Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Even though acronym may be more often used, there is clear consensus that due consistency and clarity issues the move is not warranted. (non-admin closure) Staberinde (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

UK Independence Party → UKIP – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the party is almost exclusively referred to as UKIP rather than its full formal title (on the BBC site for instance, UKIP is used 148,000 times and UK Independence Party fewer than 10,000 times, with most of the primary hits being for the party's election broadcasts, which I think have to use the official name). Number 57 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per COMMONNAME and the fact that there own website uses UKIP virtually everywhere. Wait a minute, that's now in my browser history? Bugger. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per COMMONNAME. 92.15.61.75 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party, Social Democratic and Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Social Democratic Party (UK), British National Party. I'd suggest that all of those are more commonly cited by their initials than their full name. This applies internationally as well - Bharatiya Janata Party, Social Democratic Party of Germany, African National Congress, again are more commonly the BJP, SPD and ANC.

Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, consistency and recognisability would seem to favour UK Independence Party or United Kingdom Independence Party over UKIP, and I don't think the other three criteria swing it the other way. I can see the case by COMMONNAME, but I think it can be taken too far. Kahastok talk 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• • @Kahastok: The difference between UKIP and all the parties above is that "UKIP" is spoken as a word, whilst the others all have their initials read out – i.e. it is not U.K.I.P, but "Ukip". Number 57 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't view the distinction you draw as significant, particularly in a written medium. Kahastok talk 09:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Why? One is a word, the others are acronyms. Number 57 09:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
        • No. "UKIP" is an acronym for "United Kingdom Independence Party". I'm afraid I considered that to be obvious? It's pronounced as a word, sure, but as I say, I don't see that as a significant enough difference to justify deviating from the established practice, particularly in a written medium. Kahastok talk 11:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have some sympathy for the common name argument, but I think Kahastok makes a lot of good points above. "UK Independence Party" has very common usage and I do not think changing to UKIP adds any additional clarity to the article. Atshal (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so a search of the BBC site is not a good test. Googling "UKIP" produces 8.74 M results, "UK Independence Party" 87.7 M and "United Kingdom Independence Party" 44.3 M. What's the "common name" now? Ground Zero | t 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ground Zero: I think you may have messed up your search (perhaps by not including quote marks around your latter two searches). I get the 8.7m for "UKIP", but only 1.2m for "UK Independence Party" and 254,000 for "United Kingdom Independence Party". Number 57 08:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You are correct - I made that error. However, on the basis of clarity and for the sake of the international audience, I continue to oppose the move. Ground Zero | t 08:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • On what grounds is clarity an issue? What else could UKIP be? As for the international audience, it's fairly clear from articles like this that UKIP is the widely known name. Number 57 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per COMMONNAME, more often than not the media uses the phrase UKIP as opposed to UK Independence Party plus the fact that UKIP themselves use the acronym much more frequently than the full length version Guyb123321 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The party name is commonly referred to as 'UK Independence Party ". That is the most common name people use in general discussion, and is the usual name used in the first instance by journalists. A name change would be a terrible precedent given, for example, 'LibDems' and " SNats' doktorb _words^deeds 19:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's just untrue. All the evidence provided so far shows that the party is commonly referred to as UKIP. Number 57 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless we also move Conservative Party to Tories, British National Party to BNP, Social Democratic and Labour Party to SDLP, etc etc etc..... This is an encyclopaedia - we should not be guided by what the media writes nor by what common usage does but by what is correct. Emeraude (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per reasons given above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, ditto. Argovian (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. More clear if not abbreviated. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
• Support per common name. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as Kahastok said --Gdhgfgfh (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok and Emeraude. This is quite a different case to other acronyms which are used as article titles on WP: for example, how many people could expand NASA? That organisation's full name is barely used, but UK Independence Party is in quite common usage. BethNaught (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok & Emeraude - Pointless having acronyms - UK Independence Party is just fine!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Kahastok. If we think acronyms should be used, then the correct approach would be to change the naming conventions for political parties, rather than argue on each article. TFD (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok. This change is unnecessary. If people look for UKIP or link that abbreviation in writing a Wikipedia article, they will find this article. If the party officially dropped the expansion of its name to use the initialism only, I could support this move, but that hasn't happened. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't do this for any other parties whose name forms an acronym and is rarely said in full. The official name of the party concerned is the "UK Independence Party", not "UKIP", not "Ukip", not "ukip" and not "United Kingdom Independence Party". If people search "UKIP" wikipedia takes them to this page as does google. No need for a change at all unless the party officially changes it's name, even then an acronym as an article title isn't standard practice. Owl In The House (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I thought I'd correct some of the misconceptions about the "official" name repeated above. The Party's official name, according to the Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties, is "UK Independence Party (UKIP)" in English, and "Plaid Annibyniaeth y DU (UKIP)" in Welsh. "UK Independence Party", "United Kingdom Independence Party" and "UKIP", while registered as alternative descriptions, are not the official primary name. Of course, just because a name has official status doesn't mean that we are obliged to use it for the article title, and I don't think the information I've presented here changes consensus on the move discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A historic victory

"It is over 100 years since a national election has been won by a party other than the Conservatives and Labour." from the BBC [1] Somebody add this to the introduction, please. --Gdhgfgfh (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No. It should be "more than" not "over". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Except it's wrong. This was not a national election in the same sense; it is part of an international election. Wait until they win the general election next year........ Emeraude (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Except your bias against UKIP is obvious. It was an election held on national level. You can interpret it the way you desire. --Gdhgfgfh (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There's not bias for or against UKIP in what I wrote so if you can see some I can only surmise it's because of your bias for it, and you can interpret it the way you desire.... The fact remains, the election resuts (local councils and European) have made not the slightest bit of difference to the national political picture - there are still no UKIP MPs in the cabinet, no councils controlled by UKIP and no suggestion by any commentators that there will be any UKIP MPs in the next national election! Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are biased against UKIP, as evidenced by your editing history, and this affects your ability to be impartial in this article. In my opinion, the attitude of other editors towards the edits you make is coloured by this, hence why you seem to have so many problems with so many other editors on this page. You have no interest in producing an impartial article. Please don't pretend otherwise. Atshal (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, non-Brit here. Is this election not a nation wide election for international representation, not an international election for national representation. Ergo, the assertion in correct, yes? GraniteSand (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"National election" is a verifiable description from at least two reliable sources (e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-european-elections-political-earthquake as well as the source above). Hence this decription is acceptable for inclusion on this page, if editors choose to make this change. Atshal (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth adding that all articles I've read in the Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, & Independent emphasise that its much easier to win the EU elections than 1 or more seats at Westminster. This is partly because the UK first past the post electoral system is very much harder on 3rd parties than the EU elections. According to Tom Clark in the Guardian In repeated electoral cycles, Ukip – like other protest parties before it – has done far better in the European vote than in the subsequent general election whilst Michael White in the Guardian points out that Tory & Labour share of the votes increased -just the Lib-Dem vote collapsed. More than a little wp:Crystal would be needed to predict 2015 from this election & it is notable but cannot yet be described as historic. JRPG (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't debate any of this. But clearly these elections are significant on a national level - this is not my opinion but the opinion of every major news establishment in the country. Simply look on the front page of every broadsheet since the council/euro voting day. I am no particular fan of UKIP (never voted for them, likely never will) but the significance of these elections - both in UK and across Europe e.g. National Front in France - is hugely significant to the political picture in the UK and in Europe. This is the opinion not of me, of of multiple reliable and verifiable sources, hence why it is appropriate to be included in Wikipedia. It, of course, should be given due weight, and this is the debate we should be having. Atshal (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In a sense it is true they have won a nation wide election, but they won an election that very few people in the UK actually take seriously, and on to a body that in truth had very little actual power. I do not think it should go into the lead (wikipeida is not about news, but long term impact).Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1. The lead has what is important to the topic of the article, and clearly this election is considered highly important to the UKIP.

2. It appears that a quite large number of people voted, thus we can not assert that we "know" they did not take the election seriously.

3. No one has any idea abut "long term impact" of anything in a sense - what we must do is use what the reliable sources state.

The result is that eliding this material from the lead would be of nugatory value to readers, Collect (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You consider 34% a high turnout? it's almost half that voted in the last general election GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, given that UKIP received more votes than either of the two main parties there should be a mention somewhere. I object, though, to using newspaper hyperbole and describing it as "historic" (that can wait for real historians in the future) just as much as I would object to describing it as an "earthquake". (Did the earth move?) "Remarkable" perhaps? "Noteworthy"? Emeraude (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First -- 34% is a higher turnout than was anticipated, and second the victory was certainly "unpredicted" especially as to size and range. Collect (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember another famous protest vote, the Orpington by-election, 1962 and the ludicrous speculation about a Liberal government. Whilst I don't think for a minute it is an historic victory, our opinions don't matter, the simplest compromise solution may be to specifically attribute the word 'historic' to the those reliable sources which use it.JRPG (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the wording is accurate. It was an EU-wide election, not UK only. UKIP won 24 out of 751 seats. Compare with the wording of New Democratic Party (Canada)#Official Opposition, death of Jack Layton. The Party won most of the seats in the Province of Quebec in 2011, which it had never done before. No claim is made that it "won" a provincial election. TFD (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand how anyone can deem the combination of both these national elections as not being significant, both for UKIP and for the wider political picture in the UK. Have any of these people read the papers over the last few days? I fully support a verifiable description such as "national election" or "nation wide election" for which there are countless reliable verifications, and support a brief inclusion of the significance of UKIP's performance to the national political picture - of which many notable commentators and new agencies have covered, in numerous formats. Clearly these elections are hugely significant and worthy of inclusion in the article, but of course it is important to retain an impartial/neutral tone, and be wary of include, for example, direct quotes from the likes of Farage/UKIP which are likely to overstate the importance, and stick to the reliable and neutral sources. What matters here is not the opinions and feelings of editors towards UKIP (which many here seem to be relying on), but to produce a balanced account of the elections based on the coverage in reliable sources. EVERY broadsheet newspaper and UK news agency has covered these elections in depth and deem UKIPs performance in them very significant both to UKIP and the national picture, and this is what we should base the section on this article on. Atshal (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

are you as keen to include the fact that their local election vote dropped by 6%? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not "keen" to include anything - or exclude anything, unlike you. What should be included is what is verifiable, and what should be given due weight according to the coverage given in the media and other sources. This is not about scoring points, or your political opinion. This page is not somewhere to forward your own political opinion, but somewhere an objective article about the UK Independence Party can be produced. Atshal (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And there we go again, unfounded accusations and bad-faith assumptions. I have not said anywhere that this information should not be included. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to keep the article neutral, that is all. Atshal (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Atshal, please see my earlier comment about attributing 'historic' to a particular source. I agree the victory is notable -as was Orpington -but I don't think its historic ..nor could I find a wp:rs that used the word. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not a national election but a supranational election, and UKIP did not place first. Council elections are not national elections either. TFD (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There are issues about recentism and whether it needs to necessarily be in the lead, but the fact they emerged as the largest single party in the European elections and that this is the first time in around 100 years that neither Labour nor the Conservatives have topped a nation-wide poll is surely significant. As for the terminology and language, I agree we should avoid explicitly using loaded words such as "historic" even if some sources happen to use them. The "national election" phrase is confusing and, even if it is is the term used in a large number of media sources – which it appears to be – is probably better avoided (in a British context it does make more sense, as what might also/alternatively be called a "national election" elsewhere is pretty exclusively a "general election" here, and the use of the term "national" obviously is intended simply to indicate that, as with general elections, the whole UK votes at the same time in European elections; whereas local elections tend to be staggered, with different parts of the country voting in different years). Given that, the current section down the page seems OK in itself, if possibly a bit brief. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good post N-HH. I have no particular like for the term "national election", but this is certainly the term used by most (all?) of the broadsheets when describing the significance of this election (I know this is how the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph and Times at least have described it). I see no particular reason not to include it given the broad usage of the term - wikipedia is more about verifiability then "truth". I agree with having a section down the page, probably a sentence in the lead. Atshal (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, it was not a national election, but a European election. UKIP won 24 out of 751 seats. The Queen will not ask Farage to form a government. There was no EU in 1929 when Labour won first place. TFD (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What matters is what is verifiable, and the description "national election" is, based on multiple reliable sources. Atshal (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me put it like this.

I know at least 5 people who voted UKIP, none of them voted UKIP in the council elections, and all have made it cleat that they would not vote UKIP "in a election that mattered", this was just a protest vote. Yes this is anecdotal and OR, but it answers the question "why do I think this means nothing".Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V it is not up to any editor here to make assertions - we can only use what is written in reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be careful of this "verifiablity" vs. "truth" game. It's possible to verify all sorts of things - doesn't make any of them true, and we don't include things that are patently untrue. (I'me talking generally, not about this particular UKIP issue.) We don't include things just because they are verifiable; there has to a reason to include material. I said earlier, it is not for Wikipedia to describe anything as "historic" and no one should describe anything as historic that happened two days ago! That's totally misguided. So WE don't do it, but it seems there is a move to have UKIP's election results so described because newspapers so described it, and newspapers are reliable sources, and can be verified. Pardon me, but that's claptrap. Historians decide what's historic, not tomorrow's headline writers. UKIP scored a notable number of votes. Fine. Say so. But don't attempt to gloss it with misguided comment that may or may not stand the test of time. Next thing you know, we'll have UKIP described as "racist" because Nick Griffin said they were, and that's verifiable! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple to phrase what one wants to say and use a Google search engine to find a reliable source. That does not alter the fact that the election was for the European parliament and was not therefore a national election. TFD (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Emeraude I must disagree outrightly with your opinion: This was not a national election in the same sense; - yes it was, the whole electorate across the United Kingdom had the opportunity to vote just as in a General Election. You do have a clear anti-UKIP bias, however I'd expect you to at least come up with a better reason than that. UKIP's feat was impressive in that they are the first party in more than 100 years that is not Labour of the Tories to win a national election. It is verifiable fact and incredibly note-worthy. Just to add - it may have been a European wide election, however it consisted of each country had its own parties standing in their ow country, with those countries conducting their own counts. For all intents and purposes it was a national election taken place at the same time as quite a few national elections all to select representatives for the European parliament. Such pedandtic hair-splitting. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why pick on me? I'm not the only one saying a) it's not right to say "historic" or b) it's incorrect to describe it as a "national election". And I would like you to point out where I have shown "a clear anti-UKIP bias" in my editing or comments on this issue: that's a serious accusation to make against any editor. I do not support UKIP, true; in that respect I am like to majority of the UK population. Are you suggesting that I am therefore not allowed to edit here? And the majority of the UK population? As it happens the list of parties I am 'biased' against is pretty much covered here so I think that can be taken as even-handed. Emeraude (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The "national election" phrase is not wrong as such, and is widely sourced, but its use is confusing as it depends on what people are referring to by "national" (ie either "nation-wide" or "for the national legislature"). The fact of this discussion is proof of that. Anyway, I was agnostic about noting this in the lead at all, and agree that the attempted insertion removed with this edit was badly phrased, but I think it is odd to highlight the 2013 local elections as an example of UKIP success there, as we do currently, when the 2014 European election results are both more recent and arguably more "impressive". And btw, as a minor side-point, is "As of .." really an Americanism? It looks and sounds OK to me. N-HH talk/edits 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Really Emeraude, don't touch my edits and revert like that. Its hardly an Americanism. You clearly demonstrate your outright bias here. It was a national election so far as all mainstream media outlets is concerned. Touch my edit again and I will report you. AdamFouracre (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"don't touch my edits" Who do you think you are? Pompous or what? And you still have not shown where I demonstrate an "outright bias" so I presume you are still accusing me of showing "a clear anti-UKIP bias" in my editing or comments on this issue. Where? Just one example would be appreciated. Put up or shut up. Emeraude (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that at 18:57 on 30 May 2014‎, AdamFouracre called me a "scrote" in an edit summary. He may like to report himself for that. Emeraude (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In U.S. presidential elections, it is individual parties running in individual elections organized by each state. But we normally refer to it as a national not 50 state elections. Also, like the U.S., while each member state may have its own parties, they normally belong to a supranational party. Labour for example is a member of the Party of European Socialists, which came second with 191 seats. Farage will not be able to form a government in the UK or EU and will not even be able to use his "historic victory" to pass legislation. TFD (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I am sure that my adjustments of the wording satisfies your concerns, however baseless I may find them to be. AdamFouracre (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well in fact, after all the squabbling and micro-editing, we are left with a bit of a grammatical and thematic mess currently in the second paragraph of the lead. N-HH talk/edits 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know this is precisely what happens when you have people who equivocate over mere technicalities of language such as the European elections being a supranational rather than national election, and who "won" - because they came first but didn't get over 50% of the seats... It really is nonsense but apparently we have to address these concerns otherwise our edits get vandalized and removed. AdamFouracre (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

More accurately, it's what happens when lots of people, many of whom seem overly invested in the topic, scramble to insist that their favoured micro-"fact", phrasing or description simply must be there and when people, albeit with good intentions, for example change verbs such as "held" to "won" thus losing the consistency of verb-type within a sentence. We also now seem, despite the long discussion held only recently and the consensus that broadly emerged from it, to have pointless edit wars over the political position section of the infobox. Sorry, but one source suggesting "centre-right" or a YouGov poll categorising the views of potential voters do not prove anything by themselves. Nor is a random polemical blog post on the Telegraph site a suitable source, let alone a definitive one. The point is that you cannot cherry-pick terms, even from authoritative sources, in this fashion when they are all going to say different things. The agreement was, quite sensibly, that the broad description "Right-wing" covers all those variations, as it encompasses the various shades of right-wingness within it. And, given that of course, what does "Right-of-centre to Right-wing" mean anyway? N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you seem to be directing a rage over the dispute of an infobox right, centre-right categorisation at me, when I couldn't really care less. I have reviewed and changed the concerned section in the header which I hope you will find more satisfactory. AdamFouracre (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, my point was aimed at the collective incompetence and the overall changes, to both the lead text and the infobox entries. The "you" when talking about the infobox specifically was a general "one"-type you, not one aimed personally at any one editor. Your latest changes edit-conflicted with my attempt to do something similar. N-HH talk/edits 08:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well that seems satisfactory mostly - I have just adjusted two words. Good edit AdamFouracre (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well between the two of us we have made it read better at least, I hope, although arguably the focus on their recent "success" is a little booster-ish (I'll leave that for others to worry about if they wish, although I think it probably is justified ultimately as being a relevant and up-to-date reflection of where the party is currently). N-HH talk/edits 09:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Which countries are ment ?

Article states "UKIP advocates leaving the European Union, resulting in stopping payments to the EU and withdrawal from EU treaties, while maintaining trading ties with other European countries." Which other European countries are ment ? Switzerland, Norway, Albania, Serbia, The Vatican, Andorra and Russia ? If EU is ment, the UKIP must be misleading the people of the United Kingdom. The UK surelly cannot expect fully continued trade with the union they so hard struggled for to join in the 60's (but was blocked by Charles de Gaulle) IF they now really will split the union from inside, rather than improving it. (Just look at the new border troubles at Gibraltar for a start) 83.249.169.163 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These all sound like reasonable questions to ask about this policy.But while it might well be a dreadful policy to hold, with loads of holes in it, apparently it is their policy, and this is what is being stated in the article. I think it is better if Wikipedia articles don't contain judgements or opinions on the consistency or validity of this type of thing - something that is also general Wikipedia policy. Atshal (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that UKIP favour an "EFTA" style free trade agreement, meaning that the UK would be in the same situation as Switzerland & Norway, Outside of the EU but still able to freely trade. Guyb123321 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

They are indeed "reasonable questions to ask" but they should be asked of UKIP. This is not the place to ask them but to discuss the quality of the article. As Atshal say, regardless of (in)consistency, it is UKIP's policy (or it was; they keep saying they have no manifesto) and that's why it's in the article. Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should well-sourced information about the UKIP having been widely accused of being a racist party in the media be mentioned in the lead?

Several scholar sources qualified the UKIP as a far-right party, though others disagree. Should that be given a mention in the lead? (not the infobox, which a previous discussion was about)

For example it could look like this:

UKIP's proposed immigration policy has been criticised. The party has been accused of racism, of being a fundamentally racist party and/or having racist candidates by a variety of sources. The party has denied being racist. Nigel Farage launched a campaign to attempt to clear the party of the "racist" label. The party has also been qualified as "far-right" by a number of publications.

Zozs (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Collect already went through those sources, [2] According to him they are misrepresented. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- the reliable sources support a claim that a Labour minister member of a "cross-party group" said the UKIP was running a "racist campaign" and that a poll showed 27% of those polled said the UKIP was "racist" (albeit with no definition of the term), The rest are mainly opinion sources, or sources iterating the same information. The material is then presented in an inflammatory and non NPOV manner designed to have Wikipedia's voice be used to denounce a group, whether it be truly evil or not. The "far right" bit was discussed here at great length in the past, and revisiting it here after the matter had an apparent consensus is not a great idea. Collect (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That was about the infobox though, which is completely different. If several reliable publications qualify the UKIP as far-right it should definitely be mentioned. Zozs (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Comment I think, in fairness, Zozs has since changed some of these citations. Still, I was unhappy to see what seemed a blatant POV-pushing exercise (I say this as an entirely neutral party) - not only was much of the material Zozs originally imposed WP:UNDUE in the lead section, but also a good deal of it grievously misrepresented the sources which it cited. I notice the version Zozs is now presenting is the version after I had cut some of the most grievous POV material. While some of the material *perhaps* should be considered, maybe for the body of the article rather than its lead, I do suggest that Zozs has clearly demonstrated their inability to edit this article according to WP:NPOV so I would oppose their taking part in that process. Alfietucker (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to comment that, having edited on other articles with you recently, it is unlikely that you are "an entirely neutral party" in this. Your edit history attests to potentially Islamophobic edits on Sharia patrols (London) and Anjem Choudary, as well as other edits on related articles such as the English Defence League. I would not usually hold a user to their edits in this way, but to accuse another editor of failing to meet WP:NPOV is hypocritical and ridiculous --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, excuse me - since when has it been a crime to edit these articles? And can you actually point to where I have made "Islamophobic edits"? Have you actually looked at my editing history to establish such a thing? I suggest you should not be so ready to jump to conclusions on so hasty and ungrounded a basis. And do you seriously dispute what I have observed about Zozs' edits in this article today? Alfietucker (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And since when is editing an article like I did a crime? Obviously something has to be improved by others after originally being submitted. Thank you for your contributions to my paragraph, Alfietucker. Zozs (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for your appreciation; that doesn't entirely remove my actual objection, is that you attempted to impose your material without discussion or even any attempt amendment, despite my editing comments as I cut or removed them, here and here. This seemed to me the opening moves of an WP:Edit war rather than a collaborative process. If you mean by your latest message that you are now open for such a collaboration, then I am happy to give you another chance - though as far as I'm concerned you have been shown the yellow card. Alfietucker (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair you did the exact same (don't start with rhetoric now to attempt to prove it was different), though I think you may be right about removing the poll from the lead, but I think it may still be good for the comparisons with the BNP to be there. But sure, I can accept a compromise and I requested for comment because I want the article to be exactly like consensus wants it to be. Zozs (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"To be fair you did the exact same" - nope, as per my previous reply to you. Just to spell it out, there's a difference between my cutting material - as opposed to deleting the whole lot - with comments why I was doing so, and your reverting in an attempt to reinstate the whole lot with just an amend of the poll sentence which had blatantly misrepresented its source. Now let's move on, please. Alfietucker (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Per [[3]], although that administrator used the word racist, rather than Islamophobic. I would happily be convinced otherwise though, and yes, I have looked through a few hundred of your edits and haven't seen any edits to the contrary --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If that is the best you can come up with, then you should have seen I thoroughly refuted that accusation in that same discussion. If you want to pursue this line further, I suggest you do so on my talk page rather than here where this matter is irrelevant. I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by "haven't seen any edits to the contrary" to start with. Alfietucker (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in taking it further. There are plenty of editors on here who seem to hold different political beliefs to me and that is perfectly okay. It was your accusation that the user Zozs was editing from WP:NPOV, along with you saying that you were a neutral party, that I felt needed challenging. Otherwise, you are right, this matter is irrelevant --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I have mixed feelings concerning this. Although they have been widely accused of racism, I would be wary as to include it in the lede. That said, the accusation of racism is something that comes up repeatedly. UKIP share similar rhetoric to racist parties such as the BNP, using the same scare tactics regarding immigration (something that is in itself complicated) and a BNP candidate actually complained of UKIP that "They've stolen our policies... and now they've stolen our slogan". It would be difficult to judge until the party actually has some significant policies though, what with Farage claiming that the previous manifesto is being rewritten. All of that said, I don't think UKIP are quite extreme enough to warrant that in the lede. I would definitely support a section focusing exclusively on the racism controversies though, as it is something that repeatedly comes up regarding the party, and I am open to be persuaded otherwise --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The far right discussion has been done to death on the talk page, and it was agreed to leave the description as "right". The main reason the "cross party" thing and racism accusations should not be added at all is that we are dealing with politics - it is in the nature of politics that mud is slung and politicians are critical of other politicians. Including every thrust and parry is not appropriate for a page about a political party. Certainly not in the run up to an election! Wait until after the election and review the appropriateness of what material to include from this EU election after the dust has settled - events should be given due weight and this one election should not be allowed to dominate the page of a party that has been in existence for over 20 years. 137.222.207.11 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

137.222.207.11 - just to politely point out that this discussion is about what is going into the lead. If you wish to object to the material you have just deleted, I suggest you at least don't confuse the issue here and open a new topic on this page. Alfietucker (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are inserting citations that are being discussed in this talk discussion - part of the discussion is whether they are appropriate at all, and the content in the page is related to what is in the lead. Clearly this discussion is directly relevant to your edits, and you should not make unilateral changes with such controversial content - content that IS being discussed here. What is the hurry? Why not wait till the discussion is done? 137.222.207.11 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would still suggest starting a new section for that specific removal. It makes it easier for uninvolved users to comprehend the discussion and contribute --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose In lead, and in body as it includes material not supported by the reliable sources named, and incudes some material from sources which are not RS for claims of fact. I would note the "racist" term appears in the current body, and this is thus duplication of material properly cited and sourced, and this proposal then adds material which was discussed in the past and found wanting in weight for use in this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you twice before (see above) which you regard as not being reliable sources: BBC News, Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News, CBC News, politics.co.uk plus several academic books and journals? (I'm in two minds on Huffington post.) Emeraude (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I had thought I had made it clear -- HuffPo and some others are purely "editorial opinion" and not usable as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. The reliable sources do support ([4] indeed specifies) virtually all media outlets reporting that the campaign had been "branded 'racist'". Which indeed it had by the Labour Party. Which is not the claim asserted in your proposal. The lagniappe addition of sources for "far right" is a real problem, especially since we have had discussions that they are far more generally called "right wing" and this insertion implies that it is generally called "far-right." To conform with policy we would have to add "some sources call it centre-right, while most call it right-wing'" Something of this sort might be used in some articles in the body of an article, but for use in the lead, it fails miserably, especially since it conveys no added information to the reader. Lavelle mentions UKIP only en passant -- with a lot of text on the BNP and none on UKIP. The single sentence mention looks far more like the result of "google search for anything at all" than a serious claim made by an academic. Gunlick (same google search, it appears) also mentions UKIP in only a single sentence. And Margetts -- clearly the same "find anything google search" -- one lone sentence. It is disingenuous for us to claim "academic sources" where the sources use "UKIP" in single en passant sentences in lengthy tomes. And the cbc? Single sentence use, implies that all "anti-EU" parties are "far right" (which is debatable as a claim of fact - "far-right, anti-EU parties are likely to pose a major challenge" seems to connect the two attributes entirely ) and nothing more to support a quite over-broad claim for the body, and insignificant for the lead. Collect (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So just to be absolutely clear, you are saying that BBC News, The Guardian, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News and politics.co.uk are not reliable sources? (And a correction, I have not made any proposal.) Emeraude (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think he is saying that opinion pieces, which many of these are, can be problematic to use as sources for controversial inclusions on wikipedia pages - particularly politically motivated opinion pieces. I agree with this and based on your previous comments I think you do too. Atshal (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that he could be saying that, but he started by saying the sources were non-RS. Only later did he suggest that some of the sources were being misused. He still has not said that they reliable sources. This remains unclear and leaves the suspcio that the objection is because he doesn't like what they say, rather than their (non-)reliability. Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Having edited on this article for a month or so now, I'm fairly sure you are right about that Emeraude --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose User:Collect has done the work I was about to do. Neutrality between two views is neutrality (although that is not to say that the majority view should not receive more weight than a significant minority view, which may, for example, be the view of the article's subject). We are to exercise special care over issues that implicate NPOV, especially when they involve contentious labels as they do here. For these labels, op-eds, blogs, and sources with political leanings should be avoided. When labels like racist are made, attribution is encouraged. Thus, it is sufficient to include an opinion of someone notable like David Cameron, but not in the lead in this case. In addition, NYT states that linking the party with far-right and racist sympathies is a move particularly done by critics on the political left. On balance, I do not find it appropriate for the lead here.

I also encourage caution with the far-right label (which does not seem to be the main subject of this discussion), per NYT above. There is space between center-right and far-right (e.g., hard-right parties, and many national conservative, national liberal, and right-populist parties), despite the fact that many commentators are quick to make this leap. --Precision123 (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The article should have a section about what kind of party they are and could cut back on the various policies they support. That would be a good place to describe allegations of racism. Until it is in the article, I do not think it should be added to the lead. The alleged racism is probably subtle rather than overt. But that is already in the lead. It says it is a "Eurosceptic" party. TFD (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to tell if they are a racist party or are simply appropriating the rhetoric of racist parties to pick up votes. They have disowned their 2010 manifesto (the one that included plans for the London Underground's Circle line to be changed so it was shaped like a circle again) and that leaves the party with little substance to criticise. I certainly feel less safe with that finger pointing down at me from their billboards. I agree that it deserves a section though, allegations of racism come up frequently enough, and we have plenty of sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Time may tell how extreme they are. TFD (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Euroscepticism in ideology section of infobox

My understanding is that Euroscepticism is political doctrine rather than ideology, so it seems to me a touch misplaced in the ideology section of the infobox, much as it's a huge part of their platform. Dolescum (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it sits slightly oddly under that heading, in that it's arguably not an "ideology" in the technical sense. I'm not sure if there's a better option though or what it might be. N-HH talk/edits 08:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And now we also have "Opposition to immigration" as an "ideology", which is just as if not more dubious. Nor do we need three sources to "prove" that UKIP has issues with immigration: we know this is the case, it's just whether we need to add the term to the growing bloat in the box, especially things that are not even really broad "ideologies" as such, just specific political positions and views. N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The economic plans outlined by UKIP have been called into question by The Times, who have highlighted a “£120 billion black hole

Is this relevant? Are we going to have to point out what has been questioned and disputed for every party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchoGhost (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also can we remember to Assume_good_faith in edits and not assume it's a act by any one party or supporters of parties,as we have no evidence to support this and is to surmise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchoGhost (talk • contribs) 10:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a legitimate criticism from a reliable source. Wikipedia articles aren't there to gloss over uncomfortable critiques. If reliable sources provide similar critiques of other political parties, they ought to be included in the relevant articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

wp:npov allows most definitely allows criticism by political opponents, particularly a key economic point. However given Farage has scrapped the manifesto, any statement by non-UKIP members could be deemed unfair. I have always found WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV a useful way of avoiding raised hackles when working with colleagues with different viewpoints. JRPG (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'm fairly new,so I think my ears are still ringing with the stuff I read upon coming here. AnarchoGhost (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is difficult when faced with a WP:DUCK GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Having contributed to several major newspaper stories, I know that a key aspect in the UK is the subject's right of reply to any criticism. I believe it should be breach of wp:npov not to include the subject's response. JRPG (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wish it were true, but there is no such thing as a "right of reply" in the UK which rather calls into question the writer's opinion and bona fides. Emeraude (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Emeraud that sounds a trifle like a personal attack! If a UK newspaper makes a potentially libelous statement, you will find a statement either giving the subject's response or a statement showing that they made reasonable efforts to get a response. A journalist I was working with was threatened with libel proceedings and told me printing this right of reply was crucial. Every single potentially libelous sentence was checked by lawyers for documentary backup. I have said I believe the subject's response should be included in Wikipedia. Hope that clarifies it. JRPG (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that does sound a trifle like a personal attack, which was not my intention. But I repeat, there is no such thing as a right of reply in UK law. Neither is there any obligation on a newspaper, in law, to allow subjects of their stories to comment on them and only hazy procedures under the present press complaint procedures. UK newspapers frequently make "potentially libelous" statements, but "potential" means not tested in law. I agree that journalists are often threatened with libel actions and badgered into allowing a reply, but this is a sad indictment of the sometimes gutless behaviour of editors and publishers trying to avoid court cases that they could win but at great expense. There has also been a worrying trend recently for people to threaten individual journalists rather than their publishers as used to be the case. Emeraude (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Emeraud, sorry for the delay in responding, & thanks for the explanation. The paper had previously been threatened with an injunction & the reporter was terrified of a personal libel bill for printing allegations of misfeasance. She said that it was imperative to print the subject's response in the same article which she referred to as the right of reply. However it's a voluntary right. JRPG (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1- How can anyone call into question UKIP's economic plans when no party UKIP included has even brought out their 2015 manifesto yet. 2- The Times has been on a UKIP Witch-Hunt for the last couple of months and it is really getting boring. The latest story this morning is that Nigel Farage is liable to be imprisoned. It's pretty desperate nonsense even for them. 3- Did the person who created this section really cite and link 'The Times' in the topic title. Deary me! I get criticised for doing that on Twitter let alone Wikipedia. Pathetic. If political activists applied as much time and effort into their own respective parties as they did trying to damage UKIP, they might actually win a General Election with a majority! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

The above is totally pov biased. So no party has brought out a 2015 manifesto! Does that surprise anyone given that today's date is 13 June 2014?? What's more significant is that UKIP (or Farage) has totally repudiated its previous manifesto and seems to have contested the recent European and local elections with NO manifesto at all! Do what you like on Twitter: Wikipedia has much higher standards that I hope will prevail. Emeraude (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You show your complete ignorance when it comes to politics when you make that statement "What's more significant is that UKIP (or Farage) has totally repudiated its previous manifesto and seems to have contested the recent European and local elections with NO manifesto at all!" UKIP had a European and Council Election 2014 manifesto. [5] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for the personal attack, but you're right - they did have manifestos which no one knew about including most of their candidates when interviewed! So when I wrote that UKIP "seems to have contested the recent European and local elections with NO manifesto" that was correct. This section of discussion, though, concerns their national manifesto, which does not exist. Emeraude (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

Libertarian was in the info box for a good long time, it was removed without consensus, so do not think adding a note saying "do not add Libertarian without consensus" is going to fly. Consensus needs to be reached to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced to the party's constitution, which is not a reliable source. Also, it is not clear what is meant by the term. From the context it appears to mean that they support civil liberties. But there is a real question whether they actually do. TFD (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced to the Guardian. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

guardians comment is free falls under WP:NEWSBLOG because it's opinion not journalism. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. The party is used as a source for some quotes saying it is libertarian, but the op-ed was used by you for the info-box. But editorials are only reliable sources for opinions not facts. Otherwise you should have no objection to saying that libertarianism defends class hierarchy and is "committed to other forms of domination", including racism and was the guiding philosophy behind the expropriation of native Americans, and is virtually the same as fascism - all of which is in the editorial. TFD (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a separate thread about this just above. To back up what others are saying, as noted there, yes you can find op-eds and news reports, and UKIP members, describing UKIP as libertarian; however, not only are these not reliable sources in themselves, but you can also find similar sources explicitly saying that the party is not libertarian. Given that, we should not give UKIP this definitive epithet in the infobox. The lead notes already the claim to be libertarian. That seems the right way to do it, with due weight and attribution. As for reverting and consensus, it's hard to pick through the history but in fact, rather than it having been there "for a good long time", AFAICT the infobox simply stated "Euroscepticism" and "Right-wing populism" for some time, until a slew of recent edits attempted to unilaterally add "Libertarianism". The lack of consensus relates to its inclusion, not its removal. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why is CiF OK to use for Civic nationalism in the infobox? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tad confused. You said that I could not cite UKIP.org as a reference for UKIP membership numbers. You cited "The Telegraph and The Guardian" as reliable third party examples as references. Why then is The Telegraph not a reliable enough source to reference or cite UKIP as being a Libertarian Party. Question: Are The Telegraph suddenly not a good enough source or reference for you? [6] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (You are confusing,Really very confusing) 02:30, 18 June 2014 (GMT)

You are struggling to understand the difference between WP:RS and WP:NEWSBLOG. You also seem to be confusing which user is making which edit. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

News articles in newspapers such as The Telegraph and The Guardian are reliable sources, opinion pieces published in them are not, according to "Reliable sources" policy. TFD (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@GimliDotNet: Yes, it is Darkness Shines (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

CiF on the Guardian is a news blog. It is not considered as high quality source as if it came from the newspaper itself. It is not to be used if the assertion is controversial. 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite apart from issues about what specific sources are "reliable" or not (about which, imo, people tend to be a bit too yes/no definitive about – context always matters and, for example, WP should surely rate, for some content, a comment piece guest-written by an academic above a news piece written up by a generalist journalist), as already explained surely, some of the outrage above is ignoring the other problems. We have different sources saying different, even contradictory, things about something that is a matter of interpretation. Regardless of whether we try to declare one source always "better" than another, we simply cannot grab the one we like and take its conclusion or assertion as therefore a definitively sourced, unimpeachable fact. One can say that the Telegraph is broadly a "reliable" source for news reporting of basic facts and that its comment section is a reliable source for the views of those writing in it, but it's quite a leap from there to say that anything written in any part of the Telegraph can and should automatically go in as if it were uncontested fact. This is something that 1001 WP editors fail to grasp. N-HH talk/edits 09:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

ps: and as for the CiF/Goodwin and "Civic nationalism" point more specifically, @Darkness Shines, the fact that it is being used is not the same thing as it being OK to use, nor have I offered an opinion about whether it is OK to use, since you asked. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)