Talk:UK Independence Party - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 3 September 2012 (→Request for Comment: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:59, 3 September 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) (→Request for Comment: add)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about United Kingdom Independence Party. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United Kingdom Independence Party at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Right-wing

What consensus is there for UKIP being a right-wing political party? Surely, referring to them as a conservative party ideologically defines them far more distinctly. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and make the change. RicoRichmond (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why 'Right wing' is still there - saw justification that UKIP is identified as 'conservative' so defacto right of centre/right wing -- but right wing implies a distance to the right (which would need to be justified), whereas right of centre does not. Pperrin uk (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because a source says they are right wing. Never mind referring back to old discussions for dodgy edits. Keep up to date or do NOT edit. Thanks.Wembwandt (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This University of Leicester source describes them as 'Centre-Right' - http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html Do I have permission using this source to make the change as this is a more up to date source than the one being currently used. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the "centre-right" part is the hypothesis they are proposing to study; this is not a peer-reviewed paper, but more like a grant proposal, and thus not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in another section below. The term "right wing" is generally used to describe parties to the right of traditional conservative, chrisian democratic and conservative liberal parties, who are usually called "center-right". TFD (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but, in this BBC Radio 4's 'Westminster Hour' radio talk show ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vw0w3/Westminster_Hour_31_10_2010/ ) claims that most UKIP members and MEPs consider themselves and their policies 'moderate' and 'Centre-Right'. The report starts at 0:34:36. Now I understand the general concensious is that they are 'Right-wing' and I can see why, but to me and it seems members of the party itself and the BBC (which is part of the mainstream media) seems to be dubbing them 'Centre-right' which I personally think is a better way to describe them as a whole. Now I realise I could be wrong and I won't change it unless I'm given authority to, but please consider it as this is a lot more up to date than the old reference. PerseusMCMXCII (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is calling them "center-right". TFD (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

UKIP advertise themselves as "Libertarian, non racist.." in their google advert, google.co.uk UKIP. Conservative or Right Wing seems to be other peoples opinion of what UKIP is, not what UKIP say they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.121.249 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We report how parties are described in reliable sources. The article does not call them racist. TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me finding a new and up to date source to describe the terminology for UKIP? It seems that a fair amount of bias is going on here from a few militant editors to try and keep the sources as "right wing" suggestive as possible. I believe, and having read the opinions of many other readers here, that the party is more "Right of Centre" based on their policies and various media sources. If you agree with me please make yourself known or nothing will get changed. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's another section below about whether UKIP is "right wing". Several reliable sources, including scholarly sources, label them as right wing. Please read that section before making any changes, and remember that a single "new and up to date source" will not override what all the other independent sources say. Fences&Windows 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 shows UKIP only as right as the Conservative party which is stated as centre right on their Misplaced Pages page Revonev (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. If it was then we could also call the UKIP a "BNP lite". --Snowded 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

then you would have to call conservatives BNP lite as well, most sources labelling it right wing are much more biased than this, I still don't see any evidence for UKIP being right wing to me, especially as they seem to be made up of both ex tories and ex labour party members Revonev (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ukip is a centre right party acknowledged by the times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article664284.ece

I have found futher internet articles indicating centre right http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013374.html http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/UKIP-PIP-TORIES-CITY-EURO-BATTLE/article-1057522-detail/article.html academically recognised as centre right http://www.le.ac.uk/politics/centreright.html Revonev (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such claims there... please state where it states that the party is Centre Right. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study States UKIP are Centre right, and this is the first proper research done into UKIP which has been done by Uiversity Of Leicster, thus surely Centre right is applicable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.189.59 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC) They are centralist not right wing, they have centre left and centre right policies, so they can not be right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandstruth (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/documents/centre-right/UKIPCandidatesandSupportersworkingpaper-1.pdf Showing Ukip are not right wing

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/march/ukip-poses-challenge-to-traditional-triumvirate-new-study Synopsis of the study

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/research/centre-right/competing-on-the-centre-right-an-examination-of-party-strategy-in-britain?searchterm=ukip Further links

http://www2.le.ac.uk/search?gsasearch=on&SearchableText=ukip Lots more too.

Now can I change it to centre right/ Libertarian and civic nationalist. please. (Englandstruth (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

The source your using is a survey of UKIP members and supporters which says "Using surveys of UKIP candidates at the 2009 European and 2010 general elections, we assess the political attitudes and views on party strategy of UKIP candidates and compare them with the views of UKIP supporters using opinion poll data. We demonstrate that UKIP’s candidates and supporters are closely aligned, with both groups placing themselves largely on the centre right", (so the centre-right is how the people surveyed view the party), whereas it later confirms right wing is correct by saying "Firstly, although UKIP is generally recognised as being on the political right, Euroscepticism has a broader appeal". So in fact the source confirms that they are right wing. Mo ainm~Talk 22:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"although Ukip is generally recognised as being on the political right" Is the perception people are given. Have you read the policies at all? All this is proving is that Wiki does not give a true representation of a subject. Ukip are not right wing, not racist. You can not use just left wing sources to prove this as they are BIASED. Libertarianism and civic nationalism can not be right wing as they are all inclusive. Ukip has ex labour and Lib dem members, Left wing ideologies would not work with a right wing one. They like the centre left policy though. (Englandstruth (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

To add there are more links in this section saying that Ukip are centre right and not right wing than there is saying otherwise. The general consensus is leaning towards the centre right theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandstruth (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Said like a true UKIP party member. Mo ainm~Talk 09:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered like some one who is anti Ukip.

From the webpage:

THE ONLY PARTY STANDING UP FOR BRITAIN AND (ALL) THE BRITISH PEOPLE

The UK Independence Party is the UK’s fourth political party – and the only one now offering a radical alternative.

On 3 March 2011, our candidate Jane Collins (right) beat the Conservatives and Lib-Dems to finish a clear second in the Barnsley Central by-election.

In 2004, we came third in the European Parliament elections, ahead of the Lib-Dems; in 2009 we went one better and came second, beating Labour.

THE EU – A SYMPTOM, NOT THE CAUSE

UKIP was founded in 1993 to campaign for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Not because we hate Europe, or foreigners, or anyone at all; but because it is undemocratic, expensive, bossy – and we still haven’t been asked whether we want to be in it.

But the EU is only the biggest symptom of the real problem – the theft of our democracy by a powerful, remote political ‘elite’ which has forgotten that it’s here to serve the people.

WHAT WE BELIEVE IN

We believe in the right of the people of the UK to govern ourselves, rather than be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels (and, increasingly, in London and even your local town hall).

We believe in the minimum necessary government which defends individual freedom, supports those in real need, takes as little of our money as possible and doesn’t interfere in our lives.

We believe in democracy devolved to the people, through national and local referendums on key issues, so that laws are made by the people’s will, not the fads of the political class.

We believe that the government of Britain should be for the people, by the people – all the people, regardless or their creed or colour – of Britain.

UKIP says… Listen to the people. What do you say?

Does that sound Right wing to you? (Englandstruth (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Well, since you asked, and adding it to everything else UKIP says, yep. Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you said it should be pointed out that your politics are:Politics - particularly anti-fascism. Thus making any thing to the right of you actually right wing;). Try not to be biased? (Englandstruth (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Please do try to read correctly before making personal attacks on people and what you suppose to be their motives. My profile page says that one of my Interests is "Politics - particularly anti-fascism". If you choose to read into that something that is not there and then to accuse me of being biased, you really do need to learn more about politics. I await your apology, but won't be holding my breath. Emeraude (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do. :) In your mind it is ok to call my party Right wing, therefore you are calling me right wing, but if I call you left wing you expect an apology? I am a civic nationalist libertarian, just like my party, so can not be right wing. I am a centralist. Not nice being misrepresented is it? (Englandstruth (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

What are you talking about? You outlined a set of statements and asked another editor for a personal opinion which she s/he provided. As it happens I agree with that judgement and I fail to see why being a "civic nationalist libertarian" makes you centrist. I can think of various labels but that is not one of them. Whatever the whole point about the article is that your views, my views or those of other editors matter naught, what matters is what the third part sources say. Todate they use right-wing, end of argument --Snowded 08:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Englandstruth was a member of UKIP. But all reliable sources say that UKIP is to the right, so if that is a typical UKIP member/supporter then I and everyone else must assume that they are also to the right. That they are in UKIP is their own public admission and we are entitled to draw inferences from that; what Englandstruth has done is to make a totally unfounded assumption of my political position and then from that made accusations about my motives and integrity as an editor. I am still owed an apology. Emeraude (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So all the sources on here saying that Ukip are centre right are wrong then. Your assumption that Ukip are right wing automatically means you are calling me right wing. I am not, my political spectrum is centralist, I do not agree with right wing party ideologies. Why would I join one? You are calling me right wing, so you will be waiting a while for your apology, when Ukip are represented in a true light and not by left leaning sources. You will get one. Next you will be telling me all the ex Labour , lib dems etc are right wing, even Reuters call us centre right: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2011/03/08/ukip-replacing-the-lib-dems-or-taking-on-the-tories/

Or that Lord Stodart was once Labour and former councillors that were formerly Labour such as Derrick Huckfield (Staffordshire CC).

Ukip are centre right.

Once again I will apologise when you with draw the remark that I am right wing, this is asserted by calling my party right wing. (Englandstruth (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

(Yawn) Once again, I made no comment on your position - you did. I commented on some statements you provided about UKIP's position. Taken in their entirety, and with everything else we know about UKIP, I said it sounded right wing. Now, you may regard yourself as centrist, but your party is right wing. As for centre right, well "centre right", is right wing - the clue is in the second word. Not far right, nor extreme right, nor ultra right, granted, but right. As to your irrelevant potted histories of selected UKIP members: that is nonsense. (Interesting though, that you did not list any ex-Tories.) You are implying that not one of them changed their views BEFORE joining UKIP, otherwise they would have stayed where they were. People do change their political views and parties (Churchill did, Mosley did, Mussolini did) which is why there are ex-Labour and ex-Conservative members in the BNP; they don't make the BNP left/right/centre because of their previous leanings; the BNP is what it is. But there are also ex-BNP members in UKIP so, by your logic, UKIP ought to be fascist. It isn't, though, is it, so we have to conclude that previous political affiliations of a party's members, though interesting, are not a reliable pointer to the party's own position! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The party is "right-wing" on some issues and "left-wing" on some issues. It would also not be completely accurate to call the party centrist. I suggest avoiding "right-wing" and "left-wing" labels where they don't fit and avoid trying to shoehorn a round peg into a square hole. Mcarling (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

The paragraph "In 2011, British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study revealing significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy. They showed that the discourse of the Independence Party on immigration and national identity is similar to the one of British National Party (BNP), with the former's being gradually more moderate." They have not "revealed" nor "showed" anything.
They have "claimed". Changed it to claimed. What is the reasoning of whoever thinks it should be "revealed" and "showed"? Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems blatantly POV to write "showed" and "revealed", especially in a study dealing with such subjective concepts as xenophobia and Islamophobia. The person who keeps writing it quite clearly has political agenda, for which Misplaced Pages is not the place. Jordi22 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The findings of an academic study by established political scientists, published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot be dismissed as "subjective interpretations". Xenophobia and Islamophobia are not "subjective concepts", but established social science and political science terminology. That the academic study of independent scholars were pursuing a "political agenda" is a severe imputation, for which you do not provide any evidence at all. --RJFF (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The findings were by Matthew Goodwin, who has been anti-ukip for as long as I can remember. Regardless of that fact, that is not why I dispute the use of "shown and "revealed" but because it is blatantly POV. They have not Shown nor Revealed anything, they have Claimed. No editor would seek to pass such POV language in the labour/conservative/lib dem pages and yet you feel it is appropriate here. If you want "revealed" and "shown" then show me another source that proves it is has indeed been "revealed", rather than being an unsubstantiated claim. Claimed is the only possible wording to be used here. If editors insist on reverting back to POV language then lets take this to a higher powerGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

in general we do not qualify properly referenced material. Arguing that an academi. Is anti-ukip isn't the way things work. We use the sources as they are, not as we would like them to be. The use of 'claim' indicates a thought piece not a researched paper so it is equally POV. If there is a counter source then we need to balance, but I don't see any. Another phrasing would be "a 2011 study demonstrated ..." similar but possible better language. ----Snowded 06:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's more than enough that it's attributed already. The wording doesn't say whether the report is correct or not, merely what it revealed. The idea that increasing Islamaphobia can't be quantified is a ludicrous one. If, say for example in 2010 an organisation published one article criticising Islam yet in 2011 they published twenty that's increasing Islamaphobia. I note it's only material UKIP supporters don't like that requires labels such as "claimed". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed this to better reflect the article itself - the previous wording showed a misunderstanding of its meaning (either that or perhaps it hadn't been thoroughly read). Either way, it's an analysis of support for UKIP, more than the party's strategy. It says some policies are similar to those of the BNP, but doesn't equate them and makes the distinction between UKIP and the "extreme right" BNP (and that comparison forms a much smaller part of the report than the voting analysis). The sample size of the report (a population extrapolation of the YouGov online panel before the last European elections) doesn't damage the credibility of the research itself, but does mean that it can be seen in the context of "revealing" something, rather "suggesting" it, similar to the way opinion polls etc "suggest" something, rather than reveal it. Happy to discuss it. Pjbeef (Talk) 02:22, 05 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this. My reading of the article does not agree with yours, which is not to say that either of us is right or wrong, but it would be better to obtain consensus here before editing what is possibly a very contentious issue. You can see that from the above comments that the reporting of Goodwin et al has been discussed and some sort of consensus arrived at. Emeraude (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The section now reads "...claiming significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy." I note this wasn't the edit made by Emeraude, but this has now gone from one extreme to another. Arguing the report 'claims' something implies it isn't properly researched - it is. But saying the report 'reveals' something is a naive interpretation of data gathered through opinion polls. That is not to deny them any credibility, but anything gathered through them needs to be set in the context of what they are; an extrapolation of the thoughts of a small sample of the population, onto the population at large. You would never hear references to polls "revealing" most of a country wants a change in government, for example. they would "suggest it", or words to that effect. I'm afraid I don't think four people can reach a consensus, and this issue clearly needs further discussion. I'm not making a comment on whether the research is somehow anti-UKIP, that's (mostly) irrelevant to its inclusion in this article. Pjbeef (Talk) 17:18, 06 May 2012 (UTC)

I merely reverted to the status quo ante, but I agree that neither "reveal" nor "claim" are quite adequate. Perhaps "show" or "identify" would be better verbs. (....Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study identifying significant xenophobic and increasing Islamophobic elements in UKIP's strategy.) Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree those words would be better (even though the authors themselves describe their research as "suggesting" its conclusions). Now to the representation of the report - the description in the article suggests the report is primarily about UKIP's strategy - when in fact it's nearly all an analysis of UKIP's voters, far far less about the strategy, and indeed where strategy is mentioned, it's most often cited from other research. This includes the line at the end about the BNP - which, when read in full, says "As John and Margetts (2009: 501; also Borisyuk et al. 2007) observe, the BNP and UKIP adopt similar discourses on issues of immigration and national identity" - this is not original research. It'd be far better to cite John and Margetts (2009: 501; also Borisyuk et al. 2007) here than to give others credit for their work. The main problem with the BNP line from my point of view is that it seems a strange line to pick out of the report, as most of it differentiates the two parties by describing the BNP as "far right". Perhaps a better line to use might be "UKIP’s credentials as a legitimate party of right-wing protest over Europe may make it a ‘polite alternative’ for voters angry about rising immigration levels or elite corruption but who are repelled by the stigmatized image of the more extreme BNP". Or the abstract could be used - "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain." I am not an apologist for UKIP and am not making these suggestions for political reasons - they represent the content of the report much better than to suggest it is an analysis of the party's strategy, rather than an analysis of its supporters. Pjbeef (Talk) 10:29, 09 May 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the reference to this study in the first place, I find your argumentation reasonable and convincing. I agree with proceeding as you suggested. --RJFF (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone be a bit more specific on what the actual change to the text will be, since it seems to have changed in substance since the original edit? Right now the conversation seems to be dealing with discussion about the sources which is all well and good, but I'd prefer to move it on to a proposal to change the text based on them? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain." " Pjbeef (Talk) 23:16, 09 May 2012 (UTC)

Selective (pro UKIP?) use of sources

Editor JackPD added details supposedly sourced from a mailonline report "Labour opens up largest poll lead over Tories since the election as Lib Dems are overtaken by UKIP". What he wrote was: "a YouGov poll placed UKIP's popular support nationwide at 9%, 1% higher than the Liberal Democrats". However, JackPD's use of the source article is highly selective, and even the Mail's headline is not fully supported by its own article. What the source says is that two surveys have been conducted into "Voting intention" or "Voter intention", asking how people would vote if there were an election tomorrow. (Of course, this is much more precise than JackPD's "UKIP's popular support nationwide".) The YouGov poll, indeed, gives UKIP 9%, one point ahead of the Lib Dems (but, on the whole, rather trivial compared with Labour's 43% and the Conservatives 32%). But the second poll, by Populus, gives UKIP only 5% (with Lib Dems 12%, Labour 42% and Conservative 33%). Clearly, JackPD has been very partial in his use of the source by totally ignoring the second poll and this needs to be addressed, but given that the source itself has no clear position one must conclude that, although the Mail is for all intents and purposes a reliable source, the assertion that UKIP has overtaken the Lib Dems in "popular support nationwide" is far from proven. I have accordingly, removed the sentence referring to this. Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been several attempts to add this. It might be slightly more convincing if there'd been a similar effort to add previous opinion polls throughout UKIP's history showing them to be a fringe party with a tiny level of support, instead of just focusing on one single opinion poll (and as you point out ignoring another opinion poll detailed in the same source). My opinion is it's recentism at its worst, if it became a regular thing it would probably merit inclusion in the article but a single opinion poll means very little big picture wise. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What's worse is that the most recent attempt to use the YouGov poll said "opinion polls were now showing..." - note the plural when there is just one poll suggesting this. Recentism, yes. Dishonesty, definitely. (And given the margin of error that pollsters always admit to in their results, plus rounding of decimal points,9% v. 8% is immaterial.) Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank god you two crusaders of neutrality and balance are always on hand. You should be commended for your unflagging watch over this UKIP article. Even though you are directly opposed to UKIP you do not let this stop your nightly vigil, never ever letting personal agendas colour your edits or removal of edits. You are an inspiration to children everywhere. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a personal attack on the integrity of editors and an insult which demand an immediate apology. Gaius Octavius Princeps is making assumptions about the position of editors for which he has no evidence: my edits and comments can in no way be interepreted as showing I am "directly opposed to UKIP" and his assumption that I am smacks of incredibly flawed original research which must call into question his own neutrality regarding this article. Emeraude (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll take that as an admission of guilt then, shall we?Emeraude (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-sectarian?

Firstly I'm not too sure why the IP claims they used an independent source, since the source says "Mr Farage said Ukip was a unionist non-sectarian party". Secondly, does this even belong as an ideology? Northern Ireland does have a sectarian divide (although the extent of it depends on perspective), and the news article is about UKIP standing in the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Other than certain parts of Glasgow (and possibly a couple of other places in Scotland) I'm unaware of anywhere else in the UK that have a sectarian divide according to reliable source. So does it make sense to have "Non-Sectarianism" as an ideology, particularly in light of their increasing Islamaphobic elements? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The publication used (Belfast Telegraph) is as reliable as any other newspaper, but it it not the paper that says that UKIP is "non-sectarian": it merely reports Farage's comments which, by defintion, cannot to be regarded as as an independent, reliable source! The paper does not agree or disagree with Farage's statement; indeed, it makes no comment on it. As for "non-sectarianism" as an ideology - I've never heard such nonsense. It may well be that UKIP, like the vast majority of UK political parties, is non-sectarian. That's fine; within the context of Irish politics that may be worth a mention, but as a statement in the infobox it is pointless. I've removed it. Emeraude (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been reinserted with the comment "Undid revision 489128827 by Emeraude, info accurate and true. Emeraude check dictionary please, assuming UKIP is Sectarian is ignorance, they anti-EU not anti-European, this has been stated this on many occasions." Firstly, I did not say that it is not "accurate and true", nor have I suggested such. Secondly, I did not say that UKIP is sectarian, nor have I suggested such. To say that I have displays complete ignorance of what I wrote above, not to mention arrogance. There are two issues which both I and One Night In Hackney have made clear: 1 The source (Nigel Farage's own words, as quoted) is not a reliable source as defined by Misplaced Pages. But even if it were, 2 "Non-sectarian" is not an ideology. Before an edit war starts, wasting everybody's time, it would be better if the IP discussed the issue here, as I noted in my first revert ~~and will in the second revert I am about to make~~. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. My personal belief is it doesn't belong in the infobox for the reasons already stated, but I was willing to get the opinion of other editors before just reverting it out. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not Libertarianism

Why is a party that is more authoritarian than Conservatives and Labour being described as 'Libertarian'? This is Americanized, and should be described as American Conservatism. Ahahaha373 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Libertarian Conservatism is the best description of Ukip. They want low immigration and not too fussy about social liberalism, but are mainly concerned with small state libertarian conservatism. Ahahaha373 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources describing them as that? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

UKIP Constitution - "2.5 The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party." Mabuska 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether they are truly libertarian or not i don't know, but they do say their beliefs are "very closely aligned" with the Libertarian Party - in what appears to be a trumpet call to encourage Libertarian Party members to join them. Mabuska 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF, they aren't a reliable source for self-serving claims about themself. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for the context it is added in. Though there is no problem if it's put into the proper context in a new sentence, i.e. The party calls itself a "democractic, libertarian party" which fully meets the opening sentence of WP:ABOUTSELF. Mabuska 21:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, read the first bullet point - "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". It happens to be both, since an exceptional claim is "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". So where are all the mainstream sources that say UKIP is libertarian? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Does that bullet point even apply in this case considering the context i just proposed adding it in as - a quotation from themselves about themselves and nothing more? There is at least one mainstream source (yes not multiple) that ~~covers~~ mentions the party's claim: . If you wish i could start an RfC for outside input on whether that point applies for the context? Mabuska 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally i couldn't give a figs about what UKIP is, but if it stops the recurring issue from happening again it's not a bad solution. Mabuska 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the bullet point applies. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" - what's so difficult to understand? That source has been brought up before, it doesn't say UKIP are Libertarian. Three of the four bullet point at WP:REDFLAG apply to the claim. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I said that sourced mentions the party's claim. Very big difference from it stating that the party is. I've initiated a simple RfC below. Mabuska 22:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thatcherism

UKIP I believe has many Thatcherite elements, for example economic liberalism, civic nationalism & populism all are part of the ideology of Thatcherism. That's why I believe that it would be wise to add Thatcherism to the Ideology section of this UKIP article.(97daviee (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

I think it would be wise if you just stopped socking. Blocked means blocked, we're not interested in any edits you want to suggest. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I normally don't take any notice of someone who has been socking. However 97daviee makes a very good point, UKIP has many policies which are Thatcherite like lowering taxes, deregulation, and limited government. Even the article on Thatcherism UKIP is listed down as a Thatcherite organization. I fully support Thatcherism to be added to UKIP's Ideology.(PoliticalUK (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC))

UKIP does support deregulation and limited government. However, it supports small businesses and, more importantly, feels that essential infrastructure should be under the control of the Government. So UKIP is only partly Thatcherite. I feel that it is more a Centre-Right party (although this community does not accept that it is Centre-Right) than ThatcheritePstaveley (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Me and user One Night In Hackney have a difference of opinion on whether the policy WP:ABOUTSELF (and through it Exceptional sources) is relevant or not. I proposed adding into the article in the sentence after the lede: The party calls itself a "democractic, libertarian party" (however i now think The party classifies itself as a "democractic, libertarian party" seems better) which would make the lede look like this:

The UK Independence Party (UKIP, /ˈjuːkɪp/ YEW-kip) is a Eurosceptic and right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. The party classifies itself as a "democractic, libertarian party". The party was founded on the idea of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union but has since become a multi-issue party with a full manifesto.

The source used is the parties own Constitution.

ONiH says that the first bullet point of WP:ABOUTSELF applies (bringing the Exceptional claims policy into play), and that it can't be added. I disagree due to the context i'm proposing adding it in as. Does my proposal violate the policies mentioned regardless of the context? Or rather is it more suited for the body of the article? Mabuska 22:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy is very clear. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" - what's so difficult to understand? That a certain editor doesn't understand the meaning of simple words in the English language is a clear problem here, WP:COMPETENCE anyone? Especially since his selective quoting applies to my comments too, since I also said the material was self-serving. No reliable sources have ever been provided that agree with UKIP's own claim, the fact that people are prepared to argue policy says the opposite of what it says rather than actually provide any demonstrates that extremely well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:AGF ONiH and refrain from making derogatory ad hominem comments. I have a right to instigate an RfC for outside opinion. On outside opinion it appears that Scolaire didn't agree with you after they had looked at the proposal properly.

Mabuska 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why they couldn't of just posted that after their initial comment instead of deleting it outright i don't understand though as it was useful towards the discussion. Mabuska 10:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Given your track record of misrepresenting me on this page, I suggest letting other people say what they mean instead of trying to work it out yourself, since it appears you're struggling to understand the meaning of "however, it will be seen to be unduly self-serving". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment The party does classify itself as Libertarian, complete none issue, WP:ABOUTSELF has nothing to do with it. GimliDotNet 12:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I've explained in depth why it does, we'll need more than "I say it doesn't". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wrong. It is not an extraordinary claim to say the party describes itself as Libertarian when it clearly does, again a complete non-issue GimliDotNet 13:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why you should read what I actually said not Mabuska's selective quoting of it, since it's a self-serving claim. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fieschi, Catherine (15 June 2004). "The new avengers". guardian.co.uk. London: Guardian News & Media. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
^ Parties and Elections in Europe: The database about parliamentary elections and political parties in Europe, by Wolfram Nordsieck
Abedi, Amir; Lundberg, Thomas Carl (2009), "Doomed to Failure? UKIP and the Organisational Challenges Facing Right-Wing Populist Anti-Political Establishment Parties", Parliamentary Affairs, 62 (1), Oxford: 72–87
"Constitution of the UK Independence Party". Retrieved 31 August 2012. Objectives: 2.5 The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party
Rajan, Amol (17 November 2011). "Why Ukip could be a true scourge of the Tory Party". London: The Independent. Retrieved 11 December 2011.

Categories: