Talk:UK Independence Party

Fantastic article

Very impressed reading this, a lot of academic sources, reads very well. Most Wikipedia articles are a hotchpotch of one-line sections with references from news sources everytime the subject is in the news. And I haven't even mentioned how it describes the most polarising party in Britain without a whiff of an axe to grind in either direction. Whoever has contributed the most to this article should nominate it for a good or featured status. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Anarcho-authoritarian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Polls

Some Uneducated person is getting rid of my post saying Since the referendum the polls have seen a Big decline in UKIP standing in the polls even some say the LibDems have retaking their 3rd place spot. its a well Know Fact that since the referendum its support have tanked and that's coming from a UKIP voter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

If I post the comment again I'm thinking I may need to put a Need Citation tag. Torygreen84 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A, do not call other users Uneducated, it is a PA and against the rules, please strike it.

B, If it is well known you can cite it from an RS, if not do not include it. If you cannot find a source you do not get around it by using a Need Citation tag. If you cannot find a source you should not include this "fact".Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look around for sources, and the first one that comes to light is this piece about the Sleaford by-election, which gives an opinion that in a constituency with a strong "leave" result in the EU referendum, merely coming second to the Tories is not good enough for UKIP. That in no way implies that UKIP are in decline, and to suggest so from that source is original research and should not be added. Meanwhile, this YouGov poll from a few weeks back puts UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the 'uneducated' or rather 'Uneducated'. Torygreen84 you need to strike that please and do repeat that sort of comment ----Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the internet andi found this this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/it-doesnt-matter-who-replaces-nigel-farage-without-him-theresa-m/ it talks about the Decline of Ukip. So can I now post it. Torygreen84 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't support your original edit, it might support something about questions being raised about UKIP with a change of leader but I am not sure that is relevant - smacks of recentism. You haven't struck the personal attack yet by the way - that sort of thing is taken seriously in wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] "What the polls show is UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives" Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Addition of election outcome to results

Please edit the article to add the "election outcome" column to the page.

House of Commons

During the 2010–15 Parliament, two Conservative MPs defected to UKIP and were re-elected in subsequent by-elections. At the 2015 general election, UKIP retained one of these seats (Clacton) and received over 30% of the vote in Boston & Skegness, South Thanet, Heywood & Middleton and Rochester and Strood.

Election year	# of total votes	% of overall vote	# of seats won	Outcome
1997	105,722	0.3%	0 / 650	No seats
2001	390,563	1.5%	0 / 650	No seats
2005	603,298	2.2%	0 / 646	No seats
2010	919,546	3.1%	0 / 650	No seats
2015	3,881,099	12.6%	1 / 650	Opposition

European Parliament

Election year	# of total votes	% of overall vote	# of seats won	Rank
1994	155,487	1%	0 / 87	8
1999	696,057	6.7%	3 / 87	4
2004	2,650,768	16.1%	12 / 78	3
2009	2,498,226	16.6%	13 / 72	2
2014	4,376,635	27.5%	24 / 73	1

National Assembly for Wales elections

Year	Percentage of vote (constituency)	Percentage of vote (regional)	Seats won (constituency)	Seats won (regional)	Seats won (total)	Outcome
1999	0.0% (N/A)	0.0% (N/A)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2003	2.3% (19,795)	3.5% (29,427)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2007	1.8% (18,047)	4.0% (38,490)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2011	0.0% (N/A)	4.6% (43,756)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2016	12.5% (127,0385)	13.0% (132,138)	0 / 40	7 / 20	7 / 60	Opposition

Recent history

Shouldn't the history section cover the long-running feud within the party between Farage/Banks and Carswell? Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it significant enough? The history of UKIP is a history of feuding, and we don't mention the vast majority of other examples. I'd be hesitant about adding anything on this unless the most reliable sources (i.e. academic studies of UKIP) begin to describe this as a highly significant development. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Other political party articles do not only rely on academic studies, which tend to have a different perspective. Plenty of reliable and considered analyses in newspapers and magazines discuss the feuding, which is long-running. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

An interesting point. Might it be better to write later from hindsight rather than risk having to rewrite every few days? Emeraude (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I to agree, Wikipedia is not a live news feed.12:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Really don't think it needs rewriting every few days but key points should be included for a balanced article. I always prefer wp:Suggested sources#Current news as few UK editors would dispute the credentials. JRPG (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bondegezou, perhaps it would be a good move if you proposed a brief sentence or so that would summarise the current fracturing of the party. We could then discuss whether such a sentence would be appropriate or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing events that have been going on for many months, indeed years in some ways: I am not suggesting material that needs to be rewritten every few days. I am suggesting something like the material at Labour_Party_(UK)#Opposition.2C_2010.E2.80.93present that describes the pro/anti-Corbyn tensions in the party.

I am rather busy the next few days, so if someone else would like to start things off, go for it. Or I will try to draft something later. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Anglocentric?

In the 'Nationalism and British Unionism' section, is it really entirely accurate to say that UKIP's support base is centred largely in England and mobilises English nationalism above all else? With Scotland, you have a point seeing that UKIP support is so low there, but (other than Douglas Carswell) the only place where UKIP have any elected officials at the moment is in the Welsh Assembly, so on that basis it seems outdated to describe them as an English-only party. I realise that complete objectivity is difficult, but to me the section focusses too much on one man (Richard Hayton) and his perception of UKIP as Anglocentric, ignoring the stark reality of Welsh Euroscepticism and strong UKIP support in the Southern valleys. 86.174.140.40 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)