Talk:UK Independence Party

Template:Hidden information

Question - Economic Policies

I notice it says UKIP would allow employers to discrimate against immigrants in favour of "young British workers". Is there an age range given in the manifesto? (Older British workers may argue it could be discriminatory against themselves!)Cloptonson (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A good question, and the answer is no (though it's worth noting that UKIP's youth wing was originally for everyone under 35!). In fact,, the manifesto says no such thing. What it actually says is that, for "small businesses", UKIP will "Allow employers to prioritise British citizens for jobs." (page 45). So the article appears to be wrong and I will edit it to reflect this. Emeraude (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Acting Leader

There has to my knowledge been no official mention of Suzanne Evans taking over as acting leader. I would recommend it be listed merely as vacant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.139.31 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

article currently lists paul nuttall in intro para, but Suzanne Evans in the sidebar, contradicting itself. -- 92.239.119.144 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request and requested edit on 9 May 2015

1. It was reported that Nigel Farage had only announced, either in or near Margate, in Thanet South, in Kent, that he would "recommend", in writing, presumably as part of his letter of resignation, to the UKIP National Executive Committee, that Suzanne Evans, UKIP Deputy Party Chairwoman, to be appointed to become UKIP Acting Party Leader. Nigel Farage did not announce that he had "appointed" Suzanne Evans, in his own name and by his own authority, independent of and bypassing the UKIP NEC. [1]

2. As far as I know, UKIP are not currently "led" by Paul Nuttall, as UKIP Deputy Leader, automatically, or by default, as if he were the Vice President of the United States of America; I am personally not aware of reports, official announcements from UKIP or personal semi-official announcements for UKIP to that effect.

3. There are TWO UKIP Deputy Party Chairmen: Suzanne Evans and Neil Hamilton. [2]

4. I personally feel that both Suzanne Evans and Neil Hamilton, as UKIP Deputy Party Chairmen, are both important and senior enough in the senior UKIP leadership or hierarchy, that their names should also be listed inside the Infobox, immediately underneath the name of Steven Crowther, UKIP Party Chairman.

5. UKIP HQ is most definitely NOT in Newton Abbot in Devon. It is (probably) ONLY the Postal Address for correspondence only. Quite possibly it is only a hired one under contract from a third-party mail-holding, OCR (document-scanning) and clerical company with their own external staff and employees, and with their own rented office space in an office unit within one of the buildings in a business park (King Charles Business Park) within an industrial estate (Heathfield (Heathfield Industrial Estate), TQ12), on Dartmoor, near the National Park (Dartmoor National Park) but also near Newton Abbot (Newton Abbot Town (proper)), separated by the A38 highway [3] (although dated circa November 2008). The actual and current UKIP HQ was reported recently to be somewhere in Mayfair, in the City of Westminster, in [London Underground] Zone One of Central London, W.1. [4]. -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk), Newton Abbott is their Main HQ. If you believe it to only be a Postal Address then I suggest you phone UKIP,

Lexdrum House, King Charles Business Park, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6UT

Telephone: 01626 831290. I have rung them on many occasions and their departments for running the party are there.User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 13:02, 4 July 2015 (GMT)

NEC

Who sits on this mysterious National Executive Committee that seems to me more powerful than the great man himself?137.205.183.86 (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

UKIP as a "radical right" party

Over the past few days, a number of different editors have sought to remove the statement that UKIP is a radical right wing party from the article’s lede and infobox. They have accompanied such actions with assertive statements like "UKIP aren't radical right wing", and it would be fair to say that the category of "radical right" is not one that UKIP or many of its supporters happily embrace. Despite this, we have reliable sources from academic, peer-reviewed publications authored by established political scientists who are themselves experts on UKIP, the radical right, and British politics (i.e. Art 2001, Driver 2001, Bale, Hough and Van Kessel 2013, Ford and Goodwin 2014) that all categorise UKIP as a "radical right" party, often accompanied with the categorisation of right-wing populism. If one looks at what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source, we find the statement that "In general, the most reliable sources are 1) Peer-reviewed journals, 2) Books published by university presses..." Given that it is exactly these sources which consider UKIP to be "radical right", we are left with the incontrovertible conclusion that the term "radical right" deserves a prominent place in both the infobox and the lede. Conversely, removing the "radical right" categorisation simply because one personally disagrees with it would contravene Wikipedia's no original research policy, because it places one editor's personal opinion above that of academic specialists in the subject.

Part of the issue here may well be that these editors are confusing the categorisation of "radical right" with that of the "far right", which in European contexts is usually used to describe racial nationalists, white supremacists, and fascists (and all reasonable observers can surely agree that UKIP is none of these). So let's be clear; in the modern European context, the terms "radical right" and "far right" are being used to describe different phenomena, albeit which have some areas of overlap. Further, it should be stressed that labelling UKIP as "radical right" is not simply a leftist or establishment plot to discredit the party, but is because academic specialists recognise the party as exhibiting most of the traits that we expect from the radical right: it blends nationalist, anti-establishment, anti-immigrant, economically liberal, and socially conservative (including anti-multicultural and anti-LGBT rights) perspectives together, which in the contemporary context represents a fairly radical departure from the mainstream centre-right and from mainstream establishment politics in general. Thus I would ask that any editors who are tempted to remove the statement that UKIP is "radical right" refrain from doing so – you don't have to like this definition, but you must accept that it is how academics classify UKIP – and it is academic opinions that are given most attention here at Wikipedia; after all, this is an encyclopedia ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the terminology is used inconsistently. The term radical right for example was developed to describe groups in the U.S,, where they were thought to be distinct from the European extreme right. The term "radical right-wing populist" was used by Hans-Georg Betz in his 1994 book Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, but the term right-wing populism is used almost exclusively today, including by Betz himself. I would suggest dropping the modifier "radical" as redundant and/or confusing. TFD (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

But surely that ignores the fact that it is the term still being used by the main academic sources devoted to UKIP ? As per policy, should we not be following their example, regardless of whether or not we agree with it ? Oh, and if it's worth anything I think I'll highlight a statement by Nigel Farage here: "I'm not on the right or left. I'm a radical". Looks like he embraces the "radical" label if not the "right-wing" one. 11:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not the term most often used. Type in "ukip "right wing populist"" to Google books.[5] Only one of the hits on the first page uses the modifier radical. And whether or not Farage calls himself radical is irrelevant. One does not need to believe that radical right wing populists are radical, right-wing or populist in order to use the term. Incidentally the piping is wrong. TFD (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly the Farage comment was tangential to our main discussion; I was not trying to bolster my argument with it per se, but rather brought it up as an interesting side note. I also agree that the term "right-wing populist" is very widely used for UKIP (and thus it too belongs in the lede and infobox) but I do not think that it should be used exclusively to the detriment of "radical right". With respect TFD, your comment that "Only one of the hits on the first page uses the modifier radical" isn't quite correct; from my own knowledge of these works I am aware that at least three of them (Ford and Goodwin, Driver, and Bale, Hough and Van Kessel in Rydgren) describe UKIP as "radical right" elsewhere in their texts (and others listed here may well do as well). Ultimately both "radical right" and "right-wing populist" remain the primary ways in which UKIP has been categorised by academics, and thus (I would strongly argue) both deserve a place in the lede and the infobox. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of whether "radical right" is a sufficiently common description of the party to warrant its inclusion in the lede, a link to a page describing the ideology [attributed to UKIP] as "a political preference that leans toward extreme conservatism and anti-socialism" which references the John Birch Society in the next sentence is so unhelpful to readers it's difficult to assume anyone with both adequate knowledge of the subject matter and good faith could even consider including it. The academic literature qualifies UKIP's radicalism in terms of its "anti-establishment" posture rather than any common ground with US paeloconservatives. Right-wing populism, on the other hand, almost perfectly characterises UKIP's political position, and indeed UKIP is referenced in the actual article.Dtellett (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Popularism seems the appropriate qualifier ----Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely the problem there is that the radical right article is too U.S.-centric, however, rather than the problem lying with this article, which is simply reflecting academic sources themselves ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That's possible, but the point is the radical right is presently very unhelpful because it describes a quite different strand of "radical" right wing philosophy from that described in the academic literature and it does so as the first link in the lede. If it were to link to a hypothetical Right wing radicalism in Europe article setting it in a remotely appropriate context - much of the academic literature is also careful to distinguish between the positions of UKIP vs the Freedom Party of Austria and Front National in France even whilst noting the overlap in appeal - there wouldn't be a problem. As it is, the right-wing populism link is much more appropriate. It's a little ironic that you suggest my edits are disruptive when I've acted with the emerging consensus on the talk page whilst you reflexively undo edits in violation of the WP:3RR Thanks for the note advising me not to take it personally, but I suggest you take your own advice and focus on adding more useful material. Dtellett (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I acted hastily in referring to that edit of yours as disruptive, and for that I apologise; your comments regarding the current appropriateness of the radical right and right-wing populism articles as they pertain to UKIP are very fair, and you do make a good argument for why linking to the radical right article at present will no doubt mislead many readers. However, removing that link causes a great many problems too, and leaves the core issue which I addressed above intact; a number of academic specialists in UKIP itself, Europe’s radical right, and British politics all categorise UKIP as radical right. We cannot, and should not, shy away from that in the way that some editors (perhaps motivated by their UKIP sympathies) have clearly desired. What I suggest should be the best course of action at present therefore is to create a section at the Radical right page, called Radical right#Europe or something of that nature, and have this article link straight there. How does that sound ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine, provided there's some clarity in the philosophical differences in that section, which I'm sure you're aware of if your familiar with the literature. Radical right (Europe) could even warrant its own page, since apart from its differences with American paeloconservatism there are distinct issues such as Euroscepticism and fear of Islamification which are unique to European politics Dtellett (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I said that few writers described UKIP as "radical right wing populist", preferring the briefer "right-wing populist." Since these two terms mean exactly the same thing, we should adopt the one most commonly used today. As explained in the article Radical right, radical right is a term developed by U.S. social scientists to describe an American phenomenon which they believed was distinct from and unrelated to the extreme right in Europe. Noting that some European writers have adopted the U.S. term to Europe, it says it is controversial. I think that whether we use radical rw populism or rw populism, it should link to the article on rw populism. TFD (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

UKIP aren't "radical right", "extreme right" or any of the other terms that people are making up to make UKIP seem as if they are "Far Right" without actually saying they are, because they absolutely aren't.

I have to say as a UKIP member I am getting really sick of having to answer this nonsense. Take one look at UKIP policies and you can see that many social ones are indeed "populist" (popular) policies, which are inherently center-ground policies. When you compare UKIP policies on elements such as benefits, in particular to disabled and pension policies for the elderly, it brings UKIP even further left, in my opinion left of the Conservatives. Who have recently declared an interest in taxing Disability Living Allowances. Add to this UKIP policies on maintaining public interests and their opposition to TTIP and extravagant public vanity spending and UKIP only dragging further leftward. So can we end this crazy attempt at labeling UKIP as some kind of British "Tea Party" right here, because anyone who has any idea about politics knows that UKIP aren't comparable (regardless of what Raheem Kassam attempted) to the American Tea party, and UKIP are fast moving to the center-ground on certain policies. Proof of this fact is the substantial number of Labour and Liberal Democrat former voters who switched to UKIP in the 3 million increase of voters UKIP had between 2010 General Election and the 2015 General Election. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2015 (GMT)

This is almost total nonsense. To address just a few of the points. 1. That Lab and LD former voters voted UKIP says more about the movement of those voters than it does about UKIP. (Why not mention the former BNP voters who supported UKIP? Lurch to the extreme right by UKIP?) 2. "Populist" does not equal "popular". 3. Populist policies are not inherently centre-ground. 4. Moving to the centre ground on "certain policies" (fast or not) does not remove them from the right. They need to be there on all policies. (Note that almost all right wing parties have some left wing policies, and vice versa. It was Gen de Gualle, a true right winger, who nationalised French banks and most of the car industry!) 5. Regardless of what you think or believe or what your opinionn is, Wikipedia is based on reliable academic sources which all say that UKIP is well to the right of centre. If you find reliable sources have shifted on this, give us the details. Until then, it matters not one jot what you (or I) think. Emeraude (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Update

I have dealt with the main concern which was articulated here at the talk page on this issue – that the radical right article referred almost exclusively to the U.S.-phenomenon and thus it would be confusing for readers interested in UKIP if we linked to it – by creating an article on the Radical right (Europe). That latter article is still in its infancy and will need love and tender care to bring it up to GA quality but in time I hope to do so. Nevertheless, I hope that this will ease some of the concerns that have been expressed regarding the use of "radical right" as an academic categorisation in this article's lede and in other parts of the article more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I will comment on that talk article's talk page. TFD (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

On what grounds/proof do you base the comment 'Less educated voters'. I find the comment out of character for Wikipedia and a little prosaic. I also find it disturbing when insults like this - about the public - are published on your pages, after all this is not Facebook??? 87.114.42.105 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed above. It is a reported fact based on demographic data ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I second Snowded's view here. Describing someone as "less educated" is not necessarily an insult in this context; rather, it is a statement of fact. Truth is, in the U.K. today, we have increasing numbers of younger people who have graduate degrees, while many in the older generation barely had a secondary school education and as a result had far fewer economic prospects in life. This is a sociologically observable fact, and it is also apparent that UKIP's support base primarily consists of this older, less educated and working-class sector of society, which is exactly what we state in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Well-documented and adequately sourced. Emeraude (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Am concerned about political bias in article

Just want to make an overall statement about some of the edits made to the page. We are a non partisan organisation and frankly some of the negative comments with no factual backing designed to further the authors agenda are disgraceful e.g Support from white blue collar workers, or less educated support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berox7 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia works from third party sources, not from the opinions of members of UKIP. If you have specific issues, and sources then it is more than legitimate to make a change. But mass changes based on your own opinion as a self-confessed party member are not acceptable and you are now edit warring (hence the formal notice on your talk page). I suggest you take a look at your proposed changes and see which can be supported by THIRD PARTY sources. Any changes should be brought here for discussion anyway once they have been reverted. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. It you think that blue collar uneducated people do not support UKIP, please provide a source. TFD (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Worse than that - do not delete impeccably reliably sourced content that says that they do! Emeraude (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the comments expressed by Snowded, TFD, and Emeraude. UKIP has its own website on which it can present its own point of view about itself. Conversely, Wikipedia does not exist to promote UKIP party line but instead must rely on reliable third party sources, namely those produced by academic studies and journalists operating within the more reliable sectors of the mainstream press. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok point taken. Firstly I am not a member of UKIP but instead work for a non partisan organisation trying to further political engagement. This blatant anti-UKIP bias as evidenced in the page is unhelpful and hurts democracy as a whole. I am willing to concede on factors you believe to be wrong on the basis that some of the more extreme language is removed. This includes:

Refering to UKIP as a "Radical right" party. UKIP itself does not believe it is either left or right and political commentators have ill described it as such due to significant support coming from the labour party.

Factual inaccuracy on the number of councillors UKIP has in officer (499 not 469).

The use of UKIP's voter base which a)doesn't exist in other political parties pages b)Is based on the political opinions of self confessed left wing commentators who futher their agenda by calling UKIP's base old, white and uneducated.

Ideologically referring to UKIP as conservative and quoting the Guardian as evidence is laughable.

The covert racism slur within the aritcle by anti Islam comments cannot be backed up with evidence aside from that of opinions from commentators which would be inclined to say that and is not representative of society as a whole. Refering to UKIP as protectionist is ridiculous based on their empahsis of free trade and wish for greater trade deals.

UKIP has 22 not 23 members of European parliament following the resignation of Janice Atkinson.

Membership based on latest figures is 47,000 not 45,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berox7 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The source used for the info-box description of their ideology as "conservatism" is not backed by the source and not discussed elsewhere in the article. TFD (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As and where there are potential factual mistakes (i.e. number of European Parliament members) we must seek reliable sources and correct them, and on that level at least I share the anonymous user's concerns. However, their other claims are far more problematic, at least to my mind. That the Wikipedia articled devoted to other British political parties don't discuss party support bases is a problem with those articles, not this one (I mean, the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat pages are in a terrible state, so let's not look to them as a good model here). Furthermore, suggesting that the information on UKIP's support base has just been dreamed up by "self confessed left wing commentators" based on their own "political opinions" completely ignores the fact that these academic political scientists' claims have been produced following thorough scrutiny of statistical and sociological data. And, furthermore, since when was it an insult to say that a party's primary support base was primarily old, white, working class and of lower formal educational achievement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As it is clear that despite the obvious political bias, the consensus among editors is that my reasonable update is wrong. However I will not stand for factual inaccuracy such as voter base and membership figures and will change them accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.33.58 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Giving primacy to academic reliable sources over the opinions of particular editors or to the self-description of a political party itself is Wikipedia policy. It isn't "obvious political bias" on behalf of other editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody (you all are probably better qualified than I) can revert this, but I changed in the lead about the white working class being "disenfranchised" to "perceived to be disenfranchised". In its truest meaning, the disenfranchised were those who owned no land before the Great Reform Act, or African-Americans before the 14th Amendment. Many other sectors can and do debate that theirs is more "disenfranchised" by modern political agenda than others. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to back Berox7 on this issue and I have noticed an increased partisan influence on the page for the past 5 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banterclaus1st (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear all, sorry that I should have noted this discussion and dispute about the lead before I edited it, nonetheless, I've tried to fix it and make it more "neutral" concerning UKIP's support. To do this I have appealed to the work of Rob Ford & Matthew Goodwin known as "revolt on the right", the most comprehensive academic text on UKIP to date. I have referenced it. They are neutral, fair and impartial to the party, they describe UKIP's support as the "left behind" in Britain. I have changed it to this subsequently, I hope that is acceptable TF92 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Berox7's block

Just as an update on the situation here, at the prompting of Snowded (which I seconded), Berox7 has been given a 31 hour ban from editing Wikipedia in response to their persistent and disruptive edit warring on the UKIP article. Hopefully this will serve as a suitable deterrent to prevent such behaviour in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And Banterclaus1st has been blocked indefinitely. TFD (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

YouGov Survey

Could I get someone to go ahead and preform a removal on the YouGov survey cited in the Reception section, along with its associated sentence? I'm ninety nine percent sure that Wikipedia policy does not consider a survey with a non-randomized sample size of 1874 individuals to be an accurate or credible representation of over 64,500,000 people, particularly when major details regarding methodology are entirely absent. TheMurgy (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a source which invalidates the survey we can look at it, Otherwise we can't make a change simply based on one editor's opinion ----Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I second Snowded here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

YouGov is a respectable polling organsation, and a sample size of 1,874 is actually bigger than most. I'm not at all sure what its inclusion in the article adds, other than being a veiled attempt to portray UKIP as the victim of a conspiracy, but I can see no obvious reason for its removal. (Previous applies also to the whole section.) Emeraude (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the purpose of the entire section. People complained BBC was biased pro-UKIP, survey said biased against UKIP, UKIP claim (as expected) it's biased against them. I'm pretty sure this could be said for any party, anywhere in the entire world Surreal Madrid (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• The use of quota sampling rather than random sampling by YouGov is entirely accepted within the social sciences, psephology and beyond. I don't see a problem with the poll qua a poll. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bloated sections

I am a little concerned that, while some vital sections of this article remain poorly structured and referenced, there are other sections which have become bloated out of proportion and filled with comparative trivia. I am thinking in particular of two sections; the first is "Farage resignation and return", which suffers from a very strong case of recentism by placing great emphasis on recent, but (in the long term) very minor happenings within the party. The second is the "Regions" section, which has grown to have sub-sections for five of UKIP's thirteen regional groups (yet not the other eight), each of which contain what is again pretty trivial information, much of which is duplicated in other sections anyway. I really think that we need to take a metaphorical hatchet to these sections and really cut them down to size, and thus just thought that I'd test the waters here at the talk page to see if I could receive support for that course of action ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think it's bloated. I think 6.2 Voter base, 6.3 Financial backing and 7 Reception could go in their entirety, but I think there'll only be support here to edit the latter.--Flexdream (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the idea of removing "Voter base", "Financial backing" and "Reception" altogether although accept that some of those, and in particular the former, could also be edited down to a more manageable size. As it is I think that they carry very important information about the party and have been constructed using reliable sources, including from academic specialists in the study of UKIP; if those academics think that these issues are worthy of mention then who are we to disagree ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right about the regions. As a political science topic, articles on parties should include detail on support, membership and finance; how the party is organised regionally is of very minor importance unless it differs significantly from the norm of other parties, which UKIP's does not. As for Farage's "resignation", that is a significant issue (cf Miliband, Clegg) and provides an interesting insight into the attitudes of party officials. As to its long term importance, better to leave things and wait see. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the supportive comments I have received I have gone ahead and dramatically edited down the "Regions" section. I would still argue for cutting down the section on Farage's resignation, however; I do not claim that we should omit such information entirely, but think that a whole section containing three paragraphs on this one single issue is a little excessive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Constant attempts to maintain an inaccurate reference to UKIP being far right

There seems to be a concerted effort by User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh to keep the inaccurate statement that UKIP is "far right" in this article. An article in the far left Guardian newspaper is being cited as justification for making this statement. Where UKIP is concerned the Guardian is not a reliable source, being openly hostile and publicly opposed to UKIP. That said, the article being cited doesn't actually say that UKIP is far right so as well as not being credible, it doesn't actually evidence what is being asserted.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh has slapped somebody down on a previous edit he decided to revert which described UKIP as Libertarian because "there is no consensus" that UKIP is Libertarian. There is no consensus that UKIP is far right either. During the 2015 local elections UKIP took huge chunks out of the left wing Labour Party's vote and the Tea Party fanboy editor of the Breitbart London website recently declared war on the "left wing element" of the party's membership who he blames for dragging the party to the left. The Telegraph in January said that UKIP's "swing to the left" was an opportunity for the right wing Tories.

I also have a problem with Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh having the privilege of policing this page when his User Talk shows that he is a supporter of a rival political party, the Communist Party of Great Britain and that his political ideology is communist. In the interests of openness, I am a UKIP councillor and a branch and county chairman. This naturally gives me a bias toward UKIP in the same way that Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh's support for the Communist Party of GB and his far left ideology gives him a bias against UKIP. However, I think that having been a member of the party since 2007 and seen the way the party and its policies have developed over the years I have a better idea of the party's ideology than Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh.

As far as I'm concerned, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh's constant revisions to the UKIP page to protect the inaccurate and negative assertions in it are politically-motivated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkotsane (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have just looked at the profiles of the users supporting the efforts to keep the inaccurate information and negative comments about UKIP in the article. One is a communist and supports the Communist Party of GB, one is an "anti fascist" (the anti-fascist movement has moved on to UKIP now they've run out of fascists) and one says that he wants the UK to join the €uro. I'd like to request an independent review of the administration of this page and the contentious comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkotsane (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that I have yet to read The Guardian calling for proletariat revolution, I find the idea that the newspaper should be considered "far left" to be pretty laughable, but frankly, so is the claim that UKIP is "far right". For what it's worth I have no problem with a self-professed communist editing this page, and no problem with a self-professed Ukipper doing so either. The problem lies not with the identity of the editor, but with the content of the edit and the quality of the sourcing. We should be giving priority to academic, peer reviewed sources authored by academic political scientists, rather than newspaper articles; and I have yet to come upon a single such source which describes UKIP as "far right", rather they use more accurate terms such as "right-wing populist" and "radical right" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that The Guardian article that was originally cited by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (and which subsequently got mixed up when an alternate URL was put in its place) was authored by Matthew Goodwin, who is a respected political scientist with a particular expertise on the British right-wing. Nowhere in the article does he explicitly declare UKIP to be "far right", but in pointing out the similarities that it had with the BNP (and let's be fair, it does have a number of clear similarities on certain issues), he notes that "Ukip denies these associations with the radical right, but both parties are pitching a far-right formula and rallying a radical right base". Even though this is not particularly explicit in its categorisation of the party, this is the only reliable source that is being cited to the claim that UKIP is "far right". However, it is significant to point out that this article was authored in March 2012, and since then Goodwin has co-written (with political scientist Robert Ford) a number of far more in depth studies of UKIP; in none of these does he refer to the party as "far right" and instead he takes pains to stress UKIP's ideological difference from the BNP on various issues. Thus I would strongly argue that there is not much of a case for calling UKIP "far right" in the article, and certainly not for placing it so prominently in the lede. If I'm being honest I have to echo Wonkotsane's concerns that the addition of such labels to the lede were probably politically motivated by those with an interest in discrediting UKIP by associating it with more extreme and violent elements of the political spectrum. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And although I did caution against the over-reliance on newspaper and web articles (often written by people with little or no expertise in political science or political history), I would point out the following to highlight that there is great opposition to the idea of labelling UKIP as "far right" from various sectors: "UKIP is not a far right party, but that doesn't mean its voters don't hold far right sympathies" in this article from Left Foot Forward; "UKIP are not 'far Right'. There's nothing extremist about rejecting the 'benefits of diversity'" from this article in The Telegraph, or "Academics who have looked at far-right extremism don't think Ukip are far-right" from this article at Politics.co.uk. Here you have a left-winger, a right-winger, and someone who is at least 'officially' non-partisan all pretty much saying that calling UKIP "far right" is problematic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Some people think it is far right and the Guardian is a reliable source for that. It does not justify it being in the lede or the information box however. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would remind editors that we are to assume good faith. Presumptions about others' motives for editing are discouraged. Bondegezou (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Snowded, as a Welsh Socialist who is avidly pro-EU, pro-UK joining the Euro and pro-Welsh Independence. I question his impartiality in these matters. He is blatantly tampering with the page putting inflammatory, properly reference anti-UKIP content onto the page.

Political scholars have defined UKIP as being a "right wing party", however the original reference to political text on the said subject seems to have been removed and not restored. Add to that the fact that this user and others continue to tamper the page with lies. Such as UKIP being anti-Immigration. They are not anti-immigration, they are anti-Mass migration (circa 150,000+ per year). They want a fair points based system that would apply equally across the Globe! This is party policy which confirms that UKIP are not anti-immigrant as has been attempted to be listed. The other label that above user has tried to add is that UKIP are a "British Nationalist" party. UKIP have NEVER said that the UK is superior to other nations. In fact on multiple occasions they have highlighted our past and current failings as a country. UKIP are a patriotic party. Not a Nationalist party. So would appreciate it if a line was drawn here with regards to that particular label.

All the users on Wikipedia under the Sun can claim UKIP are a Far-Right party. It doesn't make it true. Posting references to biased left wing media outlets who claim UKIP to be Far-Right in how they describe the party does not make UKIP a Far-Right party. UKIP have been categorised as a Right-Wing party, granted with support for Direct Democracy (Right to Recall), National/Regional referendums and decentralisation of powers from main Parliament to local councils. Even the Right Wing label is growing harder to explain with UKIP pulling more inherently to the left (Center-Right when policies reviewed). This page needs to be protected because people with inherently anti-UKIP attitudes are obviously trying to vandalise the page owing to their own political bias. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 01:44, 5 July 2015 (GMT)

As a clarification Rover, I think that there may be some confusion here; the term "anti-immigration", as used in a context such as this, does not mean that a party are totally against any and all immigration. It means that they spend a great deal of time and emphasis arguing against immigration of one sort or another, and that is something that is very true of UKIP. Anti-immigration rhetoric is a big part of their campaign strategy, even though they wouldn't want to end all migration to the UK. At the same time, UKIP have been academically classified as a civic nationalist party, although not an ethnic nationalist party, so the term "nationalism" has some validity here, even if it needs a level of clarification that I'm not convinced "British nationalism" provides. As it is, I continue to support your position that UKIP are not "far right", that we lack reliable sources that testify to them being "far right", and that we should certainly not be labeling UKIP as "far right" in the lede, and it is this point that we should be focusing in on here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel I ought to say that I shall no longer attempt to put far-right on the page as there seems to be a consensus against it and so right-wing seems to be the appropriate compromise, sorry for time-wasting. Though I still feel the persistent reversion of edits containing social conservatism, nationalism (granted british nationalism is wrong, though as user:midnightblueowl points out it is still a nationalist party) and anti-immigration are wrong and part of an edit war from user:RoverTheBendInSussex and my adding these points is not due to bias on my part, despite the fact I hate UKIP and their prejudices with vitriol (e.g. Anti-immigration I feel sadly applies to all main parties in the UK nowadays). Diffs I have put on a comment after my initial complaint. Thanks and sorry for any disruption or upset. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, although while I disagreed with the manner in which you conducted some of your controversial edits, it is valuable to have editors from very different perspectives contributing to this page. What I think we should do is have conversations here, amongst all of us, to decide precisely which terms should go into the infobox. I for instance would be happy to see "civic nationalism" in there, but would be a little bit more hesitant about "British nationalism", which (thanks largely to the impact of the BNP) is now more closely associated with an ethnic nationalism. Dialogue and constructive debate is a good thing, and it could really help to advance the quality of this page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl-Thanks and I completely agree, in future I reckon additions to the UKIP infobox definitely ought to be debated somewhere first, this party's beliefs are clearly a contentious issue. Indeed, this is, in my view, down to the fact all mainstream British parties (left and right) nowadays seem to have become obfuscated and tergiversating in this respect, an alienating nimbus of lies and dishonesty hanging prominently above British politics.

I think I was pushing it with British nationalism (I admit my zealous and brash pursuit of a place for it on the page was inadvertently due to bias, I am a communist and strongly against the whole of the political right) and the source was tenuous for that point. However, civic nationalism I had not heard of and would be glad to see it on the page as it seems to be an appropriate descriptor of their views. I am also glad to note social conservatism and anti-immigration seem to have been restored to the UKIP page.

My handling of this matter was brash and inappropriate and again I apologise to all involved. I will be much more reluctant to report users in future and shall educate myself in the appropriate way to go about it.

Thanks, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for this open and frank debate. I personally don't have a problem with UKIP being described as nationalist or even British nationalist because the majority of the membership are British nationalists, albeit civic nationalists rather than the ethnic nationalist you might find in the BNP. I would agree that the party is broadly right wing taken as an average but there are some distinctly left of centre policies in UKIP's manifesto. I have written a number of times about the problems facing UKIP in trying to pigeon-hole itself because the party can't go on being all things to all men (or women). The party has a set of policies that attract people from the left and the right of the political spectrum and from all demographics but whether it's sustainable is debatable. As far as I'm concerned UKIP can't currently be pigeon-holed as one particular ideology and the party will either need to plump for one eventually or form a coherent ideology of its own - "UKIPism" if you like.

I appreciate the mea culpa Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, it takes a big man to admit they're wrong. It's hard to remain objective when you have strong political views, I do empathise with that - for me it tends to come out as sarcasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkotsane (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Continued vandalism and threats on UKIP Wikipedia page

1- One of the users attempting to edit UKIP's twitter page to list them as "Far-Right" using a weak Guardian 2 line reference at the bottom of an article is a self admitted "Communist", "Pro-EU", Pro-UK joining the Euro" and pro-Welsh Independence. So I think it is safe to assume they are anti-UKIP and allowing their bias to ignore the talk page and vandalise the UKIP page so it reads that they are Far-Right, when in fact the most useful reference which has been removed by someone used a recognised political scholar from Norway who categorised them as being Right Wing. The attempts to categorise UKIP as Far-Right should be deemed vandalism and removed when edited. This by User: Snowded

2- One of the other users attempting to add references from the Guardian as valid proof of UKIP's standing politically has expressed clear bias in communication with me on my User page. Threatening me with reporting should I attempt to edit inaccurate claims as party ideologies and also backing up the claim UKIP are Far-Right.

Comments such as "It's anti-immigrationist policies" - Of which UKIP have none in reality. "strong sense of nationalism" - UKIP don't believe or have ever expressed an opinion of superiority over other countries. But most startlingly obvious is "opposition to co-operation other countries (E.U. (which myself would like Britain to leave) and intervention in struggling foreign countries are both opposed staunchly by the party)." - UKIP oppose the transfer of legislation and further expansionism by the EU. That is in no way Nationalistic, but does express a pretty obvious exposed bias against UKIP seeing as they don't oppose European cooperation or assisting countries.

This is just a flavour of the bias expressed by User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh with further comments desperately trying to link UKIP to the French National Front, and Britain First also viewable on my talk page. It is pretty obvious their is an agenda at play here. Especially when you take note of the random dropping in of the "Nazi party" in mention and referring to UKIP supporters as "Kippers".

I also further to this believe this user should be reported for making false allegations and threatening Wikipedia users on their talk pages.

When this user posts comments on talk pages such as "Edit the UKIP page in a biased way again and I shall have to report you, leading probably to a block or ban." after editing unreliable info that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, action should really be taken and would appreciate it if someone report this user for such actions as I do not know how to.

As I said to this user on his/her talk page. If I was a biased UKIP supporter, I would have edited the Wikipedia page to read that UKIP are a center-right party. Something I really believe. But the most reliable source that has been added to the page made reference that UKIP were a Right Wing Party. This source being removed without reason. That source being a Norwegian Political book discussing politics in the Nordic Countries of Europe. I respect this reference and left it as it is. Main consensus is that UKIP are a Right Wing party, and so editing UKIP as Far Right is wrong. As is labeling "Nationalistic" and or "anti-Immigration", which they are not. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:27, 5 July 2015 (GMT)

If people think there need to be an RFC then do it.

Users are allowed to tell you they may report you.

As to are the far right, our artucle says they have been called far right, they have been. The article does not say they are far right.

Also the NY times is not the guardian, so maybe we need to discus each source and contentious passage in isolation, and not just make block edits referring to only one or two of the contested removals.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that describe UKIP as "far-right" (and also quite a few that describe it as "center-right"), but the clear consensus in the previous RfC from May 2014 was that the infobox should describe UKIP simply as "right-wing". If Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh wants to change that, he should probably familiarize himself with that old RfC, and start a new discussion here if he's not convinced by the arguments that were presented then.
Sideways713 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit that I undid (RoverTheBendInSussex) did not removes the term far right from the info box, it removed the statement that they have been accused of being not unlike far right parties in the body of the article. So I am not sure what issue you are addressing that relates to RoverTheBendInSussex's edit waring.Slatersteven (talk)

A couple of points. The American press is not a citable example as American politics is completely different to British Politics. The Washington Post, New York Times etc all refer to UKIP as Far-Right, however their opinions take no prominance over other news or media outlets. The majorority of media outlets deem UKIP to be Right Wing and your insistence to change the UKIP page in the face of this even to add the accusation brings your impartiality into question.

I don't see the Green Party page being edited to list them as Far Left when they have been accused of such in the past.

Finally, the labels that have been added to UKIP which continue to be added are incorrect. UKIP are not anti-Immigration, they are anti-Mass immigration. What distinction can be drawn between what has been added from the point of view of a party that is against 'all' immigration and a party such as UKIP that wants immigration reduced. The simple fact is the label "anti-Immigration" has been added to both confuse and mislead people and as such should be removed.

Furthermore, as I said earlier this morning. UKIP are not a Nationalistic party. They have never aired a sense of superiority over other nations and so once again, this label has been incorrectly added to mislead people.

I also further note that my edit of "Direct democracy" something UKIP publicly talk of the values of, and have in their 2015 Manifesto has been removed regardless of being fully resourced in something more unbiased than the left wing publications of the Guardian and the Washington Post. Why has this label been removed when UKIP are a party who advocate Direct democracy in terms of Right to Recall, Parliamentary decentralisation to local Parliament and regional and national referendums on decision making.

The above deliberate tampering of the UKIP page is a biased attempt to label UKIP incorrectly and mislead people as to their nature and philosophy! User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 12:48, 4 July 2015 (GMT)

Please take note of this public poll, in which the General Public deemed UKIP "more left wing" than the Conservative party. [[6]]. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 13:13, 4 July 2015 (GMT)

user:RoverTheBendInSussex Flipping heck, Rover! As a lefty myself, I am well-placed to say that UKIP are no-where near the left of the spectrum, even in the mildest sense. No social justice, no equality (opposition to gay marriage for example), support for immigration restriction (in my view entirely unjustified as immigrants make up less than 1% of the population and 700,000 homes free in Britain at any one time are sufficient to house considerably more than the "record numbers" of immigrants UKIP are rallying against and they cannot be considered the welfare parasites UKIP make them out to be as statistics show virtually all are employed and pay tax), civic nationalism (saying Britons should be prioritised over foreigner with regard to employment for example). This makes UKIP right-wing and every political scientist worth their salt says so.

However, my handled your edit warring inappropriately and for that I apologise. Also, I shall not re-edit the UKIP page to say far-right as consensus has been reached against it and I retract my accusation of British nationalism, civic nationalism is far more appropriate and correct.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2015

Remove "right wing"

UKIP is not a "right wing" political party. Please remove the term 'right wing' 80.189.216.217 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Every academic specialist in political science who has studied the party has considered it to be right-wing; more specifically they have identified its ideology as being that of right-wing populism and characterised it as being part of the wider "radical right" phenomenon across Europe. At the same time, we have a huge array of media sources testifying to the party's identity as right-wing, and UKIP members themselves who have characterised it as right-wing. We thus have a large number of what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources" testifying to its right-wing identity. Given this, it is pretty indisputable that we should be calling it "right-wing" here on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I am a little bemused why anyone with any familiarity with the party would not consider it to be right-wing ? It combines a variety of elements which (in a contemporary British context) are all generally associated with right-wing politics: social conservatism (it has opposed advances in LGBT rights, for instance), economic liberalism (although in the past few years it has tempered its rhetoric on this one so as not to alienate its growing working-class support base who are generally more favourable to state ownership of the healthcare system and such), civic nationalism, anti-multiculturalism, calling for restricted immigration, etc. Basically its approach has an awful lot in common with the Thatcherism of the 1980s, which was indisputably a right-wing phenomenon in British politics, and also has clear similarities with other right-wing nationalisms on the continent.

I appreciate that some UKIP supporters insist that the party is neither left nor right on the spectrum but devoted to the national interest, yet this is actually a very common trope used by right-wing parties since at least the 1930s (to use an extreme example, the Nazis claimed to be "National Socialists" in an attempt to pick up support from left-leaning working-class Germans when the party itself was very firmly on the far right). At the same time I appreciate that UKIP has gained a lot of support from working-class White Britons who formerly voted for the centre-left Labour Party; this does not however mean that UKIP are left-wing, but rather that vast swathes of the working-class population have turned away from social democratic parties and to the radical right, whom they feel are the only party currently "standing up for them". This, again, is a phenomenon being echoed across Western Europe, as the traditional centre-left parties have shifted to the centre to appeal to the expanding educated middle-class vote. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we have enough RS to call them right ring, hell they are as right wing as the torrys. but maybe take that out of the info box for the sake of compromise?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to compromise on this one. With respect, the anonymous user is completely and utterly factually wrong; it is not Wikipedia policy to capitulate to views such as theirs. I mean if some user came on to say "UKIP aren't a political party" and insisted that we change the lede to fit with their belief, would we do it ? Of course we wouldn't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is it is not a view they hold of themselves., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11642724/Ukip-isnt-Left-wing-or-Right-wing.-Its-just-sensible.html. As such it is an accusation, not a statement they themselves make.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that "accusation" is perhaps the wrong word to use; "assessment" is perhaps a better term. I'll accept that it is probably worth adding into the article the claim that "UKIP MEP Steven Woolfe believed that the party was neither left nor right" although his (perhaps somewhat uneducated perspective with regards to the realms of political science) certainly shouldn't trump the wealth of media and academic sources that squarely locate UKIP on the right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly right wing per sources, probably far right but the sources do not yet support that as a statement in wikipedia's voice, but it is fine to report it per the wording around the Guardian in the main body. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove "British Nationalism" and "Anti-Immigration" from infobox

Please remove labels in Info Box listing UKIP to be "British Nationalism" and "Anti-Immigration". These labels are incorrect. UKIP do not advocate or practice either of these things. Please also add "Direct democracy", something UKIP practices, is fully included in 2015 manifesto, is the premise of their political grouping in Europe and was fully referenced by the BBC when added to the page. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 12:55, 4 July 2015 (GMT)

It is OK for you to edit the article as a declared UKIP supporter, but you need to pay attention to what reliable third party sources say and stop issuing opinions (such as accusing the Guardian as being far left, an accusation that could only come from the far right).----Snowded ^TALK 12:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "Anti-immigration" is almost undisputedly a POV addition to the article. It gives a very narrow perspective on the subject, sensational journalists whom have a political agenda against the party do not qualify as serious "reliable sources". Although I can accept the "British Nationalism" tag without controversy. TF92 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also prefer to see "Anti-immigration" removed from the infobox, given how contentious it can be, and I would rather see "British nationalism" replaced with "civic nationalism", which is the term used by Ford and Goodwin in their academic study of UKIP. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

One of their contributions to the last election was to make anti-immigration a platform issue. Can we have a reality check here ----Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Snowded You are letting your bias slip again. UKIP have never run on an "anti-immigration" stance, they have never suggested suspending all immigration. Namely just controlling it. UKIP want a points based system. Would the term "Controlled immigration" in the info-box be more accurate? As for Nationalism. I fear my point is going ignored. A key aspect of nationalism is "a feeling of superiority over other countries", something UKIP have never expressed in message or policy. So how does the term Nationalism even suffice? Civic-Nationalism is a more accurate description as it removes the aforementioned element which UKIP does not practice. I would also further appreciate it if the "Direct democracy" label was re-added as it was fully sourced, removed without explanation and is most definitely something which UKIP are running as an ideology. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 01:14, 5 July 2015 (GMT)

Nice to see you can repeat the party line. Its a characteristic of right wing parties to attempt such a denial, or to change language (British to Civic) etc. The reality is different. The The Washington Post for example and there are many many others. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Civic nationalism is a thing and it's an accurate description. British nationalist isn't an inaccurate label but it's a loaded term and that probably explains why it's being used. The BNP have forever tarnished the phrase British nationalism so that to anyone but academics it no longer means simply nationalism of a British bent, it means racism, fascism, Islamophobia, etc. To all intents and purposes, the phrase British nationalism has been redefined through general use in the same way that "satellite" no longer means a celestial body orbiting another celestial body or that "xenophobia" no longer means an irrational fear of foreigners. For that reason I think that whilst UKIP fits the dictionary definition of British nationalism, it doesn't fit the commonly accepted definition of the term and its use would mislead rather than educate readers. Civic nationalism is a good enough analogue for British nationalism and there is no value, other than in political terms, in using the term "British nationalist" to describe UKIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkotsane (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not for us to make these judgements, I suggest. As per WP:OR and WP:RS, we have to follow what reliable sources say. The current text reflects reliable sources and most of the arguments presented wanting change have not engaged with that. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So where is the consensus that UKIP is a British nationalist party in the context of what British nationalism means to the people who will read this article rather than how the Oxford English Dictionary would define it? Wikipedia articles should present information in a meaningful and understandable way. The type of people who will understand that British nationalism in this context doesn't mean fascism and racism á-la BNP are the type of people who don't need to read a Wikipedia article to know what UKIP is about. I would argue that the term "British nationalist" in the context that it's being applied to UKIP has become archaic and a more contemporary term such as "civic nationalist" should be used instead.

Protected edit request on 4 July 2015

I would like to replace the current information:

Academic political scientists and political commentators have varyingly described UKIP as a radical right party, a right-wing populist party, or as both. Similarly, Tim Bale, Dan Hough, and Stijn van Kessel stated that UKIP had much in common with the "radical right-wing populist" parties of Western Europe.

With this more expansive replacement, which contains additional sources and deals with some of the squabbling that has overcome the page in recent days, resulting in the block on editing:

A wide range of academic political scientists and political commentators have characterised UKIP’s ideological approach as being that of right-wing populism. A number of such academics have also characterised the party as belonging to a wider European phenomenon etically known as the "radical right". For instance, Tim Bale, Dan Hough, and Stijn van Kessel stated that UKIP had much in common with the other "radical right-wing populist" parties of Western Europe. In a few instances, political scientists have also labelled UKIP as a "far right" party, drawing comparisons between its approach and that of the white nationalist BNP, however the applicability of the "far right" term when referring to UKIP has been challenged by commentators from various different ideological positions. In contrast, UKIP MEP Steven Woolfe expressed the opinion that UKIP were not right-wing, deeming the entire right wing/left wing political spectrum to be "an outdated idea" pushed by "lazy mainstream media analysts". However, claims that their parties are neither left nor right is common among ideologues belonging to radical right parties across Europe.

There will of course be a number of references which will then require adding to the end of the article, but that will be a very simple task.

Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Too elaborate, either the sources say something or they don't. Its clear, we have discussed it before a sudden spurt of politically motivated edit wars should not force us into bad practice ----Snowded ^TALK 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this is something that I propose for the "Ideology" section, where I think that being elaborate is not a problem, rather than the lede, where it is very importance that we are clear and concise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style - we don't say he said, she said we are an encyclopedia we summaries the reliable sources ----Snowded ^TALK 13:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I have a very large amount of experience here at Wikipedia, and in all that time I have often brought articles to GA and FA which have sections which adopt a "he said, she said" style. While of course it is our job to summarise reliable sources, that doesn't preclude us from using this style of writing, in which we make clear which prominent figures said what. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an appropriate style when you are reporting a controversy but not for this type of entry. You are also, with respect :-) , selective in the commentary and selection so it may if anything be more controversial. We really don't need to bend over backwards here. Lets keep it simple ----Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Or the original scholared reference could be returned to the page? </ref>. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 01:27, 5 July 2015 (GMT)

I like Midnightblueowl's suggestion as above. It explains the controversy, which is what Wikipedia is meant to do.Bondegezou (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"Far right"

I understand that Wikipedia must use sources but there are far and many sources which correctly label UKIP as 'centre-right' rather than simply 'right-wing' as Wikipedia has put it. I would be linking some of the vast amount of sources here so that fully complies with Wikipedia standards but I doubt anyone would do it. As for why its incorrectly labelled as simply 'right-wing' when the Conservatives are 'centre-right' I can only assume either editor or source bias. EEEEEE1 (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And as for the comparison with the BNP, I fail to see how its relevent or even makes sense considering that the BNP is about the furthest left party in the country with its broad range of entirely socialist policies. EEEEEE1 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are good, reliable sources from academic political scientists claiming that UKIP are "centre right" then I would be happy to see a sentence claiming so in the "Ideology" section. However, you would need to present these sources first to establish that they actually exist. Bear in mind that the majority of political scientists, including academics specialising in the British right wing, favour the designations of "right-wing populist" and "radical right", while a select few political scientists (as I have discovered today), even go so far as to label UKIP as "far right" (although there are many who argue against this). As for the claim that the BNP are "the furthest left party in the country" I'm not even sure where to begin in correcting that. Yes, the BNP did call for some nationalised services and a strongly protectionist economic policy, but so have almost every "far right" group in Europe's history - that doesn't make them "far left" under any usage of the term accepted within political science or political history. It's just based on the (fairly novel) approach encouraged by the Political Compass website which solely uses economic issues to measure the left-right dichotomy; this approach has not gained validity within academia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the political compass website for the 2015 election had the BNP right of centre on economic issues, see image here. Also the purpose of that site is to replace the left/right idea with a statist/free market and libertarian/authoritarian split. Valenciano (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean Valenciano but there was a period several years ago (before the BNP had their big collapse and internal reorganisation) when they were on the left of that spectrum, and it led lots of people to come onto Wikipedia claiming that we should change the BNP to "left-wing" in accordance with that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, true about the BNP pre-2015. However, the use of the political compass site in that way is really ironic, since the site's main argument (and raison d'etre) is that categorising parties or individuals solely on the basis of where they stand on economic issues is redundant in an era where identity politics and issues such as immigration, environmentalism and human rights are often more important than a group's economic policy. Valenciano (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Then again, the left-right divide as used by both political scientists, political historians, and political commentators is not purely based on an economic spectrum from complete state ownership to complete private ownership either. I mean, Thatcherites and neo-liberals (those who want the economy to be as free market oriented as possible) are usually seen as "centre-right" to "right", whereas fascists and white nationalists (who are almost always seen as "far right") often favour a more mixed approach to economic policy that has more in common with the "centre-left" social-democrats. Basically, the left-right system is undoubtedly flawed, but many of the problems that it faces aren't at all solved by the Political Compass, which instead brings with it its own problems (it doesn't take on board issues pertaining to racial and/or ethnic orientation of parties, for instance, so that National Socialists and National Anarchists would be positioned as being poles apart when their core underlying values and vision remain very close). Anyway, this is going a little off topic! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have just found the original reference to the Scholared text which listed UKIP as Right Wing, and was removed without explanation. It should be returned as a key reference if UKIP as a Right Wing party is going to remain in the Info-Box.</ref>. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 01:23, 5 July 2015 (GMT)