Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about UK Independence Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

UKIP policies

UKIP's policies are not gone into in nearly enough detail. I am about to begin solving this problem, but I cannot possibly begin to fill in all the gap's on my own. I would urge other editor's to assist me in this task. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone editing the article try to spell at least some words properly? And add citations, sources and the like? 90.231.2.252 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take the time to check your spelling? It's really rather a mess at the moment and I'm sure most of us have other projects to work on rather than tidy this work up. Also, please add source for the policies you are quoting in the article - without sources the work you are doing is likely to be removed. Setwisohi (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again?

Can Fry2000 explain why he/she has, once again, taken to adding 'Libertarian' to the info box? Setwisohi (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fry2000, I note that you are, again, reverting the info-box of this article. This time, not to add Libertarian but to remove Populism. There are sources for Populism, it seems to me. So please justify your point here before reverting this article again. Setwisohi (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see the reasoning behind this move. The claim is referenced and no alternative sources have been provided to contest the claim. Road Wizard (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

centralisation

Does someone know the policy of UKIP towards the london assembly (mayor). If it advocates abolishing the Scottish Government, Northern irish and Welsh assemblies surely the Londdon assembly comes into this? --Brideshead (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Populism sources

This is outrageous. You can't used biased media sources and personal blogs as reliable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveThePhysicist (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the sources and your argument has some merit. The first source at UKIPwatch does not appear to mention either "populist" or "populism" (at least my browser search tool can't find the words there). The second is an opinion piece published by The Guardian; though the publisher is a reliable source, WP:RS urges caution when dealing with opinion pieces. The third source at International Viewpoint appears to be more reliable, with the proviso that it is written from a left-wing perspective for an admittedly Trotskyist organisation. The fourth source, PaperEuroscepticism1.doc (Doc format), is written by a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Texas for the European Union Studies Association. Though the background of the author is unclear, a paper written from an American perspective would suggest a certain level of impartiality in the European debate.

I am not sure how to resolve this one. Taken individually the sources are a little weak, but collectively they imply support for the claim. Are there any sources to suggest that the UKIP is not a populist party? Do the UKIP themselves claim not to be a populist party?

The opinion of other editors would be welcome here. Road Wizard (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If thats the way the pro EU lot vandalise the UKIP page by removing perfectly accurate information, then put in Populism, which the party does have a few policies that could be called that. But in comparison there is more evidence to show UKIP is Libertarian than exists to show it is Populist. If they want to play the 'delete Libertarianism game' maybe Populism should be deleted. All this false editing is is hipocritical and biased.

Eurosceptic Libertarian (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Road Wizard that the four sources listed are on the whole fairly low-grade. The first is clearly irrelevant - as you rightly say, it doesn't even mention populism. The second, from the Guardian, I actually thought was the best of the lot, as it does make a serious attempt to turn 'populism' into a useful concept for political analysis rather than just a term of casual political abuse. The third reference only shows us that a Trotskyist organisation once used populism as a term of casual political abuse. The fourth reference is from a paper by a PhD student - but the paper is so riddled with basic factual errors that I'm amazed it was ever accepted for presentation at a conference. In answer to your final question, I don't think that four weak references (or even four hundred) should be given the same value as one strong one. And as far as I am aware, UKIP have never claimed to be a populist party. (Kilroy-Silk made some very populist remarks during his brief membership of UKIP , but presumably in a personal capacity, and anyway, that was several years ago). Overall, I suggest the deletion of references 1, 3 and 4, the deletion of the 'populist' tag in the infobox, and that a sentence be put into the body of the article saying that some have claimed that UKIP is a populist party, supporting this with reference 2. Would that work? Twilde (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The first source doesn't have the word 'populist' in it neither does it need it. Demonstrably, the words being spoken by UKIP members are populist. (I wonder if some of those commenting here actually understand what populist means? It's not a derogatory term - it means to speak of issues which strike home or are of immediate concern to ordinary folk. Which clearly these UKIP members are doing. What is the motivation of those who want to say that UKIP are not populist in this manner?) The second source is fine; a political opinion piece in the Guardian and - as Twilde suggests - proof that some commentators claim UKIP is populist. The third source is also fine. It makes the same point - namely that some commentators claim UKIP is populist. Finally the fourth source is a PhD paper. That'll do for me and it does for every other article on Wikipedia. Finally, one point some folk need to grasp, what UKIP themselves have - or have not - claimed to be the case is totally irrelevant. UKIP cannot be a 3rd party source on their own ideology. Setwisohi (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a little unclear how your interpretation of the first source abides by the key policy of No original research, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic and directly support the information as it is presented."

As you are analysing the source and interpreting what it says as supporting the populist position then there is a conflict with policy. Also, the source is neither directly related to nor directly supportive of the claim of populism as a UKIP ideology. If it is so obvious that UKIP is a populist party then there must be a clearer source out there.

Proof that some claim a party to be populist is not in itself supportive of a blanket description of "populist". Please read the guidance on handling opinion pieces, which clearly requires that the person or entity stating the opinion must be identified in the article text; opinion pieces cannot and must not be used to support a single word entry in an infobox. If you want to use the source then write an appropriate sentence in the article to which you can attach the citation.

As I stated above, the background of the PhD candidate is unclear. If the candidate failed to gain their PhD, would you consider the paper to have as much weight? How do you answer Twilde's point that the paper includes factual errors? If one part of the paper is erroneous the ability of the author to carry out adequate fact checking is immediately called into question, raising doubts as to the source's reliability. Also, comparison to other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant as there can be no adequate comparison between the quality of the sources, what the sources are being used for or if the other use is also in breach of existing policy.

Your final point - that UKIP's stance on whether they consider themselves to be populist is irrelevant - is incorrect in a case with such weak sourcing for a particular claim. If they state that they are a populist party then this argument is meaningless, we can use their own description of themselves as the key source. Road Wizard (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The first source is not original research. Reading and understanding what an article says is hardly research.

"Proof that some claim a party to be populist is not in itself supportive of a blanket description of "populist"". No-one is arguing that. It is weight to the claim and not proof in itself. It takes many bricks make a wall.

"As I stated above, the background of the PhD candidate is unclear. If the candidate failed to gain their PhD, would you consider the paper to have as much weight? How do you answer Twilde's point that the paper includes factual errors?" What a strange thing to say. A PhD candidate is a PhD candidate after all and not a first year undergraduate. So yes, fail or no, I'd take their expertise and impartial comments over those of any editor - including myself - any day. And as to Twilde's point that the paper includes factual errors - I'm not going to answer it. How do I know if the paper has factual errors? Perhaps Twilde is wrong? Are we to analyse "the source and interpret what it says"? Because above you say we should not.

Your final point - that UKIP's stance on whether they consider themselves to be populist is irrelevant is incorrect - is incorrect. Where a fact is in dispute, reliable 3rd party sources are required to prove or disprove the case. Please read the appropriate guidance on this regarding proper use of sources. Setwisohi (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The first source does not say they are a populist party. You are interpreting what they are saying as indicative of what a populist party might sound like. That is a clear breach of No original research. If you are unwilling to accept that then it may be best to request the opinion of an independent editor (perhaps a request for someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties to review the case?).

If you acknowledge that the "brick" is being used inappropriately then it should not be used in that context. Either use it correctly in the body of the article where it can be attributed to its author or allow it to be removed from the article. An infobox is generally seen as a summary of the article; if the issue is explained and sourced in the article text there is no need to source it again in the infobox.

For the PhD candidate claim you appear to be misquoting policy. We are not analysing what the source is saying and writing in things that are not said (per your analysis of the first source). We are attempting to judge whether or not the source is reliable. As I said in my original review of the sources, this one appears acceptable, but weak. As I don't know what the factual errors are that Twilde identified I will let that editor pursue the matter if they are so inclined. As with the opinion piece this source would be stronger if it is used to support an appropriate statement, not just a one word summary.

It is a little strange to say, "Where a fact is in dispute, reliable 3rd party sources are required to prove or disprove the case. Please read the appropriate guidance on this regarding proper use of sources." The fact being in dispute is not sufficient reason not to use a self-published source, the limiting factor is whether the issue is contentious (see WP:SELFPUB). The dispute here is that there are only a handful of weak sources available to support the claim, not that the claim itself is contentious. As all parties use populist policies to one degree or another, the only problem is highlighting it as a specific UKIP ideology without adequate sourcing. What makes UKIP so more populist than other UK parties?. Again, a statement to explain why the UKIP is considered populist would be better than a single word summary. Road Wizard (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that my reply of 21:01, 27 September 2008 above was written at the same time as Setwisohi's provision of alternative sources below. I will review the new sources and judge whether they are able to settle my concerns. Road Wizard (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources to mull over:

The Independent, the commentator specifically refers to UKIP as populist: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sean-ogrady-the-leaders-team-sighted-an-open-goal-but-hit-the-crossbar-731921.html

The Charist specifically refers to UKIP as populist (Hmm... an admittedly left wing magazine. perhaps they just dont know what they are talking about then?): http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/britpol/nov05fieschi.htm

In an article from the Daily Express Helmut Kohler refers to UKIP as Populist here (He says ‘eurosceptics’ rather than ‘ukip’ – but unless he thinks UKIP are not eurosceptics then we can infer he does include them?):http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/10248/Opponents+of+EU+treaty+accused+of+being+

Here is an academic paper presented at the University of Birmingham – they make no bones about the fact that UKIP is a populist party: http://www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk/seminars/minor_parties/pdfs/Abedi_Lundberg.pdf

The Liberal (a centrist magazine) makes the same claim, namely that UKIP are a populist party: http://www.theliberal.co.uk/issue_11/reviews/nf_kovar_b_11.html

The Socialist Worker (very left wing) also says it:http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=1229

As does this left wing organization: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=15

From academia again here we have another, from the School of Social Science at Aberdeen: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LCUEt0aSrEQJ:www.abdn.ac.uk/local/handbooks/viewer.php3//Politics_%26_IR/Politics/Politics_first_semester/PI4055.doc%3Fhandbook/Politics%2520%2526%2520IR/Politics/Politics%2520first%2520semester/PI4055.doc+%22ukip%22+%22populism%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=57&gl=uk (An admittedly tricky one this: note that the course is “to provide an understanding of the development of extreme right, racist and right wing populist parties and movements in Western Europe”. Hmm... and the suggested internet resources for such a course? Five sites are listed. The BNP. The National Front and Searchlight. Skewdriver and, yes youve guessed it, UKIP).

Of course ordinary folk say it on forums such as this (But I grant, we cant use ordinary folk as sources): http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34631&sid=dea970ed53cf6b9dcf8a3dbe0c53baab

So that’s people on the left, people in the centre, college courses, academic papers, politicians, ordinary folk and a journalist from the Independent. We already have PhD students and columnists from the Guardian. I could find more but I really dont see why I should. The four sources that we have listed suffice. If there is to be any further debate, let's now see some evidence from the naysayers to show that UKIP are not a populist party. Setwisohi (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra sources, Setwisohi. I have problems with most of them, and think you may be again going for the quantity over quality approach. I'll try to provide an in-depth critique next time I have a couple of hours to spare. More immediately, I have two questions: (1) "If there is to be any further debate, let's now see some evidence from the naysayers to show that UKIP are not a populist party." Can you please indicate what sort of thing you would accept as evidence of the UKIP not being a populist party? Knowing that will make it much easier to Google. (2) Can you confirm that you will be editing the ideology section of the Labour Party article's infobox to include the description 'Warmongers'? I'm sure it would be easy to find a similarly varied list of sources where they have been called that, so presumably for consistency's sake you would have to support that edit. If not, why not? (3) If your reply to (2) is that populism isn't a disparaging term but warmongers is, then please consider which of your sources above may actually be using populism as a disparaging term. Twilde (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources to provide to counter the above? Well I'd be happy to see any reliable 3rd party sources which state that UKIP are not a populist party. (For example, it may be that a commentator in a mainstream daily argues that to call UKIP Populist is incorrect - that would be one source. An academic paper making the same point would be another. And so on..). As it stands, at the moment, we have nothing to discuss here. Clearly lots of people (sic) do claim that UKIP are populist and, so far, no-one claims that they are not. (With the exception of a few editors who, perhaps, just don't like the label). Setwisohi (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Twilde, on your other point; Populism is an ideology. Warmonger is not. So no, I would not add 'Warmongers' to an info box which listed political ideologies. As to whether or not some sources use 'Populist' in a derogatory manner - which I assume is your serious point - yes, absolutely. Some people do use it in that manner. But does that make it inappropriate or incorrect? No. In my own case, I'd call Hitler a Nazi and intend the usage in the most derogatory manner possible. But that doesn't change the fact of it - he was a Nazi. Setwisohi (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Setwisohi, thanks for the clarification as to what you would count as evidence of a party not being populist. I searched with Google for UKIP+populist and came up with lots of matches, many of which you have already listed above. Then I Googled UKIP+"not populist" and have to admit that I came up with nothing of any worth. I was going to concede your point, but as an experiment I then Googled "Labour Party"+populist and got hundreds of matches. I tried "Labour Party"+"not populist" and came up only with chaff. I repeated substituting "Conservative Party" for "Labour Party" with very similar results. In short, the description (or accusation?) "populist" seems to be regularly applied to UKIP, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party alike, by a wide variety of commentators, and only very rarely explicitly rejected by other commentators. The vast number of internet references to Labour and the Conservatives compared to the relatively few for UKIP probably means that out there somewhere is some commentator saying that Labour isn't populist, if we search for long enough, but the numbers speak for themselves. The question is, why? I suspect that the answer is that the word "populist" is used in at least two difference senses. Populist (1) is more or less as defined by the Wikipedia article on populism (though note the strong reservations voiced later within that article), ie to describe "a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites."" Populist (2) means something like "a person who promotes some policy which I despise, but which I fear will be popular with people less educated than myself." The vast majority of internet references to all parties use the word in this second sense. This second sense of the word 'populism' is imho a casual political slur unworthy of inclusion in an infobox. The sheer facts that it is so vague, requires so little supporting evidence and is so tricky to refute probably explain its broad popularity as a term of disparagement. However, we have to decide which way to go as regards editing this piece. My preferred option would be to delete this unhelpful and confusing term from the infobox for the UKIP article. However, if you insist on keeping it, then we would also have to add it to the infoboxes for the Labour Party and Conservative Party articles. It would be a doddle to come up with a corresponding set of references to justify attributing this description to either party. (And possibly also to the LibDems - I haven't done the corresponding Google for them yet.) Which way would you prefer to go on this? Twilde (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points. And I agree with much of what you say. The way to go? Well, by all means do add it to those other party info-boxes and, assuming you meet with resistance, notify me and I'll support your addition in any discussion with reference to this debate. (Maybe the 'thorn' of Populism can then be drawn one way or the other - if/when other editors are involved and a good discussion ensues?). Setwisohi (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's stupid, why not add 'populist' to every political party info box Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.111.139 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that is indeed what we are proposing. I think it would be much better to leave this confusing, ambiguous and highly subjective term out of infoboxes altogether, but Setwisohi won't agree to that. However, he does agree that in fairness if it is applied to UKIP we must also apply it - properly referenced of course - to other parties. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this. Maybe Setwisohi would like to? Until somebody has time to add the referenced Populist label to all the other UK parties and then defend the label in the inevitable edit wars which will follow, I think we must in fairness delete the label from the infobox of this article. Does everyone concur? Setwisohi? Road Wizard? Twilde (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You should not remove sourced material from an article. And you should certainly not do so on the grounds that that same information is not in another article. That would be a very disruptive practice and I advise against it. JaneVannin (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing sourced material - especially material with so many sources - is tantamount to vandalism. Also, if you want to add it, Twilde, you do it. Don't expect others to do your work for you - we're all very busy. Setwisohi (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Setwisohi, you are obtuse! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.111.139 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fry2000, please stop making personal remarks and please stop removing sourced material from articles. I don't want to have to make an issue of this and to have to report you for vandalism. So just move on to something else please. I know you have other interests - I can see that from your edit history. Thankyou. Setwisohi (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Setwisohi - thanks for your comments above. I find them valuable for the interesting questions they raise about editing policy - even if you yourself seem only dimly aware of those implications. For instance, if sourced material is to be regarded as sacrosanct (and I largely agree with Jane that it should be) then the references chosen become crucial. If so, surely there needs to be a process for assessing their quality and relevance? And who should make those judgments in the case of disagreement? And should a claim about some factual matter such as the number of legs on a centipede require the same quality, number and type of sources required to support some highly subjective claim in a politics article? Surely the bar in the latter case should be set much higher? These big questions clearly can't be explored in full on this talk page and have far wider implications than just for this article, but you might like to bear them in mind when editing here. 2) In the absence of clear agreement on the standards required from references, I shall refrain from deleting the Populism claim. However, Setowisohi haas already agreed that it is unsatisfactory to apply it to one party's info box when it might apply equally to other parties. Therefore rather than deleting it I shall make it less prominent by shifting it to a sentence in the text of the article. I trust this will be regarded as a satisfactory compromise. If not - if anyone feels the urge to revert the edit I've just described - then may I suggest that we take a vote on this page to settle the matter? Twilde (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the material. The removal of sourced information from an article without general consent - especially when consent has been sought and not obtained - is incorrect editing procedure and could be construed as provocative editing or even as vandalism. Consent must be obtained before sourced material is removed. JaneVannin (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As a further note to this, I've just skimmed back over the discussion. There are now 13 (thirteen) sources given which make reference to the fact that UKIP are a Populist party. The detail of these sources I can't vouch for one way or the other but the sources themselves are not blogs, they are 3rd party and they do seem to be reputable. So, all in all, I have to say that I think most Wikipedians would consider it bad practice to remove something which has this many sources of this type. Editors involved here might wish to bear this in mind? JaneVannin (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jane. The removal of sourced information from an article without general consent may indeed be incorrect editing procedure, but plainly that is not what is at issue here. Nobody has removed sourced information - I merely shifted it from one part of the article to another, and you merely shifted it back again. (As regards the poor quality/relevance of those sources - please see proceeding discussion. However, that question is not relevant to the edit which you have just reverted.) As you are plainly unhappy with this material being moved within the article, I hereby suggest that we have a vote here on whether the Populism claim should be in the infobox or in the body of the article. Although the justification you gave for reverting my edit plainly had no application here, as a courtesy to you I shall leave the Populism claim in the infobox while the vote is taking place. I propose that we give the vote two weeks. Agreed? Twilde (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the vote on this proposal is further down this talk page. It was here, immediately after the discussion which informs it, and has been moved for reasons I don't understand. ("Tucked away out of sight?") Still, that doesn't matter so long as people can find it easily. Twilde (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as these (and others you have made recently) are not being made in good faith. They could be misconstrued by editors as personal attack. Please refrain and let's keep the debate civil. Thanks! Setwisohi (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I strive to always be civil, here and elsewhere. Furthermore my remarks are always made in good faith - and unless you have mindreading abilities I doubt your ability to make judgments about the goo or bad faith of fellow editors. On the subject of civil or uncivil remarks, I note that you recently told another editor on this talk page to, and I quote, "shut the f*ck up". If you continue with your patronising, high-handed and occasionally downright abusive attitude towards editors with whom you have disputes, I shall raise a complaint. Twilde (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go. How utterly uncharming and uncivil. OK. If that's how you want it, any further personal remarks or personal attacks like this and I shall certainly be reporting you. Please do not bother to reply further. I have no wish to talk to a person who obviously enjoys being so rude. Setwisohi (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Twilde, you have been sniding at people increasingly. Please stop and let's keep matters civil. JaneVannin (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is outrageous that 2 people proclaiming themselves as pro-european get to decide whether or not to edit this article on populism bases. Though, to be fair, nowadays each and every party out there across Europe can be marked as populist one way or another, to have the UKIP be your role-model is simply lousy, at best. And after the decider is Mr Setwisohi, who himself in his profile has quote This user will celebrate the day Margaret Thatcher declines her inherent existentiality. one has to wonder, when other people start to use Wikipedia to heal their policital complex. Note please, that I am not the UKIP supporter nor have anything to do with this party, but I am convinced, that to base identification of political preferences and stands heavily on one article from Guardian is simply everything, but objective analysis. Others sources are unfortunately dubious, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airwave182 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not outrageous. The sources include fully independent political commentators. I am not a Mr. And you should not remove sourced material without consensus. Any further questions please do ask. Setwisohi (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront as a source

Can someone please explain to me why the material sourced from Stormfront, an anonymous discussion board, has been reinstated?Stormfront is not a legitimate source. If anything on Stormfront was factual, it would have to give a link or a source to back itself up. It is not a source in itself. Rjd.1892 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, yes, that was me I'm afraid. The background is that back in 2004, while I was still a UKIP supporter, I was asked by another editor on this talk page about alleged infiltration of UKIP by the BNP. I did some digging and replied with what I could find out (see archived talk page here: [1] ) As he found it interesting, he turned it into a paragraph within the article under the section "UKIP and the Far Right". It included a link to a thread I'd googled on the fascist Stormfront discussion board - where the veiled comments of BNP activists made quite clear that they had indeed infiltrated UKIP with hostile intent. The link to the Stormfront thread was therefore not really a reference so much as a piece of dated evidence. I wouldn't have put it into the article myself, but the editor who did so is a senior Wikipedian ( user:David Gerard ) who is coincidentally the Press Officer for Wikimedia UK and presumably knew the rules on sources. A couple of years later I noticed the link was broken because this rather damning thread had been (understandably!) deleted from Stormfront. So, because of its historical interest, I located it on the Internet Archive and redirected the link there. It stayed up for another couple of years and was finally deleted last week - just 12 hours before the BNP apparently pulled a rather similar stunt against UKIP at a meeting last weekend. (See extensive press coverage at, for instance, [2] and [3] ) I was briefly suspicious about the close timing, wondering if the deletion might have been in anticipation of a sudden surge of interest in UKIP/BNP connections, and therefore I swiftly restored the link, but it is obvious from your edits that you are no fascist, so I assume that this was pure coincidence. Wikipedia does breed paranoia, doesn't it? Anyway, sorry about that. I still think that this link is a special case and should be allowed, but I don't feel strongly about it and if you think it breaks the guidelines then feel free to delete it. Twilde (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does breed paranoia! I thought you were some hypocrite using biased sources, which is what the BNP and the like are often accused of doing. I don’t believe we can use this as a source, and we’ve been unable to find any others. However, the links you have just supplied can be used to fashion a new paragraph.Rjd.1892 (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership figures

The article cites two membership figures, and the sourced one leads to a broken link.14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected both to the 15,878 figure given in UKIP's 2007 statement of accounts to the Electoral Commission. Whiteabbey (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Whiteabbey

Setwisohi & Eurosceptic Libertarian

I suggest that Setwisohi & Eurosceptic Libertarian both be barred from editing this page, as it is clear neither are objective contributers! Fry2000—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. They are in an edit war and it is not at all helpful. Conduct yourselves properly please. Alex McKee (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea of "barring" individual editors from editing a single page is neither practical nor possible. It is also important to remember that there are always at least two sides to an edit war. Rather than suggesting tit-for-tat deletion of different statements (per User:Eurosceptic Libertarian above) or issuing threats to bar (per User:Fry2000), the involved editors should enter into a discussion to try to find an acceptable compromise.

~~If an informal discussion fails to achieve a consensus then you can always initiate more formal dispute resolution methods. Road Wizard (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)~~Comments withdrawn. Road Wizard (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I never threatned anyone, I only made a suggestion

Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.156 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have misinterpreted the situation, however a "suggestion" of barring someone is not often helpful. In this case it would have been wiser to follow the three revert rule process as both editors appeared to breach the policy yesterday. Road Wizard (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A little look at the edit history reveals a different story: User:Eurosceptic Libertarian has set up what appears to be a single purpose account to stir up the issue (much discussed) of Libertarianism and the UKIP - having previously done so as an anonymous IP. This user has been asked to stop adding the Libertarian tag to this article by User:Setwisohi and to bring the issue to discussion. They have not yet done so. As it is, or has been, a contentious issue, their failure to show such good faith suggests that their edits are tantamount to vandalism. JaneVannin (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I have misinterpreted the situation. My apologies for causing any confusion. I have withdrawn my comments. Road Wizard (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The amount of evidence that to show that UKIP is in part Libertarian is overwhelming. From what I have seen above a few people have bought the issue to the table, provided the evidence of Libertarain ideals, which have been ignored by those with a pro EU agenda. Ironic. Just like your masters in Brussels.

PS: Just like the UKIP is not a single issue party, my account is also not single issue.

Eurosceptic Libertarian (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not rocket science. There's a very simple rule to follow. A disputed fact can be added to an article when, and only when, reliable 3rd party sources are given to show such a fact is indeed appropriate. UKIP, like Nigel Farage, is not a 3rd party source. But if you have others - both reliable and 3rd party - please do offer them here. Setwisohi (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Fry2000, given that you have made - as an anonymous IP - all of the following disruptive edits to this article this summer - ceaselessly removing sourced material and occassionally adding the libertarian tag - may I politely suggest you shut the f*ck up?

Setwisohi (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't politly tell anybody to shut the f*ck up. I dispute your charactisation that the listed edits were disruptive Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.156 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact I might make another! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.156 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom Wise

MEP Wise was suspended from UKIP in 2007,[4] left IND/DEM in June 2008,[5] now sits as an Independent[6][7] amongst the Non-Inscrits,[8][9][10] and no longer appears on the UKIP website as a UKIP MEP.[11] For these reasons, and to be consistent with the line "the remaining MEPs are", I have removed him from the table of current UKIP MEPs. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They ARE a libertarian party

As evidented by Googling their name, "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union."

Google UKIP

Sir Richardson (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been done to death by scores of other editors. See the archives of this discussion page. So please do not add this tag to this info box unless/until you can provide some reliable 3rd party sources to justify it. (UKIP are not a 3rd party source of information on themselves). Setwisohi (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced it from a third party. We can all go back to discussing worthwhile things now. 71.105.104.214 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And what a third party!!! The source is totally unacceptable - a personal blog and totally an opinion pice from start to finish, with several questionable statements of fact. Personally, I doubt this even qualifies as "third party", since the writer appears to be an enthusiastic member of Ukip; it is certainly an extremely one-sided piece. It is no good sources being from a third party unless they are also reliable, independent, balanced etc etc. This is pure hagiographic opinion; the fact that it appears on a university blog does not make it an academic reference! Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The endless sometimes desperate attempts to add 'Libertarian' to this article never cease to amaze me. It's really very very simple; if UKIP are Libertarian, then reliable 3rd party sources must exist which substantiate this. With reliable 3rd party sources the Libertarian tag can be added. Without them it cannot. Setwisohi (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Blog? A school newspaper is hardly a blog. Sheesh. 71.105.104.214 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you've clearly not read it. Firstly, it's a university not a school. It's not a newspaper ("online only"), and the entries are blogs. Emeraude (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move Populism claim from infobox to body of article

It is proposed that the sourced claim that UKIP is a populist party should be moved from the infobox to somewhere in the body of the article.

Strongly agree As a political descriptor, populism is loaded, subjective and deeply ambiguous. The references show that UKIP has been described as a populist party - which is a verifiable fact worth noting in the article. However, the references do not and cannot show that UKIP is a populist party. Therefore to include Populism as a description in the infobox is unencyclopedic, therefore the descriptor, with references, should be moved to the body of the text. The text should be phrased so as to make clear that commentators have made the claim, not that Wikipedia is stating it as fact. Twilde (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Sourced information is the backbone of Wikipedia. Nothing (not one source) has been offered to counter the 13 (thirteen) sources which state that UKIP is a Populist party. If we start removing things from articles, or tucking them away out of sight, with no argument other than we don't like them, then that is the road to chaos. JaneVannin (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree As it stands at the moment Political scientists, commentators, political groups, universities, PhD students and journalists in mainstream newspapers call UKIP a Populist party. Twilde disagrees. That's not grounds for changing an article, folks. Setwisohi (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note also that this vote runs counter to Wikipedia policy. (See [12]). If there has to be dispute resolution it should be via Requests for Comment (see [13]) and not via an ad hoc vote. Setwisohi (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The page you have just linked is explicitly not a statement of Wikipedia policy. However, the following is: [14]. Maybe it will be more helpful? It discusses the limits of the validity of article-based straw polls such as this one. Twilde (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better link, Twilde. Thankyou. (Mind you, it still makes the same point, however, that consensus is the way forward and not voting. Voting may be an aid - but it is not decisive in itself). OK, so as things stand, we still have reliable 3rd party sources saying that UKIP are a Populist party against the opinion of one/some editor/s saying they are not. Nothing can be changed on this basis. So please do provide some sources which support your view or do let the matter drop. No-one is trying to be difficult about this, it is just the way Wikipedia works. With sources, you'll surely get consensus. Without them, there really is nothing more to be said. Setwisohi (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Setwisohi sums up the issue quite succinctly with the comment "we still have reliable 3rd party sources saying that UKIP are a Populist party against the opinion of one/some editor/s saying they are not." Let's be blunt about this: the 'opinions' of Wiki editors are not worth a fig. Editors are explicitly forbidden to base articles or edits on their opinions. It's the sources which count. While there are relaible third party sources all pointing one way and no sources offering the contrary view, there is no need for debate. And, contrary to what Twilde says, the word populism is not "loaded, subjective and deeply ambiguous". Used by political scientists and commenators it has a very precise meaning. If some readers do not understand it, that is their problem and they need to find out more by reading the works of experts, but it is no reason to do away with it. Emeraude (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like another Strongly disagree. I think it is best marked as such. Not necessarily for the purposes or benefit of the editors involved here, who I'm sure are all working with the best of intent, but for the inevitable AnonIP edits which are sure to follow. As they seem to on this topic time and time again. JaneVannin (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While I always support statements that are backed by "reliable 3rd party sources", my key bone of contention here is the first source:

<ref>[http://www.ukipwatch.org/ukipspeeches200602.html UKIPwatch]</ref>

The source does not mention either the word populist or populism but instead relies entirely on an unproven interpretation of a source. This appears to be in contravention of the first paragraph of WP:NOR. Also, if you need four separate sources to support a claim, then that implies the sources are too weak to support the claims in their own right. As a step forward in progressing this issue I would suggest selecting the strongest two (or at most three) of the "13 sources" mentioned earlier and using them instead of the four existing sources. Road Wizard (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair to me, Road Wizard. How about using just the two: The Guardian (currently the 2nd source listed) and the political paper from 2007 (presented at the University of Birmingham)? These two sources show that i: commentators in mainstream newspapers refer to UKIP as populist and ii: experts in the field of politics also do the same thing. That should suffice. Setwisohi (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that this two week debate has not yet been closed by the person who insisted on having it. Could they perhaps manage the courtesy of coming back here and closing it? Setwisohi (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism, Thatcherism - in the info box

I dont think the sources added to support these two labels (recently added to the infobox) show that UKIP are either Conservative or Thatcherite. However I don't want to just remove them without getting other people's views first. Anyone disagree? Should these stay or go? Setwisohi (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Being the one that added them to the infobox, I see that they do indicate UKIP to be conservative and Thatcherite. I'm not sure though how it doesn't seem prevalent. 71.105.104.214 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me again. I think they should stay on as many UK Conservative party members like the UKIP as their second prefered party. However, the UKIP was seen as a single issue party from 1993 (when it started) but recently now, the UKIP may be more Conservative minded as they have policies that are more concerned with the economy and fiscal concerns. Nigel Farage has more fiscal and economic concerns than David Cameron as well.

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

You may be right, but that's just your opinion. The questions to consider are 1 do the refs support the tags of conservatism and Thatcherite, i.e do they specifically state as much, and, if so, 2 are the references themselves reliable third party sources? If the answer to both is unequivocally "Yes", then there's no problem. If there's any doubt as to either question, then the sources fail and the tags should be removed. Emeraude (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Having now read both sources very carefully, I make the following observations:

Conservatism: - source refers to Ukip as "a conservative party", which is not the same as Conservatism (notice capital C and that US and UK uses of conservative are very different). Nowhere does the writer say that Ukip's ideology is "Conservatism"; he merely describes it as "a conservative party", and in America that can be taken to be synonymous with reactionary or right wing. "Conservatism", on the other hand, means the ideology of the British Conservative Party (i.e Toryism). I am not in a position to comment on the reliablity of the author or The National Review, where this article first appeared, though its tone is decidely conservative (small c). Therefore, fails first question as does not say that Ukip embraces Conservatism.

Thatcherism: The source is a Daily Telegraph report that one, repeat, one, Thatcherite economist has joined Ukip. It does not say that Ukip is Thatcherite. While I would (generally) accept the Telegraph as a reliable third party source, this is actually not relevant since the article fails the first question.

In my view, neither source comes anywhere near supporting the assertions that Ukip's ideology embraces Conservatism or its particular brand, Thatcherism. It is, therefore, not only safe to remove the tags but correct to do so. Emeraude (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Emeraude sums that up pretty well. The source regarding Conservatism might be used to add weight to the argument that UKIP are Conservative - so long as other sources are found which suggest the same. But there appears to be nothing in the Thatcherite source. I'll remove both for now - we could restore the Conservative one if others are forthcoming? Setwisohi (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Another dubious source added for "Conservatism" as ideology, which I have removed. The cited article appears in Doublethink. The website decribes it: "Doublethink’s mission is to identify and develop young conservative and libertarian writers while delivering an excellent magazine of politics, culture, economics, and the arts, with original photography, artwork, and fiction. Doublethink is the official magazine of America’s Future Foundation." (Note small c.) The article says that Ukip "increasingly seems like the only alternative left for British conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals. With the Conservative Party forsaking principle for pragmatism under the so-called leadership of David Cameron, more and more Tories are voting with their feet and defecting to the UKIP.'

How reliable is this article? Well, firstly, once again it nowhere says that Ukip's ideology is Conservatism, which is the key point. It does say "two high-profile members of the Conservative Party announced they were joining the UKIP: Mark Hudson, a well-heeled Tory candidate for parliament and chairman of a conservative association in Kent, and Toby Horton, formerly chairman of Conservative leader William Hague’s constituency in Richmond." Mark Hudson? Toby Horton? High profile???? Come on.

The writer is described thus: "Alvino-Mario Fantini is Europe correspondent for Brainwash. He is currently an Erasmus Mundus scholar through the European Union." So, not an independent academic piece so much as an undergraduate student's POV opinion! Hardly reliable.

Incidentally, the editor who added this reference commented "I don't know where you get the idea that "capital C" Conservatism is any different from the miniscule adjective form but it sounds like original research". Sorry, but if you don't know the difference it's time you did some research. British politics and political thought are extremely well-covered in published sources and you should have no problem finding the difference between conservative and Conservative (or between liberal and Liberal come to that). Emeraude (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

British people are conservative (small c) and yet they have voted for a Labour government (as opposed to Conservative - large C) three times in recent years. That distinction - between small c and large C - is very commonplace in the UK. It's certainly not OR. Setwisohi (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. To label the ideology of Ukip as "Conservatism" needs a source or sources that states that is the case. It is not sufficient to cite a source that simply includes "Ukip" and "conservative" in the article, even if in the same sentence. Emeraude (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the part that called them Thatcherits, if you look at the source it was a very biased socialist paper that I do not believe can be counted as a relevent and unbiased support. FrankPalmerWhite (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you believe is no more valid. Wkipedia seeks accuracy, and there is nor reason per se that a biased source is inaccurate on a given issue. However, it is debatable whether or not the UKIP is Thatcherite inn the classic sense so your removal is probably acceptable. Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Will these give UKIP new ideologies?

Will any of these third-party links give UKIP more ideologies?

1.

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/Back/WNext29/Ukip.html

2.

http://www.ardue.org.uk/world/ukip.html

3.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-fears-ukip-poll-victory-732040.html

4.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/UKIP,+they+pick:+the+meaning+of+a+conservative+party's+recent+strong...-a0131003021

5.

http://inflandersfields.eu/2008/09/why-belgian-libertarians-should-support.html

6.

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/a-day-with-ukip-sean-gabb/

7.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/12/is_the_ukip_rea.html

8.

http://www.davidosler.com/2008/04/bob_spink_and_the_future_of_uk.html

These are some the third-party articles I could find which could give better indication that the UKIP may have more ideologies?

These 8 articles is what I believe is most best?

Thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Some are useful articles on the UKIP; others not. However, there is little direct reference in any of them to ideology. But how many ideologies do you think a party can have? Generally, the answer to that question is one, though it often happens that a party will overlap two or more. Do not confuse "ideology" with "policy". Emeraude (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thatcherism

Why has the tag 'Thatcherism' been removed? (TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Because there is considerable doubt, expressed in the above discussions many times, that UKIP is a Thatcherite party. There has certainly been no independent evidence presented that its ideology is or embraces Thatcherism. The usual Wikipedia standards apply: references must be from independent verifiable sources, preferably from academic sources. Until that evidence can be provided (and I doubt it will be), it is not appropriate to use the tag. Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It might also help you clarified the distinction between "ideology" and "policy". There is no question that UKIP embraces some of Thatcher's policies. However, its main raison d'être is to leave the European Union. This was most decidedly not one of Thatcher's policies! Emeraude (talk)

It did have a link to prove the UKIP has Thatcherism as an ideology. It can't just have Euroscepticism and Populism, because the UKIP have more than them ideologies. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

You're right - it did. But the editor (FrankPalmerWhite) who removed it pointed out that the source was not necessarily reliable. He wrote: "if you look at the source it was a very biased socialist paper that I do not believe can be counted as a relevent and unbiased support." Now, I pointed out in reply to him that just because someone is biased does not mean they are wrong. However, I have to agree that this single source is not of a high enough quality to be accepted. An anonymous user replaced Thatcherism without even attempting a citation and I removed that. Additionally, elsewhere on this page there have been other equally poor suggested references. Remember, a bad link does not, as you put it, "prove the UKIP has Thatcherism as an ideology". Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm.. actually, UKIP does seem to only have those two ideologies as, so far, no-one has found a source which states they have any other. Personally I feel sure that they believe fundamentally in Conservatism as well - but no source backs this up. Setwisohi (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, because when you type in UKIP on google, this comes up:

'Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.'

The Populism tag is pointless, because they too contain biased articles about the UKIP, so they should be removed as well, if they are biased like the Thatcherism article? (TheGreenwalker (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Change the record please. The Libertarian argument has been done to death. And then some. Not one single source substantiates the tag. By contrast there are a dozen sources for the Populist tag. Setwisohi (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is completly biased, because if there was an article claiming the UKIP was a Nationist party, would you add the Nationalism tag in? Not all articles are true and correct and I also think it is unfair to have two tags in, you also admitted you believed they have Conservative views as well. I highly believe that the Conservatism tag should be added, because many Conservative party members favour the UKIP and also, the UKIP DO have many Libertarian views (for example: scraping the ID cards and keeping out of peoples' lives like the average Libertarian wants).(TheGreenwalker (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Two points: 1. Reliable 3rd party sources claim that UKIP are Populist. If you want to object, take it up with them. There is nothing to dispute here in that respect. 2. No matter what you or I think, thus far no reliable 3rd party sources have been found which claim that UKIP are Libertarian or Conservative. Without such sources these tags should not be added. Find such sources and away you go. Setwisohi (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then, try and find as many UKIP 3rd party sources as possible, because I did try and search for some.(TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

That's fine. But please note, no blogs or similar - these are not reliable as sources. What you really want are university papers, phd papers, serious pieces in reputable newspapers, statements from national or multi-national organisations... not UKIP's own claims, nor claims made by people obviously affiliated to them. OK? Setwisohi (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I notice that you guys are still trying to find some third party sources that refer to UKIP as libertarian. Are any of these the kind of thing you are after? The Grauniad ("As unbelievable as it may sound, the British "libertarian" party UKIP has set up an office in the virtual world Second Life."): http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2006/nov/01/ukipsetsupof The Grauniad again (but quoting Nigel Farage. Does that make it an affiliated source?): http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/11/uk.localgovernment Nouse (University of York's award-winning student newspaper): http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/11/12/ukip-–-an-insight-into-one-of-the-fastest-growing-parties-in-the-uk/ ("UKIP has emerged as the only major libertarian party in the current lie of the land.") Libertarian Alliance - Director's Bulletin, November 2008 - LA Director Dr Sean Gabb confirms his intention to vote UKIP: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/about/bulletin-2008-11-08.htm Always happy to help! Twilde (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the first one. The " " are the clue to that. Nor that Farage says it of UKIP. The latter two are a little more interesting but they don't convince. But you're making the effort! Find more like those and you may have something. (I had to trawl out a dozen or so for Populist to be accepted and even that it was a struggle!) Setwisohi (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so could you find as many third, reliable sources as possible? Because I am very sure that on the internet, there are many more untouched articles, yes even if that is Populism?(TheGreenwalker (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

No. I have other things to do. But you can search for them. By all means. Setwisohi (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just looked everywhere for you, and I may have found some articles? If any of these articles are fine? Please add them on, because I don't know how to add articles to tags, like Populism.

May contain Populism:

http://www.socialismtoday.org/89/tories.html

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=8968

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue4/0404p32.html

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/03/1903.html

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45643,opinion,anti-semitism-rears-its-head-again-denis-macshane

http://www.socialismtoday.org/85/britain.html

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=785

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/73380

May contain Conservatism:

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/1/emw339194.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article664284.ece

http://www.colin-ross.org.uk/news/001235/conservative_candidate_in_worcester_has_joined_ukip.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/200406140013

http://inflandersfields.eu/2008/09/why-belgian-libertarians-should-support.html

May contain Libertarianism

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/11/12/ukip-%E2%80%93-an-insight-into-one-of-the-fastest-growing-parties-in-the-uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2006/nov/01/ukipsetsupof

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

We don't need any sources for Populism, we have that already. Setwisohi (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources for Libertarain are no good. Upon examination the first is basically a blog and the second is just "a piss-take". As has been stated very (very very) often before, so far, not one single source (3rd party and reliable) has been produced to show that any serious political figure considers UKIP Libertarian. Hey, perhaps that means that they are not? Perhaps we could all find better things to do with our time than constantly dispute this unsourced opinion? Just a thought.... Setwisohi (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Conservative sources also contain some blogs. (Please, no more blogs. OK?). Sadly, nothing in any of the others STATES that UKIP are a conservative party. The best I can say about these is that they suggest a very close political relationship, philosophically speaking, between some UKIP ideas and some Conservative ideas. So keep digging or find something else to do. The choice is yours. Best of luck if you decide to keep digging! Setwisohi (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At least I tried.(TheGreenwalker (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

You did. And you tried a lot harder than many others who have come on here! Setwisohi (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring and Tidying Up Article (May 09)

I've just been doing a little restructuring and tidying up of the article generally. Frankly, it has become a bit of a mess. The rambling and unbalanced (in terms of content) History section preceded the much more concise Policy section. Then bits of History were repeated later under Electoral Performance 2004-8 (why only those years?) and there were other bits of repetition too. I've brought the Policy section forward to put it above the History section (n line with the articles on the Labour Party and LibDems) and I've eliminated one or two bits of repetition, and done a little general tidying up. I THINK these changes will all be uncontroversial, but thought I'd mention them on the Discussion page partly to give people a place to comment if they wish. More pruning is needed, and there should be an enhanced section on UKIP in the European Parliament (which gets only a few lines at present), plus maybe an expanded Electoral Performance section Twilde (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The proposed name-change to the Independence Party never happened. Therefore I wonder if this proposal really deserves its own section, given that the article is already rather long? I'm going to delete it but do say if you disagree. Twilde (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Some good work. But all the stuff about their work in the parliament is out of place in this article. Why not create a separate new article about that and link back to this one? That would make more sense and allow for more detailed information/examination. This is an introductory piece to UKIP and should be kept as such. Setwisohi (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edits. Delighted that we're finally making some progress in cleaning up this article! However, I disagree that the material on UKIP activities in the European Parliament is irrelevant to the article. Au contraire, it strikes me as crucial, in fact. As Sartre said, we are what we do. Small parties rarely get a chance to "do" anything, but when as in this case one gains enough elected representatives to have an impact, their actions should be central to any description of that party. I fretted that this expanded section might make the article too long, but I've compared the length with that for articles on other UK parties (Greens, Plaid Cymru, LibDems) and see that this is not so at all. Therefore I've restored the deleted bits on the grounds that (a) thou shalt not delete relevant, sourced material and (b) he who wisheth to split off material from one article to create a separate article should go ahead and do so - but I don't wish to (I believe it belongs here anyway) and am busy with other stuff :-) Twilde (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well I disagree. So I've removed it again. If you want to fly-post or whatever for UKIP, I suggest you sign up to the party and offer your services. Setwisohi (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Setwisohi, the last thing I want is to get into a tedious edit war with you, especially as recently you've been this article's most assiduous contributor. We're intelligent people and we should be able to reach agreement on this quite minor point. However, I note that in reverting your delete last time, I offered a reason (several, actually) why this section should not be deleted; whereas in re-deleting it you have simply said that you disagree, without offering a reason. Why not leave it up while we discuss it? Incidentally, I saw a ref the other day for UKIP being Thatcherite - but is that discussion still live here? I don't care about it much one way or other. I'll dig it out if you like. Twilde (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

MP

There have been growing romours that 'Bob Spink has defected from the UKIP to an Independent MP in November, 2008'. This means the article needs changing if he is not a UKIP MP no more?

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I think it does. Can the lead be taken from the Bob Spink article? --Gordon (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent events

A section involving the BNP's attempt for a pact deal involving UKIP was removed. Why? (86.148.145.120 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Because it was a duplicate. There were two paragraphs in different parts of the article with essentially the same information. Therefore I deleted one and left the other. You can find the one I left in under: "Relationship with other parties / Far right parties". Twilde (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Right Wing

Hi

Are the UKIP a right wing party? I always thought they were more aptly described as a centre or centre left party. Where has that information come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.84.225 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the only places where the word "right" currently appears in the article are in the section of far right parties, a mention of "right of privacy" and the titles of two footnote references. At the moment we have UKIP described as Eurosceptic and Populist.

Individual interpretations constitute original research and should be avoided, particularly on political party articles as they cause more edit wars than they're worth. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As an essentially Conservative party with reactionary views, my own opinion (and so of no value in the article per se) is that they are right wing. But this might be disputed by others and I would fully understand that. However, they are not centre-left. Setwisohi (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Better Off Out

"Although UKIP did not come close to winning any seats at the 2005 general election, it polled well enough that their votes, if added to the Conservative candidates totals constituency by constituency, would have led to Conservative majorities in 22 more seats (13 of which were won by Labour, 9 by the Liberal Democrats). This has led to UKIP being criticised for preventing the election of eurosceptic Conservative MPs. UKIP counter by saying that they will not oppose any incumbent MPs from any party who support the Better Off Out campaign. A recent ConservativeHome survey revealed that 43% of surveyed members of the Conservative Party felt that UKIP was the closest party to their views (apart from the Conservative Party itself)[23], with 66% either supporting or sympathising with the Better Off Out campaign. Six Conservative MPs have signed the Better Off Out petition."

After looking on the BOO wikipedia page, I've found at least 3 MPs (Richard Shepherd, Austin Mitchell and Ann Winterton) who had UKIP candidates standing against them when they were incumbant MPs.

Should any edits be made to reflect this? 78.148.72.33 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening

Well, it's time to write explicitly which adjectives we can use in the article's opening to describe synthetically UKIP: these issue have been already discussed, so this edit war on "libertarian", "right-wing", "non-racist", "populism" etc. is quite boring.
I root for "conservative" and "Eurosceptic": we have third party sources for both. "Libertarian" and "non racist" are a self sescription, so better avoid them. "Right-wing" is a bit vague, not excluding explicitly far right (and conservatism could also be associated to centre-right rather than to right-wing). "Populism" is referenced, but perceivable as pejorative. 79.31.242.43 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see Conservative and Eurosceptic in that paragraph. So long as those tags - plus the sourced Populist - remain in the info-box and the increasingly tedious Libertarian is consistently removed until such time as it may be properly sourced. Setwisohi (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be good?

Hello, you may remember that I tried to get more ideologies for UKIP, well, I may have found something for Thatcherism? Please look and yes, I did check it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1539179/Thatcherite-economist-defects-to-Ukip.html

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Nice effort. I'm not sure it actually states that UKIP are Thatcherite but I can clearly see that one might imagine that they must have such leanings if a major Thatcherite economist has joined their ranks. However, and this is a big however, I'm not sure we can make such inferences and then add them to the article. Wait and see what others think? Setwisohi (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it will be good to let others think as well about this article. Also, I believe that Nigel Farage is a bit Thatcherite, because he liked her leadership during the 1980s, but he resigned from the Conservatives soon after when John Major came in power in November, 1990. I really researched these articles, and that one I found was most acurate for UKIP 'being Thatcherite'.

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

The economist in the article is described as Thatcherite. The economist is quoted as saying "I am joining Ukip because I believe in an independent Britain and because Ukip reflects the economic views I have always held." Though the article does not directly say that UKIP is Thatcherite, I would think that the economist is a reliable enough source. Even though the implications are vague, it seems a good enough source for "Thatcherism" in the infobox. Though that's just my tuppence. Any takers? Raymond Dundas (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the economist in that article Tim Congdon is no longer in UKIP. He left due to irreconcilable ideological differences. Alex McKee (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand 'he has left', but it still proves the fact that UKIP may attract other Thatcherite Conservatives in the future, of the policies they hold. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Fair point, TheGreenwalker, but given that Congdon has left because of ideological differences, it would be best to find more sources to support the claim. (Maybe the ideological difference was that UKIP was not Thatcherite enough?) Setwisohi (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another possible 'Thatcherite' reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7694477.stm Lady Thatcher was at a Bruges Group dinner recently. On being introduced to Nikki Sinclair and told that she was standing as a UKIP MEP candidate, Lady Thatcher replied "Good for you. Never give up, never give up." Plainly this doesn't mean Ladt T was giving UKIp any sort of blanket endorsement, but in one sense surely any movement or candidate that Thatcher approves of must by definition be 'Thatcherite'? :-) Twilde (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly more fuel for such a claim. If a political paper or similar could be found to support that claim too, I would be happy to see it included. As it stands, it is still too much a question of interpretation.

NO. These sources do not say that Ukip is Thatcherite or anything of the sort. Neither do they say or imply that because some individual one-time Thatcherites have joined (and left) Ukip or met with Ukip members that this makes Ukip Thatcherite. Neither does it say that Lady T approves of Ukip - a most unlikely assertion if ever there was one! Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ehh?

And I quote "...Right wing, non racist [Citation needed]..."

Is 'non-racist' encyclopedic? And even if it is.. does it require citation?

Um.. Dvmedis (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the "non racist" qualification: no independent source confirms it.

By the way I started a new section in order to decide together the initial description, but some editor apparently keeps on making controversial changes without discussing: this is frankly disappointing. Since there was seemingly a consensus on "conservative" and "Eurosceptic", I restore them: if somebody disagrees with this choice, please use this page. 82.54.225.96 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Expenses

The factual information that the leader of the party has taken £2 million in expenses as an MEP has been removed. Why? This has been universally reported and provides important contextual information about the Party. --TonyAustria (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I freely admit to being no-lover of UKIP or Eurosceptics and so I'd personally love to see this information in the intro. But I do not feel that it belongs there: for a start, the article is about UKIP - not just Farage. And so the intro must be UKIP specific. (It could, perhaps, be included in the intro to the Farage article?) Second off, the information is already in the article under the current events section. Where it belongs really. That's kind of normal for Wiki articles in my view. Finally, can I ask you to please refrain from adding the material whilst other editors disagree. The correct approach is to bring the matter to the talk page. (As, indeed, you now have). Well, that's my tuppence worth. Other editors may wish to comment further? Setwisohi (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I removed this from the intro mainly because it was already in the body of the article, which like Setwisohi I think this is the normal Wikipedia approach, and secondly because it seemed to be expressed in rather non-neutral terms. Incidentally, nearly all MEPs of all parties claim this much or more in expenses and allowances. That may be a scandalous state of affairs (which I think was Farage's point) but it certainly means that stating Farage's expenses doesn't provide any important contextual information specific to UKIP. Farage's £2 million over ten years is an average of £200,000 per year. The LibDems to their credit recently became the first UK MEPs to detail their expenses claims online. Therefore I picked one of them at random (Diana Wallis MEP) and added up her 2008 expenses and allowances [15] with my calculator. They came to 353,752 euros, ie about £283,000. I've no reason to think Diana Wallis is an exceptionally expensive MEP and The Sun last week reported that MEPs can legally claim up to £380,000 per year. I thought of putting this in the article, but really it isn't relevant to the UKIP article, except in how it bears on statements about Farage's expenses. Twilde (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can "defection" please be clarified?

"UKIP currently holds thirteen seats in the European Parliament and two in the House of Lords (both due to the defection of Conservative peers)." -- Can this please be clarified? Just what was the nature of this defection and why did it lead to two seats for UKIP? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Press confrence

In a press confrence after the European elections, Nigel Farage expressed tolerance towards those such as homosexuals, and disowned the label of "right-wing". Surley this would make them far more of a libertarian than conservative one. That said, this issue has of course been done to death. Jacob Richardson (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, the issue has been done to death. No-one has ever found a single reliable, 3rd party source which calls UKIP Libertarian. Setwisohi (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian source

I'm not too sure, but is this a reliable source to claim that UKIP is Libertarian?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/01/ukip_prepare_to.html

Thanks

(217.42.240.189 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

No. It's a blog. See previous discussions. Setwisohi (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just provided two newspaper sources. Please stop reverting their addition. Bastin 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

See your own talk page. Please note the very simple rule, a source has to be 3rd party. Farage is not 3rd party. Setwisohi (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic minority members of UKIP"

Was this section put in as a joke? As a parody of Guardianista cultural Marxism? I don't think we need to "yellow badge" the ethnic backgrounds and sexual preferences of members of a political party in the main article. No other party has anything as ridiculous as this. Should we have "Ethnic majority members of UKIP" section too? Their political program is what is relevent to the article on a party. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A very clever comment. And quite wrong. Had you taken the time to look at the article history, you would have found that the section was added in late 2006 by a pro-UKIP user with - judging by his/her editorial contributions history - a Conservative leaning. It would appear to have been added, by that user, in good faith, in order to balance accusations that UKIP were 'far-right'. (ie. To demonstrate that they had minority members and so could not, really, be far-right). Setwisohi (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and so to that end, I have removed your tag. The section would appear to still have that very valid point to make. But thanks for your concern all the same. Setwisohi (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter who added it, this issue still needs reviewing. No other political party has a racial/sexual section like this, even if a UKIP supporter put it there to appease the barons of cultural Marxism. It fails the MOS for political parties and isn't needed at all. The reds haven't particularly levelled the "racist" canard at UKIP so the Inquisition is irrelevent to the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing ethnic member section

I'm going to remove this section as it seems like an attempt by someone with a POV to combat criticism of the UKIP that it is racist. While I have no idea if the UKIP is racist or not it seems like a completely superfluous section that is responding to criticism that doesn't exist in the article. It would be OK if this info were included as a counterpoint to some accusation that political opponents made that the UKIP was racist, but as a standalone section it makes little sense. -- Gudeldar (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The UKIP are NOT racist, because they have black, Asian, oriental and mixed race members (for example: Rustie Lee, she is black and Jamaican) (TheGreenwalker (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

Just belatedly spotted this section of the talk page. I think I wrote most of the section on ethnic minority members of UKIP several years ago, though others may have modified it since. I wrote it as part of the general effort to create a rounded picture of UKIP for this article. I'm surprised that this should be controversial. To reply to Gudeldar's point: pretty much ANY factual statement COULD be read as an answer to a question. For example, in the article on St Paul's you could similarly complain that the statement "St Paul's is a large cathedral in London" was an attempt by somebody with a POV to combat allegations that St Paul's was a bowling alley in Minneapolis. You could then point out that the claim that St Paul's is actually a bowling alley etc hasn't been made in the article, and therefore that the original statement about St Paul's being a cathedral is superfluous. Your logic, strictly applied, would wipe out all the factual content of Wikipedia! Meanwhile, with respect, you've deleted a long-established, factually correct and relevant section of the article without a talk-page consensus being established. Therefore I will restore the deleted text though if anyone seriously thinks they can come up with a genuine reason for removing it, we could always discuss that further. Twilde (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for involvement regarding Nigel Farage dispute

Talk:Nigel Farage#Dispute over "Former Leader of UKIP"

There's something of a dispute about whether to say that Nigel Farage is the former leader of UKIP in the infobox itself. All is explained at the relevant link. Any involvement would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. HonouraryMix (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lord Monckton

Does UKIP not have three peers now? RicoRichmond (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not a Peer in the sense that he can sit in the House of Lords. He is an hereditry peer that lost his seat in the reform of the HOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.168.98 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BNP links

The article says "UKIP has no links with the BNP and refuses membership to any persons who have such links" but a simple Google search gives several newspaper articles alleging links between the BNP and UKIP. For example by The Telegraph and The Independent. So to me it seems that the quoted sentence is wrong. Zanoi (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)**************Henerietta Van Laer says: When the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Daily Mail all publish allegations about the Liberal Democrats, Wikipedia users insist that this is editorial spin and media bias, not fact. Nobody has ever substantiated the allegations in either article. There is no justification for having a paragraph entitled "links to the BNP" as no such links exist except in the imagination of rival parties wishing to discredit UKIP. The BNP is a socialist racist party, while UKIP is neither socialist nor racist. They have no agenda in common. There is far more basis for saying that the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties are racist, since all support a policy of discriminating against immigration by non-EU citizens. EU citizens are 10 times more likely to be white. Why don't you include a paragraph on the racist policies of all those three parties?*****************Henrietta Van Laer adds later: If this meant to be a factual article, what it should do is include the figures for how many ethnic minority members the party in question has, and how many ethnic monority candidates stood for UKIP in the past two years' elections. I seem to remember that there were about a dozen at least, possibly more. For a start, there were Mahzar Manzoor a Muslim from Pakistan http://www.manzoor4mep.co.uk/ then Pearline Hingston a black woman from Jamaica http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/politics/election_2010/southampton_test/candidates/7984351.Pearline_Hingston__UKIP__Southampton_Test/ and the well-known former boxer, now a youth worker in London, Winston McKenzie. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/tottenham *************If the article had ever bothered to include any such facts, it might have risen above the level of ignorant, malicious tittle-tattle which would be a fair description of it now.

It seems like you haven't read the articles. They aren't just allegations, apparently Nigel Farage admitted knowing about the donations. It might not be a very strong link that UKIP has with the BNP, but the statement "UKIP has no links with the BNP" seems definitely false. Zanoi (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)*********HENRIETTA VAN LAER replies, "It seems like you haven't read the webpages I indicated. They prove beyond any doubt that UKIP is not a racist party, as nobody could make these people who are members of ethnic minorities join it if they didn't want to. Newspapers print and invent all sorts of rubbish. Candidates' webpages are in the realm of fact."HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said that UKIP is a racist party, I merely said that the BNP sentence in the article is wrong given the newspaper articles. Also it is not up to you to decide which references should be considered true and false. If there are newspaper articles about it it should be mentioned in the article, no matter if one likes/believes them or not. Zanoi (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change

"UKIP favours an expansion of nuclear power for reasons of energy security as well as to cut carbon emissions."

This is wrong, the UKIP does not believe in the theory of climate change being caused by manmade carbon c.f. the appointment of Lord Monckton as their chief climate change spokesman. It is unsourced and so I suggest that either a source is found to back it up with or it is modified. It is true the UKIP supports nuclear power but I think the main reasons are the economics of it coupled with the its reliability over the proposed windpower schemes of the current government.80.47.167.195 (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One can believe that carbon emisions cause local pollution without believing in man-caused global warming, which is what I uunderstand the sentece to mean. Either way, that sentence needs to be sourced, and it it is what the party believes, it should be left in as-is. Also, you need to be adding {{fact}} tags to such claims in the article, and give them at least 1-2 weeks boefore removing the sentences. I've restored the claim, and added the fact tags. - BilCat (talk)

My my, what a little investigation will reveal! Actually, the whole paragraph was sourced from the the UKIP 2007 Energy and Envirionment Policy. It appeared to be unsourced because a user inserted a claim in front of the existing reference, thus giveing the appearance that the claim was cited, but not the other items on party policy. This was most likely due to the negligence/incompetence of the IP which added tha claim here. While it appears to have been a good faith edit, I think 8 months of existence with a false attribution (intentional or not) is long engough, and I've removed the claim.

I've updated the citation to the current UKIP 2007 Energy and Envirionment Policy page. I found one statement on nuclear power and "carbon dioxide" emissions, so I changed the text to reflect that. If someone wants to troll through it to verify the content in the paragraph, go for it. To aid in fact checking, it might be a good idea to cite the actual page numbers in the PDF document, as there are 27 pages to troll through. - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is self-contradictory when saying the UKIP recommends nuclear power for the reason it cuts CO2.

Is this where you sourced it from?

“However, we should reduce dependence on fossil fuels as a conservation and anti-pollution measure, and this would have the concomitant effect of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”

I grant you it is a little unclear, but my interpretation is that what they mean is the pollution given off by burning things like coal. Coal burning causes a lot of obnoxious gasses to be released into he atmosphere. I appreciate some class CO2 as a pollutant, hence the possible confusion, but if you look at all the other output form the UKIP it is clear that is not what is meant, e.g. what Lord Monckton says. The paragraph is mentioning a reduction of carbon emissions as simply a statement of fact, not a reason for doing it. I presume this is included to placate people who have concerns about CO2, which the UKIP does not hold. 80.47.213.180 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I have corrected this for the third time now but it seems the user Bilcat is determined to keep reverting it back without providing a reason. I think I have a far greater understanding of the UKIP than he does, especially since he does not even live in Britain!

This is an important page because it is part of our democratic system, and so to make unsourced incorrect claims about the party is certainly against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I’m certain that if I made such an addition it would be changed very quickly.

People rely on Wikipedia for its accuracy and so to say a party that is so obviously against climate change politics would wish to advocate a solution to something it does not consider a problem is nonsense. The party has stated many times it believes it is a scam. I refer you for example to the copious output from Godfrey Bloom on the subject. Go to his website and see for yourself.

The reason for advocating nuclear power is because of its cheapness and reliability. The main bone of contention with wind power is that the wind can stop blowing for days and sometimes even weeks at a time, which means that for every wind power installation you need a stable source of energy to supply the power during these times. Wind power is already more expensive than the other options so it means paying over twice the capital costs.80.47.183.0 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"user Bilcat is determined to keep reverting it back without providing a reason" - I really don't appreciate such false statements when my reasoning is right here in this section! As to the rest og your highly insulting statements, please comply with WP:CIVIL. - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)**********HENRIETTA VAN LAER says <<User Bilcat has no reason to compain of insults. No insulting language was used nor were any false statements made. Bilcat should withdraw those rude accusations which introduce an unacceptable tone to the discussion. Bilcat evidently does not understand the word appreciate either.>>HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wrong and so is your conclusion. I have provided you with a couple of people to check in order to prove my point, one is a UKIP MEP who has spoken more on climate change than all the others and the other is the UKIP’s chief climate change spokesman. The sources are too numerous to mention in full since there are hundreds of quotes I could use, but it would be lost on you because you believe your are right. I therefore conclude your actions to being dictatorial. If Wikipedia is not open to contributions by the public then please make this point clear. I note you have made over 51 000 edits so far, I doubt you can be an expert on all of them.80.47.189.92 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it’s clear that there has been a hardening since 2007, partly in order to capitalise on spells of cold weather – this is the same as could be said about various people/organisations on the Right. We’re out of date if we refer to what they believe is causing the “current warming” when a key spokesman on the issue is calling out “SCAM, SCAM, SCAM” in the European Parliament on the basis of low temperatures and their website is hailing him for it, even if the policy document on the matter hasn’t formally been replaced. Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) HENRIETTA VAN LAER says If this article wants to be factual, why doesn't it refer to the Climategate E-mails which exposed so much fraud among global warming scientists? Why doesn't it refer to the fact that in February 2010, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publicly admitted that it had made false claims about the Himalayan glaciers melting? Why doesn't it cite the public protests made by top scientists of the British Hadley Centre and Meteorological office, against false and sensational claims of global warming? Surely nobody is so uninformed as to still need references for any of those? All of this recent evidence supports the UKIP position.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing

Sparrowhawk64 continues to insert into UKIP's info box that they are 'Right Wing'. While it is true that this claim has sourcing to back it up, on close inspection all these sources are partizan in nature, an as such invalid. I submit that until some neutral sources have been provided to back up the right wing claim, it is inappropriate to include it in the article. RicoRichmond (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I consider UKIP to be mainly right wing myself (yet with some more left wing policies) I agree that right wing should not be added unless reliable sources are to be found, I also agree that at least two of the sources listed are not impartial. Also UKIP itself to my nolige has not said that it is right wing but has dismissed some polices such as the 1st of May bank holiday as left-wing ideas. Therefore I agree that the article be not altered until neutral sources can be found that either support or reject the idea that UKIP is right wing. DanielR235 17:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the books and didn't think they were partisan since none come from the perspective of a single party. All three books are written by political scientists at universities so I would think they would be reliable sources. I'm not saying professors can't be biased but these are well researched and unbiased books it seems. Could someone explain to me how they "partizan"?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't thing them to be partisan, rather possibly biased against UKIP the one is about the far-right which mentions UKIP when UKIP is clearly not a far-right party. Another is looking at the European identity and so would be against UKIP. I've yet to take a proper look a the remaining book. DanielR235 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about:

This scholarly article describes UKIP as an example of a "right-wing populist Anti-Political Establishment party". (Self-archived here).
"UKIP tapped into the euro-sceptic, protest and right-wing sentiments of large sections of [the Conservative Party's] electorate."[16](self-archived here).
This conference paper discusses UKIP in relation to the BNP, and places them clearly on the right. (later published here)
This book about the "Radical right" calls UKIP "right-wing".
"UKIP's success could signal a more generalised shift towards the acceptance of the populist right in Britain"[17]

A book about UKIP by someone who did media work for them and stood as a UKIP candidate[18] say they're not right-wing, and Nigel Farage also rejects the label, but of course one must take such assertions with a pinch of salt. Fences&Windows 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly or not, the first is certanly out of date, and I would argue biased as well.
The second dosn't address UKIP's political stand in any detail, and in any case is some years old.
The third is blatantly biased.
The fourth is clearly partizan in nature.
The fifth source dosn't appear to link to anything.
The 'Cranks and Gadflies' book is clearly and obviously biased. RicoRichmond (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can't just dismiss reliable sources like that; your assertions that they are biased appear to simply mean you don't like what they say. "Out of date" is a poor reason not to use sources unless you have evidence from other reliable sources that UKIP have changed their stance subsequently, and the first source is from 2008, so not at all dated! Your statement that the fifth source "doesn't link anywhere" is odd as the link works fine for me. The citation is Hayton, Richard: Towards the Mainstream? UKIP and the 2009 Elections to the European Parliament. Politics 2010, 30(1):26-35 (full text requires payment). I acknowledged that the UKIP book is not an unbiased source, but you do realise I was using it to show what someone associated with UKIP thinks, not as 'fact'? Less personal opinion and more reference to sources, please! Fences&Windows 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  - That is absolutely correct. It is totally irrelevant whether or not an editor "thinks" a source is biased. A reliable source - and these clearly are such - overrules any editors opinion. You cannot simply remove information from an article merely because you don't like it which is what has been happening here. JaneVannin (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

- That "clearly partizan"[sic] source is published by Cambridge University Press, that well known leftist propaganda mill. Fences&Windows 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- More: a conference paper by a senior lecturer at LSE, Michael Bruter, places them on the right as a "populist-reactionary" party.[19] You'll notice that the academic characterisation of UKIP is often "populist", so "Eurosceptic populist right" would probably be the most succinct description to reflect the views of reliable sources. Fences&Windows 18:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources is a book about the 'Radical Right', another is called 'Cranks and Gadflies', and another conpares UKIP with the BNP. How is this in any way shape or form objective?! RicoRichmond (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with talking about the "radical right"? The title of the "Cranks and Gadflies" book is used ironically BY A UKIP SUPPORTER (and I'm not using that source as support of them being considered to be right wing, as it disputes the description - which you'd know if you actually read it!), and a comparison of two political parties is reasonable, especially when members have moved between the parties. You have no real reason to dispute the characterisation of UKIP in these sources, and you obviously haven't read them, so you're flinging as much mud as you can. Either find some good sources that characterise UKIP differently, or please cease the dispute. Fences&Windows 02:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RicoRichmond has twice recently removed the descriptor Right wing from the infobox, but has failed to show any good evidence that this description is incorrect. Rico - present some sources to back up your argument, or quit it. Reverting against the evidence of the sources on the basis of personal dislike is tendentious editing. Fences&Windows 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your being asinine. There are no sources justifing the Right Wing label, and your saying that I need to provede sources to prove that they are not Right Wing. By that standard why not say that they are Left Wing, unless some sources can be found spesicically saying that they are not. RicoRichmond (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually you're the one violating consensus and ensuing in an edit war and ignoring references. I believe he means that the section of the info-box for their position needs filing and that you need references to prove where they belong on the spectrum. He's not saying you need to justify whatever they are not. If you can find reliable sources that say they are centrist or centre-right then they should be discussed.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked to see if I could find sources calling UKIP centre-right. This book specifically distinguishes them from the centre-right (i.e. the Conservatives and Unionists). However, this conference paper by Simon Usherwood says that "UKIP is a relatively traditional centre-right party" (though the article says we need the author's permission to cite it). This paper from 2007 says UKIP is both "on the centre-right" and a "right-wing minor party". Fences&Windows 23:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are right wing. Which Conservative party is not? Wembwandt (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's great, but luckily we have reliable sources to refer to rather than needing to rely on our own opinions. Fences&Windows 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As UKIP sit in the EFD, which is made up entirely of right-wing parties - and even, in some cases, extreme right-wing parties - they have clearly defined themselves as such. There are also sources, such as this ^[1] or this ^[2] which clearly label them as right-wing. And their choice of association with someone like Geert Wilders is unlikely unless they consider themselves to be political bedfellows. Many of their policies are avowedly right-wing and/or Conservative. I really cannot see what the problem is in labelling them as right-wing. Sorry. I say that tag stays. JaneVannin (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently I've found the Guardian calling them right wing as well as the Oxford Journals title, and they are both reliable sources. Which should be the end of the matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gaurdian article refers to them as Right-Wing without making any effort to justify that statement in anyway, so should be removed. RicoRichmond (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the Guardian is politically centre-left why would they need to argue why a political party to be right wing when they are generally considered to be right of the Conservatives? They don't need to make a case for something that is obvious to their readership. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Gaurdian 'had' to argue that UKIP is Right Wing, I'm not critisising it for abdicating on it's responsibility in any way. I'm simply stating that it didn't (argue that UKIP is right wing), and for our purposes that's the point. In any case if The Gaurdian is Left Wing then it has an agenda, and as such it's arguments can not be trusted, even if they were made, which they have not been. RicoRichmond (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

All sources - even reliable ones - are bias to some extent, so we wouldn't be able to trust any sources at all if we excluded sources with bias.... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs

The beliefs section contains few references and reads like an advert.London prophet (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Try to edit it, trim it or do anything to it and the UKIP hit squad (who own this article) will stop you. Wembwandt (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no they won't. If anyone edit wars against consensus then we can seek outside views - and the POV-pushers and edit warriors might find themselves blocked. Fences&Windows 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Webwandt If you are referring to me then I am not a UKIP hit squad, I reverted your edits because they removed a lot of referenced material which I assumed you thought to be unreferenced because of my putting the references at the end of each section instead of each paragraph to avoid multiple links. I am not opposed to condensing the page but by your resent edits you have removed some importent information for example by changing the Britishness section you are stating that UKIP would block the sale of all major companies where as the original stated that they would create a register that would contain a list of companies 'that are either of key strategic interest such as defence, energy, oil and water utilities, are of national security concern such as ports, railways, air traffic control or are considered to be essential to British identity' and block the sale of those. Some other examples are: 1.Removing: for example, safeguarding the mile, allowing the sale of vegetables and fruit in pounds and ounces, and restoring acres- it is not essential but gives readers an example.

2. Removing:It would bring back the crown symbol on pint glasses (illegal under EU rules).- This is something UKIP would do so why has it been deleted?

And finally and most importantly the removal of most of the Animal welfare section UKIP have clearly stated in their Food, Farming and the Countryside policy that they believe 'there is an unfair advantage to imports when restrictions are imposed on British producers but not applied to their competitors for example, the use of sow stalls and tethers, used to produce pig meat are banned in the United Kingdom , but elsewhere in the European Union they are allowed. UKIP it would introduce labelling schemes to imports indicating the methods of production, e.g., battery cages, sow tethers, veal crates, whilst maintaining the high level of British animal welfare. They would use advertising campaigns to educate the consumer about the labelling schemes. UKIP would rely on veterinary advice in the event of any disease outbreaks.' There is no reason to remove it and by removing it you are telling readers UKIP would use advertising campaigns to educate the consumer about labelling schemes, but what labelling schemes? nothing about the labelling schemes nor the reason behind them have been given only that they would use advertising campaigns to educate the consumer about them. Also to what are you referring as "blatant propaganda - you cannot just echo what UKIP claim as fact"?

I have no problem with improving the article but I do have a problem with removing information for no reason and/or its removal is confusing to readers of Wikipeida.DanielR235 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about UKIP, not a place to repeat their manifesto. We should summarise what reliable sources have said about UKIP policy, not regurgitate UKIP's own website. Fences&Windows 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this is an article for a encyclopaedia but that no reason not to include UKIP's website as a source of information in regard to policies especially when as a small party (in terms of U.K. elections) there are not many other resources for policy information like there is with parties such as Conservatives and Labour. I agree it (the original before Webwandt edits) could do with rewriting so as to give a more far back view (less direct from the party and more external looking at the party like with the Conservative Party's policy section) however the information itself should be included just rewritten, look at my above example concerning the labelling schemes Webwandt edits have removed why the labelling schemes would be introduced by UKIP and what would be on them and what's left makes not sense.DanielR235 11:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)************************Henrietta Van Laer says, "I agree that a reference article should properly contain much more about a party's policies than this one does. A party is defined by its policies, not by vague and prejudicial terms like right-wing. The present article concentrates on petty policies like bringing back the crown symbol on a glass, while completely ignoring the MAJOR issues. The article should mention UKIP's support for electoral reform, proportional representation and better, more intelligent regulation of the banking and investment sectors. It should detail UKIP's plan for a simplified parliamentary system in which Scotland would no longer have two lots of MPS, and English MPs alone would vote on English issues. Also that UKIP has always asserted Britain would be better off having a free-trade agreement with the EU rather than being a member-state. Those things would be FACTS."HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Setup Auto-archive

This talk page seems to be getting rather long, is it OK to setup 90 day/5 threads remaining auto-archiving? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean,it seems like a good idea to me.DanielR235 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've setup indexing and I'll add the auto-archiving code in a couple of days to give people a bit of time to object. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sinclaire and right-wing extremism in UKIP

Just read in the news that a UKIP MEP, Nikki Sinclaire, has just been expelled from UKIP for refusing to work with extremists in the EFD group. It reminded me that Cameron called UKIP "closet racists" or something like that. Shouldnt there be a whole section on this extremism and it's relationship to UKIP? At the moment it's barely mentioned in the article. Wembwandt (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph is nonsensical, and reveals a lack of knowledge of how the European parliament works.

The EFD members who allegedly had such views were not members of UKIP, so why refer to them being "in UKIP"? The system in the European parliament is that a party has to nominate allies and enter into a grouping in order to sit on various forums, be consulted and qualify for time to speak and ask questions in the parliamentary time table. It also affects funding. Without belonging to such a grouping, the UKIP MEPS would be unable to function. Belonging to such a grouping is not proof that the MEPS share all the policies of the allied parties or the personal views of members of those parties. The MEP who resigned did so because she did not like these views, which is evidence that UKIP members do not hold them. (If anybody actually did!) It is all vague hearsay and confusion. The contributor of this paragraph interpreted the evidence backwards. I suggest that if this is supposed to be a factual article, the whole paragraph is removed. PS I note also that Wembwant does not know how to use the apostrophe (it's). Deduct what you like about W's level of education.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

British Identity section

I've removed this section (for now) as unsourced. There was a source given but, following the link, it no longer seems to exist. So if someone wants to re-add this section, can they please verify the existence of the source or find a new source first. Wembwandt (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The link was there but was broken by there not being a space afore the |, I've fixed the link a re-added the section.DanielR235 16:44, 22 March 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom Independence Party → UK Independence Party — "UK Independence Party" and "UKIP" are far more commonly used names than "United Kingdom Independence Party". Their website and election material use "UK Independence Party" and "UKIP", not "United Kingdom Independence Party". The Electoral Commission gives their full name as "UK Independence Party". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Actually, their website is promoted on behalf of the United Kingdom Independence Party, but they do seem to prefer UK Independence Party otherwise. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, but that's in tiny print at the bottom. "UK Independence Party" is what features in their logo, and generally the form (with "UKIP") that's generally most used. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep. We should use the formal title as the name of the article, not all readers recognise the initials UK (the terms GB or even England are far more widely used outside this neighborhood). UK Independence Party redirects here. --Red King (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with that. It is extremely rare for the media or British organisations to refer to the party by its full name; in addition to the Electoral Commission, mentioned above, another piece of evidence is that "uk independence party" gets 196,000 google hits wheras "united kingdom independence party" gets just 51,000, nearly four times smaller. "UK Indepenence Party" and "UKIP" are common names, the expansion "United Kingdom Independence Party" is almost never used, and certainly is not the common name used by most people. The argument that the meaning of UK is unknown to most people seems a bit ridiculous - do you think Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) should be moved? Or UK Space Agency? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Convincing evidence has been presented that "UK Independence Party" is the common name. Ucucha 01:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. It seems obvious that the one that is most commonly used is what is proposed. No objection for keeping a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Election day plane crash

How are the two people involved? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a reference work, not a newspaper. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Saalstin reverted much of the information I deleted from the entry on United Kingdom Independence Party. This is not a neutral entry. The bits I deleted refer to people who are no longer party members, and whose cases were hugely distorted by the press. Both of them were victimized for small technicalities or on trumped-up evidence and branded as criminals, as part of a systematic victimization of any anti-EU political parties. The EU has its own intelligence network and dirty tricks department which works to discredit any opponents. It plants or forges evidence if necessary. Meanwhile major examples of corruption in the pro-EU political parties are not prosecuted by the legislature or addressed by the Electoral commission. In the recent British election, the three biggest parties all had huge amounts of illegal funding. Labour gets it by selling peerages, and from foreign donors; Conservatives get millions from non-domiciled peers such as Lord Ashcroft; the Libdems accepted £3.5 million in illegal donations from tax-evaders, non-doms, non-citizens and in one case, a common criminal who obtained the money by illegal means in the first place. Your article gives the impression that the United Kingdom Independence party is less ethical than the others, whereas in fact it is considerably more ethical.

A fair and neutral article should reflect that.

HenriettaVanLaer (talk)HenriettaVanLaer —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

What has the above remark got to do with my comment? ('Vague expression of sympathy in the event of an accident' is neutral.) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Henrietta, your conspiracy theories about former UKIP MEPs are not appropriate for Wikipedia. We work from reliable sources, not our own imaginations. These cases were very well publicised and it would be an incorrect omission to remove mention of them. Fences&Windows 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)***************Henrietta Van Laer says: Now you are resorting to personal insult ("conspiracy theories"). It seems to me that Wikipedia is very willing to dismiss as conspiracy theories the mountains of evidence of corruption and malpractice among other political parties, using terms such as "press bias" or "editorial spin" - which just mean conspiracy theories don't they? Basically, Wikipedia policy is to exclude any evidence however strong against socialist or liberal parties, while accepting any evidence however weak against parties you don't like. Then you talk about neutral point of view. Absurd. HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaker's seat

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the convention relating to other parties challenging the Speaker of the House of Commons. The fact is that there is a long-standing convention that the major parties do not oppose the Speaker, but that it is imperfectly observed. Back in the 19th century the Conservatives opposed Speaker Peel in 1885 but not 1886, and 1892; they opposed controversial Liberal Speaker William Court Gully in 1895, but not 1900; the Liberals did not oppose Speaker Lowther in 1906, either 1910 election, or 1918; no-one opposed Speaker Whitley in 1922, 1923 and 1924; Speaker FitzRoy was unopposed in 1929 and 1931 but opposed by Labour in 1935; Speaker Clifton Brown was opposed by Labour in 1945 but not 1950; Speaker Morrison was opposed by an unofficial Labour candidate in 1955; Speaker Hylton-Foster was opposed by both Labour and Liberal in 1964; Speaker King was not opposed by major parties in 1966 and 1970; Speaker Lloyd had Labour and Liberal opponents in both 1974 elections; Speaker Thomas had only Plaid Cymru and National Front opponents in 1979; Speaker Weatherill had Labour and Liberal opponents in 1987; Speaker Boothroyd had no major party opposition in 1997; Speaker Martin had no Conservative or Liberal Democrat opposition in 2001 and 2005. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The mention of this convention is only in the article because it was in the source article; if you've got a source for them being wrong, go ahead and add it in! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Size of membership

I have changed the sentence that said UKIP "claimed" to have a membership of 16,000-odd in 2009 to read "had". "Claimed" is an insult. It implies that the party would deliberately falsify its figures. Whether you suspect the membership to be higher or lower than 16,000, you need to bring objective evidence for your attitude rather than merely use prejudicial terminology as a tactic. Since it got 915,000 votes even in the 2010 general election, with the media and political establishment waging war against it, 16,000 is not a very high membership estimate. HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

English Parliament

It is stated in their manifesto that UKIP supports the creation of an English Parliament yet this doesn't appear to be stated in the article.--English Bobby (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is referred to in a BBC article very briefly.[20] It's not a major policy position of UKIP, so doesn't deserve more than a mention. And note that they don't as such support an "English Parliament" as a new body, rather they argue for "English days" when a "Grand Committee" of English MPs would debate matters pertaining to England alone.[21] Fences&Windows 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 election question

In April, the UKIP candidate for MP in St Albans predicted that he would come in first. This may be why the emphasis on St Albans was so strong in prior copies of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, the mention of St. Albans was unsourced and they in fact did worse there than their national average.[22] TFD (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is not how well they did, but also how well they thought they were going to do (however delusional they were); and where they put in the most effort in hopes of winning and forcing a hung parliament. If the original assertion has a source, I wish somebody would provide it. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

UKIP Racism Controversy

I tried to put up a simular title up for the tories but it breached copyright (which i did by mistake) but the admin also said: "Additionally, in the history of the Party (or any party) this incident is of minor importance and giving it its own section is giving it undue weight" Does this mean that I / we / an admin can delete the UKIP Racism Controversy because of the above reason? It's unfair that we can put down controversies for the small parties but when we talk about larger political groups, they're stricter on the rules and don't allow it to be put up there - I thought we were supposed to be impartial but it seems to me like people are bias towards certain topics than others. Truth UK (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

'UKIP Racism Controversy' Removed citing WP:UNDUE

I am trying to remove UKIP Racism Controversy as in the history of the Party (or any party) this incident is of minor importance and giving it its own section is giving it undue weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth UK (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You will need agreement before removing a whole section like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An agreement with who, how will I get an agreement? Truth UK (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have to wait and see the responses here on the talk page. If no one objects to its removal then it could be removed. Looking at the section i have no strong feelings either way on if it should stay or go. Will see what others think. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So to put it simply, I wait to see for any objections, if there hasn't been any objections then I just delete it, plain and simple? Truth UK (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You allow time first. I looked at it and I think the Paul Wiffen case is notable, but could be in the history section. The rest of the material is weak and it probably doesn't' justify a section. --Snowded ^TALK 15:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes give it a couple of days to be sure and if there is no further comments i do not see why it can not be deleted. Its questionable if those points are notable enough to belong on the main article about this party. The bit about the London Chair to me seems more notable than the Frank Maloney paragraph, but ive no objection to that whole section being removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the material in the section is important and should be kept. TFD (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Any politician rude enough to insult the Queen is notable so i can see why that bit is justified, but i do not get the large amount of text dedicated to Frank Maloney. Every political party has controversial candidates. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The sub-section by itself would not seem to warrant inclusion. However, there is more than this small sub-section to be considered. There are other indicators of racism or alleged racism in UKIP and so the article ought to cover the issue. i. There is the small sub-section referred to here - which, if it stood alone, would not be very much. There are also sections on relations with the ii. BNP and iii. Other Parties, where there is/has been/appears to have been a connection with race issues. I also recall that iv. David Cameron referred to UKIP as closet racists. And they have v. an immigration policy which may be considered to have racist undertones. (Obviously good 3rd party sources would have to be found to support that claim - if such exist). They have also formed a vi. coalition in Europe Parliament with some avowedly nationalist (and presumably racist) parties. Putting points i. - vi. all together it would seem that, somewhere, in the article, there needs to be clear reference to racism or allegations of racism in the UKIP. Overall I would suggest merging all of this information into a new section on the issue of racism in UKIP. Wembwandt (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, with just one line mentioning the two current examples in that section, there is no need for 3 or 4 lines about this Frank Maloney guy. If its going to mention the BNP, we need to take into account that is mentioned in the party relations section in part. Also such a section could include a mention of the party being attacked for its concerns about islamification, like inviting that Dutch politician (although that is also mentioned at the bottom of the article. This new section should be a more wider section than just about race. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all of that. Wembwandt (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur --Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Although other parties have controversial candidates, they are probably not that controversial and usually parties would withdraw their nominations if they made the same sort of controversial remarks. TFD (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My Problem with this controversy being on wikipedia is, I Search Liberals, Conservatives, Labour etc and they have nothing against them in terms of racism or any of the negative sort, whereas we find a small group that's trying to make its way through politics and then wikipedia penalise them for any mistake - every political party has rogue members, perhaps it would be better to make a page (if there hasn't already been one) for the person that committed the felony rather than attack a group. I bet if we did enough research into the conservatives or labours history, we can find loads of bad people within their organisations in the past and maybe even the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CovBiggsy (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not create multiple accounts to make contributions to this debate. Thankyou. Wembwandt (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wembwandt.CovBiggsy (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1.4 Nigel Farage expenses disclosure

I think this should be removed because it already has a decent description on Nigel Farage's article and therefore is un-necessery. Nigel is one man, he is no longer party leader and he was making a personal state (a stupid one of that).

It is my understanding that he was trying to point out that it has cost the taxpayer £2mil to keep him in office, but he decided to take another approach and the media exploited it - which serves him right for having a large mouth! but this doesn't mean that UKIP should be harmed by it.

1.5 UKIP racism controversy

The man involved with this has his own article and like Nigel, it explains what it's all about in that, so I think this too should be removed because he isn't a UKIP member anymore anyway. CovBiggsy (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike Nattrass leaving the EFD group

I would like to edit the 'Nikki sinclaire controversy' section by replacing the title with 'Nikki Sinclaire and Mike Nattrass' because Mike recently left the EFD group and I think that if we mention nikki not being in the EFD group, then mike should be included too, but niether have left UKIP, they are both still members of UKIP however they are standing as non-attatched members in the European Parliament

http://www.efdgroup.eu/the-group.html

Note: You do not see Mike Nattrass in the Link above (EFD Group website) However, you do in the link below (UKIP MEPs website)

http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_5_UKIP-MEPs.html

CovBiggsy (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just taken a look at the piece you've done and it looks fine. I've moved the section to a more suitable place in the article. Wembwandt (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideoligy

Aren't UKIP Civic Nationalists, Liberal Conservatists and British Unionists?

Civic Nationalism because they will tell you that their nationalism is based on a shared purpose or ‘beliefs’ and common principles Liberal Conservatism because they believe in 'Empowering the People' with Direct Democracy British Unionists because they are generally against Scottish, Welsh and English Nationalism. They origonally were against devolution but the general policy is for it now, however this does not mean they want independent states within the UK, which from an observers point of view would contradict their anti-EU policies, however they would then argue that the EU is a corrupt and undemocratic union CovBiggsy (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Their ideology is already summed-up in the info-box and article. You may have a different opinion. But unless you also have sources (which are both reliable and 3rd party) to suggest otherwise there really is little to discuss. Wembwandt (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that technically they probably are "Civic Nationalists, Liberal Conservatists and British Unionists". However, this is open to discussion and needs to be discussed. Furthermore, I think in the public eye they are seen more as Eurosceptics (obviously), Traditional Conservatives and on certain issues Libertarians. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

right-wing

How does UKIP adhere right-wing? The reference that is given is 6 years old and doesn't directly mention that UKIP is right-wing. They're center-right conservatists, as shown by their motives. You can read the policies they have from the BBC 2010 GE website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm?subject=key#subject=key&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem CovBiggsy (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See first footnote, which contains a link to "Doomed to failure? UKIP and the organisational challenges facing right-wing populist anti-political establishment parties" (2007).[23] Right wing yes, conservative no. TFD (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says "Right WING". But please do explain the relevance of the source being "6 years old"? Because it looks like you are POV pushing to me. (Oh, yes, and temporarily changing user name or logging on as Anon IP makes no difference. It is still apparent who you are). Wembwandt (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Correct balance of political bias"

I have just reverted a change by User:Gonzob since it removed well-cited content from the article. The edit summary for that change was "I have deleted an insertion of a link and information concerning it to restore the correct balance of political bias on the page"; can anyone explain why that content provided incorrect political bias? It doesn't seem to me to be giving undue weight. me_and 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is regularly POV-ved by UKIP supporters. I dont know why they bother. But, sadly, it is just a fact of life. But you did the right thing to revert the deletion of well-cited material. Thankyou. Wembwandt (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian?

I think there needs to be more research into this, UKIP describe themselves as a 'libertarian' party, ref: this google search What are other people's opinions on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Blackbourn (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to add this to the article way back when, but it was removed, and I now believe rightly so. There is undoubtedly a libertarian faction in UKIP - including then-and-once-again leader Nigel Farage - but I've yet to see a reliable source saying that the party itself is libertarian. We'll see if it comes to the fore now that Farage is formally in charge again. Until then, I'd advise against including it, as it seems to be limited to chatter online. Bastin 16:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we would never third-party sources for that. TFD (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's fair enough, I agree with Bastin that there is definitely a libertarian faction in UKIP which is in my opinion headed by Nigel Farage so we will have to see which way he takes the party now he is leader again.

If I dig up any third party sources saying that UKIP are indeed 'libertarian' I will make sure I post it up. Jack Blackbourn (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added 'libertarianism' as an internal faction, do you think that is a fair change? As it is not stating the party itself is libertarian but instead acknowledging that there is indeed a libertarian faction within the party. Jack Blackbourn (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the need to list more than one ideology. They are considered to be right-wing populists, although writers use different terms to describe that family. That term seems to cover their range of views. I do not think that libertarianism could be desribed as a faction. Political factions are generally organized and compete with other factions for control of a party. TFD (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agrarian?

Furthermore, I have been thinking about this recently but could it also be fair to say they have some Agrarian streaks in them? I say this because of their relentless defence for farmers and fishermen and what seems to be in my opinion admiration for rural life, does anyone else agree with this sentiment? I realise I don't have a source for this. But i'll have a dig around and see if I find anything. Jack Blackbourn (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agrarian is one of the categories used by political scientists but would not describe UKIP. Here is a link to an explanation of party types. When this list was prepared there were few parties like UKIP and they appear as "unclassified". TFD (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/1/72

[2] ttp://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521616324&ss=exc

[1]

[2]