Talk:UK Independence Party

Guns

I removed the section on guns because it is not official party policy (I also left a message on the editor in question's talk page). Indeed in the same interview Mr Farage said the UKIP manifesto was "a blank page". Need I remind editors that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, while this section is well sourced, it is not an ecyclopedic fact. User:Philip Cross has reverted the edit where I removed this section, which is why I have taken to the talk page. I shall revert this edit once (in compliance with Wiki rules on edit warring), I do not expect User:Philip Cross to revert my edit again without coming to the talk page as that would be edit warring.

To the point at hand: the party's website has no section on "guns", whereas it does on the other policy areas that are cited on this page. Philip Cross gave this reason for reverting my edit: (Undid revision 592955108 by Owl In The House (talk) as with anti-EU policies, looks pretty firm for a future manifesto). That is a speculative and not an encyclopedic comment. If and when the party add this to their official party policies, this can then be added (using 3rd party reliable sources). However, no such policy exists, so to say "looks pretty firm for a future manifesto", is merely speculative, this is not a statement of fact. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, it is UKIP's National Executive Committee that aproves policy and not the party leader, so even if he had said this was a firm comitment (which he didn't) and he hadn't made the "blank page comment (which he did) that this could not be interpreted as being UKIP policy without either this being officially made policy (which it isn't) or for there even to be a document on the party's website (which there isn't. There are precisely zero grounds for anything on "guns" to be in a policy section of an encyclopedia, when the party in question doesn't even have a policy on guns, or even put out an official document showing support for some form of liberalisation. In any case, the party's stance seems very up in the air at the moment, so it is difficult to find out what the facts are. Since wikipedia deals in facts, we can't really cover it.

I shall now revert the edit and refer Philip Cross to this page.Owl In The House (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some muddled arguing here. It's inconsistent to say it should be deleted because the party's website has no section on "guns" (it has no section on manifesto currently, I believe) and also to say it can in future be added (using 3rd party reliable sources). There are third party sources for everything in the paragraph you want deleted, including whether or not it is policy (see Daily Telegraph - "The Ukip leader has said it is party policy", and Daily Mirror - "Farage was asked for his party’s position on gun control".) But suppose they got the wrong end of the stick; suppose Nigel was talking and they just assumed that he was describing UKIP policy. Given that Farage is leader of UKIP, its main spokesman and its main policy developer, it's not unreasonable to assume that what he says is now UKIP policy. Regardless, if this is part of the policy development process, it's valid. However, I have argued consistently that Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories and, on that basis, I have no strong views about its inclusion one way or the other. Emeraude (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No muddled up arguing here at all, its merely a case that the reader has misread. However, you have spurred me into looking into this further so I get my facts right and it seems it is you who is slightly muddled User:Emeraude as you have said a a few things that are factually incorrect. Allow me to explain.

1. You misread the sentence where I put (using 3rd party reliable sources). I wrote that just incase anyone said "oh but we can't quote directly from their website, it has to be a third party source", I put that phrase in brackets for that specific reason. I was perfectly aware that the editor in question had used third party sources, I can actually read, something you seem to have had a little difficulty with.

2. In the same interview as the gun comments; Farage said "we have a blank sheet of paper", he did not give any firm commitment or even broad policy on what the gun policy would be. He described the situation in the US as "crazy", so it makes it unclear as to how far he would want to go in terms of lifting restrictions/gun "liberalization". The claim in the telegraph of "The Ukip leader has said it is party policy" is a politicised line and can be proved to be non factual by actually listening to both the BBC and LBC interviews,both of which can be considered to be reliable sources.

3. You incorrectly state that Farage is UKIP's "main policy developer" - wrong. I have found out that UKIP have a head of policy called Tim Aker and he has a team of so called "wise men". Any policy has to go through his team and get approved by him and then voted on by the National Executive Committee. Apparently the Leader has the right to veto a policy but it is utter rubbish to describe Farage as "the main policy developer". That might be your perception or opinion but in terms of factual realities Tim Aker is head of policy, fact.

4. You seem to suggest that this is part of the "policy development process", they haven't even got a discussion paper on their website about it. This didn't come from a UKIP initiative, it came from a caller on the phoneFarage show on LBC radio asking his view on the ban on hand guns...Farage then gave his view. He was then probed about it on the Daily Politics and he gave no firm commitment either way but he hinted at the party having a policy on it in its next manifesto. the point being the next manifesto...i.e. there is no policy on gun ownership as things stand. "blank sheet of paper"...no policy or discussion papers on their website.

5. Your final point about Wikipedia not being news is the only relevant (or indeed factually correct) input you've had in this discussion. You're right and since UKIP do not have a policy on gun ownership, such a subject has no place in the policy section of this page. Wikipedia, is an encyclopaedia that deals in solid facts. It is simply not factual to describe what was said as a personal view in response to a callers question as a solid policy when it has not been through the party's formal process for approving policy and when there is no official policy document.

Lets stick to the facts people.Owl In The House (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree, it seems very reasonable to include the short section on guns, particularly as no other party has a similar line and Farage will have thought it through. JRPG (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree, Wikipedia is not a democracy. What matters is whether it is a fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a newspaper and it is simply inappropriate to put something in a policy section of an encyclopedia when it is not policy.Owl In The House (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We all want an informative encyclopedic article and are trying to get a consensus. Therefore it does matter what people think. We ALL make mistakes but hopefully reasoned discussion will lead to a consensus with no loss of face. Farage was unequivocal & I suggest the policy statement should be attributed to him in Incidents in 2014 section, perhaps with the additional caveat that it was on a radio program. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel Farage making a statement can be noteworthy, notwithstanding whether this is official party policy yet. That said, I agree with Emeraude from a while back: it is unclear to me whether this is a sufficiently major issue to warrant much coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. However a single line is hardly wp:undue and it differentiates UKIP from any other party. JRPG (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the point though, it is not UKIP policy...it hasn't even had chance to go through the party's policy process yet. If this needs to go into Wikipedia, it should go on Nigel Farage's page under controversies, not on this page while ever there is no official party policy. Owl In The House (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical point ..but why is it at all controversial? It may be a popular policy, we don't know and shouldn't judge. The reason Farage was invited onto the program was surely because he is the UKIP leader and people want to know what he thinks the policies are. I'm not going to waste more time on this, policy board ready or not, EU elections are less than 4 months away and we could help people understand the issues. JRPG (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

we're not here to help people decide who to vote for, we're not a newspaper here to report up to the minute news on the latest goings on. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's controversial because of all of the hullabaloo it has attracted. Indeed the very desire of User:Philip Cross to add something to a policy section that is not even policy (in light of his other UKIP related edits elsewhere) kind of says that there is some form of controversy about it. That said, I have no objection to it going in that 2014 section provided it is reported in the true sense that it happened: i.e. he attracted criticism after answering a question regarding gun ownership by a caller on LBC Radio's PhoneFarage show. We also need to point out that his comments are not UKIP party policy because they're not. As an encyclopedia we need to report facts. If we omit certain points we end up with a piece that misleads readers. I'm open minded to adding a few lines in the 2014 section but its got to be done properly. Owl In The House (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather startled by this removal of sourced content. The fact that UKIP have yet to put out a manifesto does not mean they do not have policies. Part of the job of a party leader is to express those policies. We live in an age where policy is announced by parties not through official policy committees and manifestos but through press releases, media comments and even social media sites like Twitter. To give a non-UKIP example, take the Labour Party and the "cost of living crisis", and Ed Miliband's promise to put a price freeze on energy prices. Is it on the Labour website in a nice section called "policy" or "manifesto"? No. The Labour Party are still having a comprehensive Policy Review. Does this mean that an energy price freeze is not current Labour policy? No, that's silly. If the late Steve Jobs stood up and said "we're releasing a new iPhone next month that does this", you kind of have to take his word for it. Indeed: The Telegraph seem to think it is policy. Their article opens with: "The Ukip leader has said it is party policy for hand guns to be legalised and licensed in the UK despite being banned in the UK for the last 18 years."

WP:NOTNEWS is a distraction here: we're not reporting on Farage accidentally blowing off on national television, what is in contention is whether to include mention of his response when asked a direct question about handgun ownership. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comparison is invalid as Labour's price freeze pledge is actually party policy, Nigel Farage's gun comments have yet to go through the party's policy process, the party DO NOT have a policy on this yet, merely a suggestion that this is going to be looked into. What's more your example of the price freeze is actually on the party's website. UKIP do not have any such document to do with guns on their website, they do for all of the other policies that are listed in this policy section.

Different parties have different mechanisms for making policy. Farage's comments were the answer to a question that came out of the blue (with no previous mention by the party its self) asked by a caller on a radio show, which Farage has since been pressed on. The party and indeed Farage, has yet to confirm this as policy or indeed what it entails e.g. do they support total restrictions on pistols or just for sporting purposes or what, the point is we don't know what the policy is because neither Farage or the party its self (via official policy team) have said what it is.

As for the Telegraph source, this is clearly in contradiction with other sources, we can't pick and choose sources that suit a certain narrative, we need to report the truth and that means looking at a wider range of sources. Your argument relies on one source that can be proven to be incorrect and a comparison that does not hold. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or blog. Owl In The House (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So, can you give me a source for Labour's energy policy, since they don't seem to have an up-to-date policy section on their website? This seems to put them in the same place as UKIP... —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I'm assuming your question was rhetorical, in which case other stuff exists applies. I'm hoping wp:agf still applies, hence a suggestion for you. Normal Wikipedia rules allow a factual statement from WP:Suggested sources to be used without discussion. If it contradicts another source -as is often the case with military history articles I edit, then a simple statement citing that sources disagree is added as well. We would of course need to cite that Farage's statement was subject to policy review. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

By Emeraude, first this was a BLP vio by the IP, and now he is misrepresenting the source with this edit. Kindly stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Ukip public figure has been forced out of the party after expressing support for gay marriage, days after the party sacked their youth leader, who spoke out on the issue on national radio.

Richard Lowe, Ukip's prospective parliamentary candidate for Chester, says he was forced to resign after local party leaders said they would not campaign for "anyone who publicly supports same sex marriage"..........

Ukip spokesman Gawain Towler said Mr Lowe's resignation was his own choice.........

The Independent, 12 Jan 2013

"To say he was forced to resign is wrong. Three people in the local branch committee spoke to him and said 'would you resign?' No-one forced him to," he said. Reposted from (Darkness Shines's talk page:

"POV pushing, the local guys say he was not forced to resign, stop cherry picking shit from sources" is not the sort of comment I expect from a Wikipedia editor. Let's be clear: I have no POV to push whether on UKIP or same sex marriage. An editor added some text about January 2013. I tidied it and corrected the ref. It's not my POV; it may be his. Either way, it happened. You correctly (and rudely, I might add) pointed out that he "quit after pressure from local party leaders". You could have simply edited this, but instead you chose to add "gross misrepresentation of the source". It wasn't: the source says the youth leader was sacked (that's half of it taken care off) and the other was forced to resign, which in normal parlance means sacked. So I amended to reflect that. ''Mea culpa, my amendment was not quite 100% because further down a UKIP spokesman ("Local guys"? How do you know? Doesn't say so) contradicts him. So there we are. Before you accuse people of POV and use foul language, perhaps you should examine your own POV. Emeraude (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that both of you stop edit warring right away and allow some discussion here.

Firstly, I see no WP:BLP violation. The cite given states that the leader of the party's youth group was "stripped of his post", so that part of Emeraude's edit seems well supported. Whether the Chester PPC was forced to resign is less clear: that's what he says, but the article also has a UKIP spokesman denying that, so I think that could be phrased more carefully.

Whether this is WP:UNDUE is harder to say. Personally, given coverage in a national newspaper and a significant post (head of Young Independence) being involved, I would say a sentence on this is not undue, but what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Have you not even read the source? He claims he was forced to resign, that is not the same as "he was forced to" I know it was local guys, the source says so. "Mr Lowe said that local party leaders told him that they objected to his views on several matters including his lukewarm anti-EU stance and his support for immigration. However, Mr Lowe believes his position on gay marriage was "the straw that broke the camel's back"." So tell me how does this not violate UNDUE? One person makes a claim, which was refuted "To say he was forced to resign is wrong. Three people in the local branch committee spoke to him and said 'would you resign?' No-one forced him to,", notice you left that out in the edit, so ya, you are pushing a POV. ~

I would remind both of you of Wikipedia's three revert rule and, indeed, to assume good faith. This is a small edit pertaining to events some time ago. There is no need for such aggression, nor for an immediate resolution of this matter. I respectfully suggest you calm down or that you step away from Wikipedia for a period. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me. For the record, it's not my edit that put this text there. I have simply tidied it up ("their" -->"its") and made sure the text is accurate to the source. Emeraude (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The candidate's claim was most definitely not refuted - it was denied. There's a significant difference. Further: if what the ex-candidate says cannot be relied on, neither can Mr Lowe. If Mr Lowe can be relied on, so can the ex-candidate. That's why I added "claimed" to the text, but given that Lowe says three people in the local committee (that is, Lowe says so - the three are not interviewed or even identified) "spoke to him and said 'would you resign?'" it is fair to say that he was put in a position where he was forced to resign. "Had" to resign if you like, or "made" to resign or "had no option but" to resign. The net result is that he was the candidate, they (the three?) objected to his views on same sex marriage, they asked him to resign, he's no longer the candidate because of his views on same sex marriage. Emeraude (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What a pile of bollocks. It is not "fair to say he was put in a position", at all. What with the source not saying that. He was asked if he would, he could have said fuck off, he did not, he choose to quit. And it is obviously refuted given the local guys have said and I will quote it again, "To say he was forced to resign is wrong.", what part of that did you not get? BTW, Bondegezou, read BLP, we had an edit in this article which said a BLP was sacked, how is that not a BLP vio? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy requires a reliable citation. A reliable citation was given for the person being sacked. I see nothing to dispute that. I am in favour of that being in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You just said you support a BLP vio and source misrepresentation going into the article, well done you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, could you explain how you feel this would constitute a BLP violation? That would be helpful. Or, perhaps, if you feel strongly about the matter, you could take it to the relevant noticeboard, WP:BLPN. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So the inserted text is "UKIP began 2013 by firing the Chairman of their Youth Wing Young Independence as well as their PPC for Chester for supporting Same Sex Marriage" yet the Newspaper headline is "Another Ukip public figure leaves party amid same sex marriage row ". First of all straight off the bat the title of the newspaper article doesn't support the choice of words inserted into this article. I can also find no instance of the words "fire", "fired", "sack", "sacked" in the article in reference to this issue. (I searched for these alternate terms for "firing" just to be sure).

In regards to Richard Lower, the newspaper quotes him as saying "As such, I felt I had no choice but to resign". Also all I can see is alleged pressure to quit, which no matter what pressure is put on someone still equates to resigning not firing.

In regards to Olly Neville the newspaper article clearly states: "the leader of Young Independence, the Ukip youth group, was stripped of his post". He was stripped, in otherwords removed, from his post as leader of the Young Independence group. That does not equate to being fired from the party as the sentence in this article implies.

Thus the additions are gross distortions of the source used and the sentence should be removed from the article (or kept out) or reworded to reflect the source. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that "stripped of his post" is pretty synonymous with "fired". Calling these additions "gross distortions of the source" seems somewhat surprising language to me! However, I concur that the material could be better phrased. How do people feel about this version:

"UKIP began 2013 by removing the chairman of its youth wing (Young Independence) from his post for supporting same sex marriage, while its prospective candidate for Chester stepped down over the same issue."

That avoids the use of the word "firing" and clarifies that the Youth Independence chairman was not ejected from the party. It also does not say the Chester PPC was "forced to" do anything. Those were the key objections above. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually having another look at the source and I must correct myself, it does state "sacked" in regards to Olly Neville right in the first sentence (doh!), however looking for other sources it does appear that there may be WP:UNDUE weight citing same sex as the reason why.

BBC News - "Mr Crowther denied Mr Neville - who the party said had not been elected but was doing the job on a "caretaker" basis - had been removed specifically because of his views on gay marriage." That same person, Crowther, states that Neville was asked to stand down, whereas it is Neville himself stating he was sacked. So we have a contradiction here, which as we know with the press will pick up on whatever bit it wants to portray the image it wants to paint.

Daily Mail - also states asked to stand down but also fired. Also states that the official UKIP reason given was "UKIP insists Mr Neville was forced out after defying party policy on a range of subjects, including legalising drugs."

So if the addition is to be re-added into the article in a reworded form, it will need some seriously rewritting, yet it might fall into the pitfalls of recentism and undue. We also need to take into consideration the contradictory reasons given with both sides stating things completely different things which all need taken into account. Otherwise what was added into the article in light of further evidence of equal reliability is undoubtedly undue weight and biased. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see big contradictions here: Neville was either "sacked", "asked to stand down", "removed" or "fired" -- they all amount to the same thing. As for whether this is undue coverage, we've got three major media sources covering it. I realise this was not your intent(!), but you've persuaded me it should be included. So, what about this wording to cover what all those sources say...

"UKIP began 2013 by removing the chairman of its youth wing (Young Independence) from his post, while its prospective candidate for Chester stepped down. Both men gave their support for same sex marriage as the reason for their departures, but UKIP sources cited broader reasons." And then we cite all three sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that doesn't quite cover it. They didn't give their support to same sex marriage as their reasons, but UKIP's opposition to their support. Emeraude (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What about... "UKIP began 2013 by removing the chairman of its youth wing (Young Independence) from his post, while its prospective candidate for Chester stepped down. Both men gave the party's opposition to their support for same sex marriage as the reason for their departures, but UKIP sources cited broader reasons." Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Per UNDUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I appreciate your passion, but it would be of value to other editors if you could sometimes expand on your concerns. Why do you feel these 2 sentences would be undue coverage? We have articles from three major media sources, from different perspectives (BBC, Mail, Independent). Same-sex marriage is, broadly, a very significant policy area that has attracted huge attention in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. France, US). Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you have two. The Daily Fail is not RS, especially for BLPs. If it were that notable then why has not every broadsheet and news channel covered it? Hence UNDUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You have made several mentions to BLPs, but not really unpacked what you mean yet. I cannot see the people who resigned/were fired having any objections to the text suggested immediately above. WP:BLP requires reliable source citations and even you admit we have two, so I fail to see any BLP violation as being present. I don't see a problem with using the Mail citation in addition to the BBC and Independent, but if you strongly object to its inclusion, the text suggested still stands on those other two sources.

To require "every broadsheet and news channel" to cover something before it can be considered due coverage seems to me somewhat over-the-top and I can't see anything in WP:UNDUE that supports that position. We're talking about two sentences: this is a pretty small amount of coverage in the article. It cannot require "every broadsheet and news channel" to justify every pair of sentences. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your misinterpreting my comments Bongegezou, though you backed the thing's inclusion before I even posted here iirc. My mention of due and weight is in regards to the attempts at trying to give as much importance to the homosexual angle as possible when it is one mans word against anothers with typical press exaggerations. I'm still against the proposal at the moment on the same grounds as before. It is better but this is a controversial issue and inclusion. Maybe an RfC would help so we have more than just our 4 opinions? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial complaint was that the text did not represent the sources. With additional sources now supplied (thanks to Mabuska) and after debate over wording, can we agree that if this matter is to covered at all, the text I give above is appropriate? As far as I can see, 3/4 agree on that. If so, we can then move on to whether it should be included at all (where we're currently split 2/2). Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

3/4 agree? Where do you get that conclusion? Darkness Shines objects to the wording and as I made clear in my previous comment I also objected to its present form. You have failed to take into consideration or respond to my concerns over it. Clearly there is no consensus for its inclusion at present hence my suggestion of an RfC which I note you have also failed to respond on. Maybe as you put it if this matter is to covered at all. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if I have misunderstood your position, Mabuska. I accept that there is currently no clear consensus that this matter should be covered at all (whatever the precise wording). I support your suggestion of an RfC. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record: support inclusion, support wording. Emeraude (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Voter base

This is a possible new citation for the 'Voter base' section that, I think, explains some of the points being made well and brings in some solid psephological analysis. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Goodwin is an acknowledged academic expert in the field. It's an interesting article, and useful, but it is not as definitive as the book (Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)) he is publishing next month with Robert Ford will be, and on which this article has partly been based. Might be better to use the book as a source rather than this artice. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And there's this. Bondegezou (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Controversies section

It seems that a few months ago an editor introduced a "controversies" section in to the article. I question why this exists in such an article as this. By its very nature, any political party is controversial so it seems odd that this section exists at all. As far as I can tell no other UK party has such a section, including the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, and more fringe groups such as the Green party and BNP. All of these parties have a constant turnover of controversies, but rightly do not have a section for this as this is the nature of politics and any such section would quickly become bloated.

It seems to me that this section is just a dumping ground for recent and not terribly consequential stories about individuals with varying degrees of importance to UKIP. This information would probably be better put on the wiki pages of the individuals. There is already a timeline for significant events related to UKIP further up the page. What do people think? Atshal (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a danger with "controversies" sections, which do exist on many other articles, that they can become dumping grounds as you describe. That said, I see useful, relevant and well-cited material in that section that I don't think should be lost. So, I suggest either re-working that material elsewhere in the article, or continuing as we are and making sure that the material in this section sticks to basic Wikipedia principles. Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The material is already covered in the timeline section, and what is not covered and be put there. Almost every action of a political party may be described as controversial. No other party has this type of section. Atshal (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Membership section

Why does this section exist? I don't see how it adds much beyond the information already in the info box at the top, and is not backed by citations demonstrating why this information is significant. I suggest removing it and simply retaining current membership in the info box. Atshal (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The section has citations provided. It provides a historical context for the (rapid) growth of UKIP and seems useful to me as such. Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not the job of citations to demonstrate why information is significant. It is the job of citations to demonstrate that the information is verifiable.
If anything, this section needs to be expanded to describe the type of people who are members (and supporters) of UKIP: some good sources have been mentioned above but time is needed to digest these, particularly the book referred to. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is already a section for that type of material. I just feel that a section with yearly membership figures just represents bloat - in principle it could get indefinitely large over time, or we could start adding monthly membership figures and so on. Current membership is included in the info box, but I don't see what significance previous years does. Atshal (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Breakaway Parties

Sorry for this third section! But it seems that the only group that could even remotely be described as a breakaway party would be Veritas, which is already discussed in length in the article. The rest are simply founded by previous members and have very little relationship to UKIP. Again, this appears to just be bloating the article to me. I see no particular reason to keep the section, and if we do then it should be called something like "Parties founded by former UKIP members" Atshal (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As well as Veritas, two of the other parties were founded by former UKIP MEPs soon after they left the party (which seems to me to make them breakaway parties) and would seem very relevant as they will be competing with UKIP on similar policies at the forthcoming European elections. Alan Sked's new party is a different case and I accept might not be well described by the term "breakaway", although it seems notable given Sked founded UKIP and has deliberately positioned this new party in reaction to how UKIP developed. Bondegezou (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The SDP can be described as a breakaway party from Labour because they took a significant chunk of Labour with them. In contrast, these groups (bar Veritas which already has a substantial section) are just parties formed by people who used to be UKIP members, and are entirely independent and unrelated. I have not checked, but do the wiki pages of any of these groups say they are UKP breakaways? I doubt it. Atshal (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I notice that none of the citations claim these are breakaway parties, so lacks verifiability too. Atshal (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For reference... The Veritas article describes it, in its first sentence, as "a split from the UK Independence Party". The We Demand a Referendum mentions UKIP only in terms of the support of Roger Knapman. An Independence Party doesn't have an article. New Deal makes several mentions of UKIP in its lede. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

To call these parties "entirely independent and unrelated" seems strange to me. We Demand a Referendum and An Independence Party wouldn't exist if their founders hadn't been elected as UKIP MEPs and then fallen out with the party. They both are close in policies. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But I don't think they are verifiable as "breakaway" parties, in the way wikipedia requires. Certainly there are no citations for any of them as breakaways. Atshal (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Heseltine comments in intro

The presence of Heseltine's criticisms of UKIP in the introduction to the article is very unconventional, and lacks much in the way of balance. A criticism of that depth and a reliance on the words of a single source in the introductory section (which is primarily utilised for descriptive purposes, along with a balanced evaluation of any criticisms that a political party may face) breaks convention, and it also instantly may influence the opinions of readers who are newer to the subject. I'd recommend shifting Heseltine's comments to the controversies section, perhaps expanding that section to be "Controversies and Criticisms" or the like. The presence of that paragraph is both highly charged and indicates bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.174.120 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to a point. The question is did Heseltine make those comments about UKIP using evidence and for academic factors, or did he make them as member of a rival party that now feels threatened by UKIP. Clearly it was the later case, they read like digs and points made against other party for electoral reasons and to get votes/reduce the vote of a rival party. This happens all the time in the press, but they are not added to Wikipedia and used as a source of information. I recall the BNP article had lots of comments from members of rival parties making statements and the article was considered bias, until they were removed. Clearly, using comments from members of other parties is always going to an issue because the majority will not be impartial or for educational reasons. User talk: Truenature 12 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talk • contribs)

Having such comments in the lede does not seem inappropriate, although I'd like to see them preserved somewhere in the article. Criticism of a party (including by its rivals) has a place in an article about a party. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Political position

It is inaccurate to describe UKIP as a right-wing political party. Although on social issues (such as the environment, immigration, women's and gay rights) the Party is on the right of political spectrum, but fiscally is even to the left of the Liberal Democrats (e.g., UKIP's support for the state-ownership of the Royal Mail). On foreign policy, however, its position is on the far left of the political spectrum—on a par with far left parties which oppose any sort of (including humanitarian) intervention. The best term to describe UKIP would be a "populist" party as it was demonstrated when they shifted their position on HS2 and now vehemently oppose it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.152.185 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Many UKIP policies are clearly right-wing (reducing immigration, increasing defence spending, opposing gay marriage, supporting a flat tax); others are clearly "small-c" conservative (as with the Royal Mail). But this has been discussed before (see above). The way Wikipedia deals with such questions is to look at what reliable sources say, and that's the approach we've taken here. While not every UKIP policy is necessarily right-wing, broadly speaking, for the purposes of a summary in the infobox, that's how reliable sources refer to the party. If that changes or if you have evidence to the contrary, then we can certainly re-visit the question. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have recently left UKIP because of its increasing paternalism. Its opposition to international free trade in the labour market, which it claims benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, may be the best example. The Flat Tax was abandoned the day after the May 2013 elections. Its "social conservatism" is just that, conservative not reactionary in Chesterton's language; that is, its only principle is to resist change, so it opposed but will not advocate reversing the New Westminster Definition of "marriage". The idea of a one-dimensional political spectrum is as daft as a one-dimensional spectrum of human characters, and I am sorry to find Wikipedia clinging to it. Even within economic policy redistribution and regulation are distinct dimensions. Sorry I am not Wikismart enough to suggest a Wikkurate solution, but I hope my comments are useful. --Vidauty (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)