. If only to end this type of pointless discussion. Atshal (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We accept that newspapers and other sources have the facility to audit the UKIP figures, or if they simply report that UKIP have announced it (in which case the figures have no place in the info box). We do not need the UKIP link, it adds nothing. On it's own it is not a good enough source, and with the third party link we are covered. The only reason to include the UKIP link is within the body of the page where we are saying what UKIP have claimed, to verify that is what UKIP have claimed - and even then a secondary source is better. That you continue to push using UKIP as a source when it is neither desired nor needed speaks volumes about your pointy editing behaviour. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

But newspaper article do not audit the figure - they have no capacity to do so since the membership figures are not on public record. The newspaper article is a source for fact that UKIP announced the figure, not a source for the figure itself. My personal preference would be either to use UKIP as the source (as it is the only source for the figure) or not include the figure at all. By the way. I am purely maintaining balance in the article and have worked hard to remove the bias inserted into this article from both sides. Please don't accuse me otherwise - glass houses and all that.... Atshal (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As have I, unfortunately any attempt to stick to policy and request sourcing is immediately jumped on by pro-ukip editors as 'vandalism' and 'bias'. (including tendentious reports at WP:ANI) Apologies for lumping you in with them, I am going to leave this discussion for a while as I have got a little over-heated with it. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Me too. 137.222.114.243 (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In court decisions, judges determine the facts from evidence presented by the litigants. That does not mean that all evidence presented to a court is equally valid. Similarly, journalists and academics have the ability to assess evidence of party membership, while we do not. TFD (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is quoting UKIP which is why I removed it. The Labour Party's membership source is [20] which is pretty obviously getting that from the party as it notes that the Torys don't release a central membership figure. Which isn't true now - see the source for the Conservatives [21] which shows that the source for their membership figures is the party's website. TThe LibDem source is the party, so all the figures do come from the parties themselves. That should be made clear in the infoboxes. If we do that then it won't look as though they were independently verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We should not put facts in the infobox unless they are reliably sourced. Suppose the Raving Monster Looney Party claimed 500 trillion members. Would we put that in the info-box? No, because it would be unrealistic. But that requires us to use judgment and weigh statements made in unreliable primary statements, which is "synthesis".

UKIP is using its membership figures in order to show that it is replacing the Lib Dems as a serious minority party with the possibility of eventually achieving power. Hence the information is self-serving. Anyway, lets get a rs where their claim is reported. It may say something like, "UKIP claims 38,000 members, but it is probably only half that figure." Or it may say UKIP has 38,000 members without qualification.

TFD (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

TFD Let me just check what you mean. If a major media source reports their figures, we use them? If not, we don't? Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as it comes from a reliable source, yes - but baring in mind that comment blogs on newspaper articles are not in themselves automatically WP:RS they have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If major media say they have 38,000 members then we can say that. Even if the news article relies on what UKIP says, we rely on the judgment of the reporter to determine that the figure is accurate. Of course if the paper publishes a correction or other media challenge the figure, then and only then do we need to reconsider. If major media report that UKIP claims 38,000 members, then it is probably worth including in the article. If no media say anything about membership, and the only source is the party website, then an argument could be made to report their claim in the text of the article. In my opinion though it would be better to omit it. If secondary sources do not consider it important then it is hard to make the case that we should. TFD (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The media article you mention would not be a source for the fact that UKIP has 38,000 members, but a source for the fact that UKIP claims to have 38,000 members. There is a difference, and this is why the media article is not a source for the fact UKIP has 38,000 members, and this is why it is unnecessary to include it. Notability is not an issue, since including membership figures appears to be standard practise in a political party info box. Atshal (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

According to a parliament research paper, NO party has provided membership figures which are consistently above suspicion. Parties provide accounts & membership figure may get more reliable but even reliable sources are dependent on party accounts. As before, it should be attributed. Even WP:RS use the primary sources for membership. JRPG (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes - it should be that simple, why are we arguing about something that we can attribute? We may not trust the figures (for any parties) but that's not enough - if we have sources that show distrust and meet our criteria we would also use those. But no reporter, etc is going to be able to do an independent count, they are always going to rely on what the parties say. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

When we put a membership figure in the infobox we are inferring that it is reliable. But in this case we only have an unreliable source. While party figures in general may be unreliable, that is an argument to not use them. Newspapers however are reliable sources and we can rely on them for membership figures. Are they necessarily accurate? No. But the relevant policy is "Verifiability", which "means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." It may be that UKIP is catching up with LibDem membership numbers or it may be that they are misrepresenting this. Let's stay neutral in that. TFD (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we are getting to the crux of the issue. The only source which newspapers base their figures on is the party itself - the newspaper citing the party figures do not make them more reliable, but in fact may suggest a false sense reliability by obfuscating the original source - which is self stated UKIP figures.

In my opinion the only consistent position is to either deem the figures too unreliable to include at all, since there are no independent third party sources for the figures themselves (only for the fact that UKIP claims these figures), or we include them with UKIP as the source (and other sources on top of that, if people wish). Atshal (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Media base much of what they report on what people tell them. They have procedures for determining whether this information is factual, such as double sourcing. They also use judgment in determining whether specific sources, some of which are unnamed, are likely to be truthful. Therefore the facts that they report are considered reliable and we rely on them in writing articles. We cannot play newspaper reporter ourselves, nor should we question the methodology of news articles. Maybe we should, but the policies of "No original research" and "Reliable sources" do not allow us to do that. If you have a problem with those policies then you need to change them, and in the meantime not violate them in this article. TFD (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why those are not applicable have been explained above by multiple posters, including myself. A political party is the only source for membership figures. The media reports only add reliability to the fact that the party has reported those figures, not the figures themselves. The only source for the figures is the party. Atshal (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the problem here. The figure doesn't seem such an extraordinary leap that we can consider, from our editorial point of view, it suspect. No one seems to have disputed the figure. It is a factual membership number, of the sort perfectly allowed under our rules on primary sourcing (major bug bear; people who claim we don't allow primary sourcing). It's good we've had this discussion & are skeptical. And it's a good idea to make a note that the figure is self-reported. But other than that it seems a storm in a teacup :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one has said we can't use primary sources, but where we use primary sources for claims such as membership figures (unaudited and unverifiable) it needs to be stated as such or sourced to a third party. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just still confused about why this is such a long discussion for a mundane matter? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Because people get upset and raise WP:ANI and accuse editors of being vandals because they request 3rd party sourcing. This debate comes up again and again. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, editors such as yourself simply delete the membership (rather than "request 3rd party sourcing") despite the fact, as ErrantX makes clear, that primary sources and self-reported figures are ok in this type of circumstance. That is the issue. Atshal (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making things up, also just to let you know it is expected that users with accounts should always log in when editing. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I have made nothing up. It has been demonstrated that the primary source for UKP membership is fine. You keep reverting editors changes because they cite the primary source. You are part of the problem here. I expect you to stop making these reverts now. Atshal (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Given you claim I have removed membership figures and not asked for 3rd party figures, yes you are making things up. Also we have not reached concensus for your latest edits, and yes third party sources are required. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The evidence in the history of the UKIP page refutes you. Care to explain your edits on 18:21, 16 June 201 and 04:54, 17 June 2014? Here you twice revert edits from another user, who has added more up to date membership figures, by claiming UKIP is not a reliable source. We have just established in this talk discussion that primary sources are fine for this type of information - this is not controversial! You should not have made these reverts. You are in the wrong. Atshal (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How does that edit demonstrate your claim that No, editors such as yourself simply delete the membership (rather than "request 3rd party sourcing) Given that I reverted to the figures provided by the WP:RS and didn't delete them at all, and the fact that I tagged the figures for young UKIP rather than "just deleted them"? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Because, you simply reverted the edits (twice), rather insert a request a for a third party source  :-) Atshal (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, how does that demonstrate your claim? I have not deleted the figures, and I did ask for third party sourcing. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel I am being trolled here. An editor twice updated the membership gives from 38,000 to 39,000 using UKIP as the source, and twice you reverted back to 38,000 thereby deleting the more up to date figure. Atshal (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Silly me, I didn't get the memo that the definition of 'delete' had changed. And also silly me for having this discussion for nearly a week but not realising it didn't constitute as 'asking for third party sources'. I'll try to be more up to date on the lingo from now on. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think the discussion is getting a bit on the silly side now, from both of us. Let's just put this behind us, see what the result of the RFC is, and try our best to improve the article together in future. Atshal (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,...so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." TFD (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think the issue is a lack of wp:agf, this problem could arise for any of the main parties. There is a conundrum in that arguably our most reliable source -a parliament research paper, -says there are no reliable sources for membership. In these circumstances, WP:IAR applies & it is reasonable to use UKIP and any other main party as a source for their figures. JRPG (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that source is pretty clear in noting that the membership numbers are unreliable because they are not always reported. I'd be more concerned if it highlighted potential problems with inflating numbers etc. I don't think IAR is even needed; it's a pretty simple and common situation really :) The cynic in me would suggest that the reason we are having this discussion is because of the higher profile of UKIP recently (and the strong feeling therein). So, I always feel we should simply default to how it is done in other similar, less high profile, articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that a slump in membership of any party would be reported with enthusiasm. Edward Heath said that after Home resigned, more mps came to tell him they'd voted for him than his total votes. Fortunately so far party membership has exceeded party votes! Note section 2 Trends in UK party membership says pre-1993 Conservative membership & pre-1980 Labour membership appears to have been exaggerated though their methodology isn't stated. Including attributed figures doesn't hurt. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC On Membership figures

There is some disagreement as to whether the above topic (UKIP as a source) has reached a concensus, my reading is that the general agreement is that membership figures in the info boxes are controversial enough to require third party sources for verification because of the nature of infoboxes. Other users dispute this and claim the concensus that WP:PRIMARY is fine and we can take the figures directly from source. Can any uninterested users please voice an opinion on this contentious issues GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• As noted above by me, but perhaps not clearly, no one has provided anything to suggest these figures are controversial. My feeling when I saw this dispute was that it's one of these faux-controversies engineered by a couple of Wikipedians disagreeing. It happens, no matter. What might change the situation would be, for example, a source that claimed UKIP were inflating membership. In lieu of that the sourcing is fine, the caveat that it is self-reported is fine. Although we do apply editorial judgement, we can't cross the line into judging whether an organisation is telling the truth or not. I think you should all move on. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not clear from the labels in the info box that the figures are a direct publication from UKIP. One is forced to read the footnotes to garner that. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Simply false. Directly above the membership figure in the info box it says "UKIP (official website)". How could it possibly be any more clear as to what the source is? Atshal (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Membership numbers are the type of factual information that is perfectly fine to be sourced from primary sources on Wikipedia. In the case of party membership figures, the only source is the party themselves, since membership figures are not a matter of public record i.e. there are no independent third party sources for this information. Citing newspaper articles, or other third party sources, that quote the original party announcement gives a false sense of reliability to the figure, as it implies there is a source of this information that is not the political party itself.

The current situation on the page is that the figures are taken from the official announcements from UKIP, but it is made clear that this information is taken from the UKIP website/announcement. This is perfectly acceptable, as it makes clear what the original source of the information is, and allows the reader to judge the reliability of it for themselves. I see no problem in having a newspaper article that quotes the primary source as an additional sources (if such an article exists), but this is not a requirement for this type of information. Atshal (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Atshal that citing 3rd party sources can seem to give some sort of false sense of reliability. So long as it is clear in the infobox that that party is the source of the figures (ie made explicit, not just a footnote) then I think we have complied with our policies and guidelines. I don't think we actually need anything else unless there is a reliably sourced dispute as to the figures. I note that this is an RfC and respondents are not required to be uninvolved with this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree pretty much entirely with what's been said by ErrantX, Atshal and Dougweller. While I aprreciate the concerns about the precise reliability of the figures, this has gotten a bit bogged down in legalistic arguments re WP rules and some overconfidence about what third-party "verification" might actually ever show. Ultimately, I don't see the harm in noting the figures but then describing/qualifying them as "party figures" or something (that term might be clearer than the current "UKIP (official website)"). N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Official party figures for membership in the infobox with a note to say "official party figures" - Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's fine to use the UKIP figures since it clearly states UKIP is the source. Even if there were a 3rd party source, it likely would have taken it's figures from UKIP. How does one assess independently a group's membership figures? Primary sources are all right to use in this instance. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Couldn't agree more. However, this misses the point about why this discussion was raised in the first place - figures were being used without attribution or were being attributed to reliable sources that had not even given the figures! It now seems to be accepted that it's OK to use UKIP's figures if it is stated that they are UKIP's figures - that gives the reader enough information to form a view on whether they are accurate or not, depending on how reliable they view UKIP. I would also suggest that when an independent source (say a reliable newspaper) gives a figure that we use that (properly cited) on the grounds previously stated that the paper has a better chance of fact-checking than Wikipedia editors. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on primary sources says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity...." Neither condition applies. It is self-serving because it backs up UKIP's claim that it is closing its membership gap with the third party Liberal Democrats and is therefore a major contender.

The argument that reliable secondary source have no way of knowing a party's membership and are therefore no more reliable than what a party reports is not supported by policy. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on information presented in reliable sources. We do not investigate or question them, except when they conflict with other reliable sources. One may think for example that the argument for climate change, evolution, etc. is inadequate, but policy requires us to accept mainstream sources on those subjects.

Ironically there are reliable sources that use UKIP's figures, so why not use them instead?

TFD (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I only arrived here from an RfC bot notice, so I'm not involved here. If the UKIP membership records were public record, secondary sources could be used. Since the membership figures are not public record, and since the source for the figures is clearly stated as being from UKIP, then WP policy has been fulfilled. Primary sources are allowed on WP, and this is an instance where it is appropriate to use them. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove (Arrived from RfC bot notice) The membership count clearly carries WP:WEIGHT, however IMHO an un-audited organization is not usually a WP:RS for its own membership count. There's too much ambiguity as to what exactly a member is, and too much incentive for any un-audited organization to "accidentally" overcount, by making a mistake on a spreadsheet or by dragging its heels in removing lapsed members who haven't yet payed the new year's dues from its official count. Even an organization with as many eyeballs on it as the NRA has been accused of padding membership: see [22]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No idea why this minor issue is still going on but - no one is removing the figure - it is clearly attributed to the ukip - and can be weighted or evaluated by the readers as such - all the polls show the ukip is increasing in popularity and we will probably be raising the membership figure again soon - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10343241/Ukip-could-be-bigger-than-Tories-by-2018-says-think-tank.html Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

[Request] Current members of the European Parliament

In this section it states: "UKIP has 24 members in the European Parliament." and proceeds to list only eleven of the twenty four. I would add the rest myself, but the section provide no citation for any of the information and I wouldn't know where to find that information. I request that we find out exactly who all 24 members are, add the other 13 to the list, and provide proper citation for that information. Thank you. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)