Talk:UK Independence Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Financial Times article: "Ukip’s transformation into a far-right party is complete", "The hiring of Tommy Robinson is proof that it is focused on cultural issues, not Brexit"[edit]

Hi guys, I am new to editing but I will try my best to be concise in my contribution here. Ukip's Wikipedia page has in the past categorised Ukip as "Right Wing", and currently "Radical Right". I would agree that historically Ukip has not been a far-right party (this label in the past a bit of journalistic exaggeration as far as I am concerned). However, the financial times reports that Ukip has recently become a far-right party. (The financial times is concise, logical, restrained, credible and centrist in my opinion, more so than the other british newspapers, and I would say this specifically about Sebastian Payne, the author of the article.)

From this article

"Under Mr Batten, Ukip has welcomed alt-right “social media activists” into the fold — including an editor at InfoWars, the conspiracy theory website"

"What Ukip now stands for can be seen in Mr Batten’s new big-name hire. By bringing Tommy Robinson into the fold, the party’s transformation into a far-right force is complete. Mr Robinson — real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon — is a convicted criminal and former leader of the English Defence League street campaign and the UK branch of anti-Islam movement Pegida."

"Mr Farage too sees Mr Robinson’s appointment as a step too far. He has called for his successor Mr Batten to be fired and will be pursuing a confidence vote at the party’s ruling council."

So, Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist (who focuses on religion and culture, not just immigration) is now a paid advisor at Ukip.

(My issue with the academic source which categorises Ukip as 'Radical Right' is that it is out if date (published in 2015). Aside from that, 'Radical Right' is an unconventional term for Wikipedia in my opinion: as far as I can tell it usually uses the terms "right wing" or "right-wing to far-right" for this sort of populist party.)

So would it not be sensible to categorise Ukip as what it is most currently, ie right wing to far right (or failing that "radical right" to far-right)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is not paid by UKIP, nor is he an advisor to UKIP. That's entirely untrue. (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
What would be most useful when it comes to editing is to add to the text, using this citation. Get that right and any useful infobox changes can follow later. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Also one source is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd leave the categorisation intact until there is general agreement that the party has a far right focus, but certainly comments from the article (and comments from the likes of Farage) about UKIP leaders' embrace of far right figures and the effect that might have on the party's position are valid for inclusion in the article body, and arguably ought to be in the lead section too. Dtellett (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not in the lead, at least in part because Farage is hardly a disinterested party. As I also said we need more then none sources, and really I think we should wait until we see if this is a long term trend or just a flash in the pan.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Farage has been disinterested with UKIP since the referendum, seems like he has cut his losses. (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
UKIP didnt hire any far right people. Farage did it seems hire BNP memers but he isnt classified as "far right". How is Tommy Robinson far right? He is critical of Islamic rape gangs and of 25,000 ex ISIL members being allowed in the UK. Most of his friends since childhood are black and he opposes the throwing of homosexuals off of buildings. Hardly far right? Robinson isnt running as a UKIP candidate in any case but as an Independent and he is not paid anything by UKIP. See several peer reviewed sources on how far right is classified and how academics disagree with classifying them as far right below under Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2019Isaw (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Isaw
Hello, I am the user who originally posted under the title ""Ukip’s transformation into a far-right party is complete", "The hiring of Tommy Robinson is proof that it is focused on cultural issues, not Brexit"". I am just checking back here, and it has occurred to me that the Financial Times article is behind a paywall, which would be understandably frustrating to some editors. In future, would it help to copy and paste the entire article into the talk page if it behind a paywall? Or would this breach copyright? What is the largest percentage of an article you are allowed to paste into the talk page (eg 100 word-portions perhaps)? Thanks
That would breach copyright. One could paste a few relevant sentences. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


It's ultra-nationalist. (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the headline?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
How on earth does the opinion piece of an Irish republican outlet mean that UKIP is ultranationalist? They're clearly nationalist, but there is a clear distinction between ultranationalism and nationalism. It's not like hyperbole isn't used in political hitpieces. (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
We go wit what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
UKIP isn't ultra nationalist either. they are even running coloured muslims candidates.See the peer reviewed academic sources on that belowIsaw (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Isaw

Does UKIP actually have any far right policies? I know my view on this is old fashioned. Labour might be riddled with Communists and anti-Semites, the and Lib Dems led by an anti-democrat, but the characters they attract don't change their policies. Flexdream (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Source on ukip having an London Assembly member[edit]

Where is the source? Last I heard all ukip london assembly members defected months ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talkcontribs) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There was some confusion about Kurten, who joined a group with another name but remained in UKIP. However, he has since left, best I can tell. See the discussion at Talk:2020_London_Assembly_election#Kurten. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep he is still in ukip, he appeared at the conference for ukip today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talkcontribs) 11:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:2020_London_Assembly_election#Kurten concluded that he remains a member of UKIP, with sourcing found. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-Islam" in the ideology section of the infobox[edit]

On 17 June 2019, the account Martopa added "Anti-islam" to the ideology section of the infobox on the UKIP article. They cited this French source:

The source describes UKIP as "openly anti-Muslim", and this seems to be the basis upon which Martopa added "Anti-islam" to the infobox.

Martopa made this edit without any edit comments.

On 15 August 2019, I removed "Anti-islam" from the article and commented: "Removed "Anti-Islam" from the "Ideology" section of the infobox. The source cited did not even support it, and UKIP does not have any anti-Islam policies. Batten as leader associated with anti-Islam activist Robinson, but 47% of UKIP members voted for candidates that opposed this in the recent leadership election, so unfair to label the entire party "Anti-Islam"."

I mistakenly said "the source cited did not even support it", however, despite the source referring to UKIP as "openly anti-Muslim", there is still plenty of reason not to have "anti-Islam" under UKIP's Ideology in the infobox.

On 12 September, Martopa returned to the article and added "anti-Islam" to the ideology section of the infobox, citing the same source.

I undid the edit, and used the same edit comment I wrote on 15 August to justify the undo by copying/pasting.

Soon afterwards, Martopa undid the undo, commenting: "It is explicitly said near the bottom of the article : "ouvertement antimusulman" which means "openly anti-Muslim" in English".

I reverted this back to my edit, commenting "That source does not at all justify putting "anti-Islam" as UKIP's ideology. A quick description of UKIP in one article as "anti-Muslim" doesn't cut it. Details of Batten's far-right direction/associations are clearly mentioned and prominent in the article already. UKIP as a party is not necessarily anti-Islam."

The account Snowded then reverted the article back to Martopa's edit, saying "You are edit warring - make the case on the talk page".

"Anti-Islam" does not belong in the ideology section of the infobox as it is disputed whether UKIP is an anti-Islam party, just as how "Libertarianism" does not belong in this section of the article. In fact, there is a note in the infobox telling users not to add "Libertarianism".

A short description of UKIP as "anti-Muslim" in an article doesn't justify adding anything to the infobox - especially when it is disputed.

Batten's association with the far-right is clearly documented and prominent in the article. Perhaps the source could be used elsewhere in the article? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it best that we hold off from including "anti-Islam" in the infobox until such a time as there clearly are a number of Reliable Sources (ideally academic studies by political scientists and the like, not just free web sources) that support this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is almost as much a joke as the media. Tommy Robinson is NOT FAR RIGHT and doesnt say anything that is far right. opposing radical militant muslims or islam isnt far right its a human right. Robinson was employed by UKIP that's a complete lie and the media knows it. This country is full of sheep willing to listen to this rubbish — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have RS supporting any of this please provide them?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was that the merger shall go ahead Theprussian (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Leader of UKIP into UKIP. I think that the content in the Leadership article can easily be explained in the context of UKIP, there is very little significant other information on the Leader article and there is already a good enough table that shows the former UKIP leaders in the main UKIP article, do we really need another one? Theprussian (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)