Wikipedia

Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 12

< Talk:UK Independence Party
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Emeraude in topic First MP overkill?
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

UKIP as a source

Latest comment: 10 years ago56 comments10 people in discussion

While primary sources are ok for something's, WP:PRIMARY is clear, any facts that could be controversial need to come from a 3rd Party. Unfortunately we have the situation again, were despite being discussed multiple times on this page there is an attempt to push UKIP.org as the primary source for membership figures. The user in question is then getting upset and accusing other editors of having an anti UKIP bias. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Parties are never rs for their membership figures. TFD (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
However unreliable, there probably isn't anything much better than the primary source for this or other party membership status unless we get audited figures. I have a soupçon of suspicion that less experienced editors of political articles confuse efforts to achieve WP:GA status with efforts to get a better manifesto. It's absolutely essential to attribute the source. JRPG (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. This argument is utterly pathetic! The Liberal Democrats use a primary first-hand official source for their Membership figure. But yet again UKIP are deemed "unreliable". This is what I (the user in question that Mr Gimli is hinting at) is taking issue with! I don't care what status I am on Wikipedia. All I know is I have been editing on this site for over 10 years now and I have been threatened with blocking because I object to being told that a Official source is unreliable when it is for another mainstream political party, and that I need to wait until the figure is published in the "Guardian or Telegraph" before editing the page to reflect it's current membership number. Let's not forget for a second that these are the media sources that have been attacking UKIP the last few months on a nigh on daily basis. I am a member of this political party, and I have been subjected to all kinds of threats and abuse. I have had people trying to incorrectly label me as "far right", "fascist", "racist" and "homophobic" because of the kinds of edits that have been allowed to exist on Wikipedia. The last few weeks I had to contend with some pretty serious negative editing being allowed on Roger Helmer's Wikipedia page. In fact the only candidate in the Newark By-Election that had a Wikipedia page funnily enough. Multiple edits accusing the man of poor character were allowed to stand on there, yet I get threatened with banning by an admin because I object to someone who has been accused on his talk page of trying to edit UKIP's party status with a "Far Right" label [1] and has also followed me onto another Wikipedia users page where I had been talking about his edits and referenced that on my own talk page! [2] As I have said. I am not trying to portray UKIP as something they are not. I am not trying to ignore other people's opinions. But some of the edits that have been allowed to stick on the UKIP page such as not allowing "Libertarianism" when it's something the group is widely recognised as being and allowing Civic nationalism Ford, Robert and Goodwin, Matthew. What's the difference between BNP and Ukip voters? as it came from the Guardian is an absolute joke! I can reference numerous UKIP and Conservative Party members who talk about UKIP being a Libertarian party. Yet admins and people such as Mr Gimli will undo them and threaten me with banning. Yet a label made by the Center-Left Broadsheet "Guardian" that has journalists such as Dan Hodges who labels UKIP and it's members as being "racist" is allowed? Are you kidding me?! {At the risk of being threatened again I feel I must point out I am exasperated at the completely unbalanced and biased point of views being allowed to stand on the UKIP Wikipedia page whilst inaccurate edits are allowed to stick whilst official information is not} What will happen next? Exerts from the 2015 General Election UKIP Manifesto won't be allowed to be added as they are cited from the official website so we will have to talk about the Broadsheets picking them apart negatively? When does Wikipedia go from a fact referencing encyclopedia to a propaganda pushing hate filled biased website? I fully expect to wake up tomorrow to find I have been blocked from posting. I only hope this biased behaviour doesn't extend to removing my 'talk Comments' as I would like people to know fully well what is really going on here! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2014 (GMT)
See ""Reliable sources" which explains Wikipedia's policy. If you do not like it, then get it changed. Otherwise we are obliged to follow it in this article is in every other article. TFD (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
any good ? http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/16/UKIP-Closes-in-on-Lib-Dem-Membership-Figure - it's always going to be "according to the party" but at least the independent report makes the figure noteworthy Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
So long as we make it clear that these figures are "according to the party" that seems ok. Part of the problem is Infoboxes, which don't deal with this sort of thing well since people often ignore footnotes. I don't see any way around this. Without independent audits we simply have to attribute. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not know if Breitbart is a reliable source. However, assuming it is, we could only say that UKIP claimed x number of members, and that does not belong in the info-box. And it is not "always going to be "according to the party"". There are reliable sources for the memberships of many parties, for example True Blues discusses research on the membership of the Conservative Party on pp. 21ff.[3] TFD (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart is equivalent to Drudge. I'd suggest a consultation with RSN, even if the intention is to use "according to the party". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've partially reverted the last edit which was by an IP, perhaps RoverTheBend who claims to have edited Nigel Farage but obviously not with that account. I've prefaced the membership number with "UKIP reports" which I believe is ok by our guidelines and even required. We don't need to say 'claimed' at all, just 'reports'. I also changed a sentence slightly to make that clear. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, in response to the long post by the same user above, Dan Hodges writes for the Telegraph, not the Guardian, and the Guardian piece criticised as a source for civic nationalism – although it appears in the CiF section and actually I'm not sure the label warrants inclusion – was co-authored, FWIW, by an academic specialising in the radical and far right rather than any old random journalist/blogger. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And although RoverTheBend's edit of my edit was not too bad, along comes an IP and simply once again makes the Infobox state it as fact with no attribution in the box. I'll revert to RTB's edit. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The ONLY source for party membership figures are the party itself - this is true of UKIP, Labour, Tories. All other sources repeat the figure quoted by the party itself, and generally do not add additional reliability or verifiability to the figure. To keep pedants happy I would suggest keeping the original source from the UKIP announcement and an additional source that quotes the UKIP announcement from an established media source. Atshal (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
that's not true though is it, given Labour and Tories have their membership figures sourced to third parties. We do not take party claims at face value, that's not our job. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It is true. Where do you think these third parties get their information from? It is the figures released by the Tories and Labour. Party membership figures are not a matter of public record. Atshal (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point, we require the third party source because we accept a good third party source will audit the figures. We cannot and do not do that. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you have not read my post. Direct quote - " I would suggest keeping the original source from the UKIP announcement and an additional source that quotes the UKIP announcement from an established media source". Please stop making things up. Atshal (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
again you are ignoring the main point, which is that UKIP is not a suitable source. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It is YOU that is missing the point. UKIP is the ONLY source for UKIP membership figures. This is the same for every political party in the UK, as party membership is not a matter of public record. Look at the Conservative wiki page - the third party source simply quotes membership figures given by the Conservatives. This is because the Conservative party are the only source for membership figures of the Conservative party - the records are not public. It is the primary source and there is no independent third party sources - only third party sources that directly quote the primary source. Having a third party quoting the primary source might be a requirement for notability, but since we have chosen to include membership figures in the info box, notability is not the issue. Similarly, a third party source quoting the UKIP announcement does not make the announcement more reliable. The wiki rules for third party sources are clearly not applicable or relevant for this particular situation.
However, to satisfy the pedants who invoke irrelevant wikipedia rules, it is probably easier to just include some meaningless newspaper article that quotes the UKIP announcement of party figures, as if this makes the figure any more reliable (which it obviously doesn't). Atshal (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You really don't understand the rules of Wikipedia and the reasons we don't use WP:PRIMARY sources do you. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it appears that you do not understand why those rules exist. It is not so official figures released by organisation can not be reported until a newspaper article mentions that the organisation released those figures. You are pedantically attempting to impose rules that are clearly in place for other reasons e.g. they most certainly SHOULD be applied in the recent discussion on whether to classify UKIP as libertarian. However, those same rules are clearly redundant in this example, because of the nature of the information being reported means there is no independent third party source, and sources that just quote the figure add neither notability (which is already established), verifiability or reliability to the figure itself. Instread, these sources add reliability and verifiability to the fact that UKIP announced those figures, but NOT to the figure itself. I stuggle to understand why you cannot see this, being an experienced Wikipedia editor yourself. However, as I have now said three times, to satisfy such pedantry, we should probably include both the primary (and only) source of the UKIP membership figure, plus a newspaper article that quotes that announcement. If only to end this type of pointless discussion. Atshal (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
We accept that newspapers and other sources have the facility to audit the UKIP figures, or if they simply report that UKIP have announced it (in which case the figures have no place in the info box). We do not need the UKIP link, it adds nothing. On it's own it is not a good enough source, and with the third party link we are covered. The only reason to include the UKIP link is within the body of the page where we are saying what UKIP have claimed, to verify that is what UKIP have claimed - and even then a secondary source is better. That you continue to push using UKIP as a source when it is neither desired nor needed speaks volumes about your pointy editing behaviour. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
But newspaper article do not audit the figure - they have no capacity to do so since the membership figures are not on public record. The newspaper article is a source for fact that UKIP announced the figure, not a source for the figure itself. My personal preference would be either to use UKIP as the source (as it is the only source for the figure) or not include the figure at all. By the way. I am purely maintaining balance in the article and have worked hard to remove the bias inserted into this article from both sides. Please don't accuse me otherwise - glass houses and all that.... Atshal (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As have I, unfortunately any attempt to stick to policy and request sourcing is immediately jumped on by pro-ukip editors as 'vandalism' and 'bias'. (including tendentious reports at WP:ANI) Apologies for lumping you in with them, I am going to leave this discussion for a while as I have got a little over-heated with it. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Me too. 137.222.114.243 (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In court decisions, judges determine the facts from evidence presented by the litigants. That does not mean that all evidence presented to a court is equally valid. Similarly, journalists and academics have the ability to assess evidence of party membership, while we do not. TFD (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart is quoting UKIP which is why I removed it. The Labour Party's membership source is [4] which is pretty obviously getting that from the party as it notes that the Torys don't release a central membership figure. Which isn't true now - see the source for the Conservatives [5] which shows that the source for their membership figures is the party's website. TThe LibDem source is the party, so all the figures do come from the parties themselves. That should be made clear in the infoboxes. If we do that then it won't look as though they were independently verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
We should not put facts in the infobox unless they are reliably sourced. Suppose the Raving Monster Looney Party claimed 500 trillion members. Would we put that in the info-box? No, because it would be unrealistic. But that requires us to use judgment and weigh statements made in unreliable primary statements, which is "synthesis".
UKIP is using its membership figures in order to show that it is replacing the Lib Dems as a serious minority party with the possibility of eventually achieving power. Hence the information is self-serving. Anyway, lets get a rs where their claim is reported. It may say something like, "UKIP claims 38,000 members, but it is probably only half that figure." Or it may say UKIP has 38,000 members without qualification.
TFD (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
TFD Let me just check what you mean. If a major media source reports their figures, we use them? If not, we don't? Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as it comes from a reliable source, yes - but baring in mind that comment blogs on newspaper articles are not in themselves automatically WP:RS they have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If major media say they have 38,000 members then we can say that. Even if the news article relies on what UKIP says, we rely on the judgment of the reporter to determine that the figure is accurate. Of course if the paper publishes a correction or other media challenge the figure, then and only then do we need to reconsider. If major media report that UKIP claims 38,000 members, then it is probably worth including in the article. If no media say anything about membership, and the only source is the party website, then an argument could be made to report their claim in the text of the article. In my opinion though it would be better to omit it. If secondary sources do not consider it important then it is hard to make the case that we should. TFD (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The media article you mention would not be a source for the fact that UKIP has 38,000 members, but a source for the fact that UKIP claims to have 38,000 members. There is a difference, and this is why the media article is not a source for the fact UKIP has 38,000 members, and this is why it is unnecessary to include it. Notability is not an issue, since including membership figures appears to be standard practise in a political party info box. Atshal (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
According to a parliament research paper, NO party has provided membership figures which are consistently above suspicion. Parties provide accounts & membership figure may get more reliable but even reliable sources are dependent on party accounts. As before, it should be attributed. Even WP:RS use the primary sources for membership. JRPG (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes - it should be that simple, why are we arguing about something that we can attribute? We may not trust the figures (for any parties) but that's not enough - if we have sources that show distrust and meet our criteria we would also use those. But no reporter, etc is going to be able to do an independent count, they are always going to rely on what the parties say. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
When we put a membership figure in the infobox we are inferring that it is reliable. But in this case we only have an unreliable source. While party figures in general may be unreliable, that is an argument to not use them. Newspapers however are reliable sources and we can rely on them for membership figures. Are they necessarily accurate? No. But the relevant policy is "Verifiability", which "means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." It may be that UKIP is catching up with LibDem membership numbers or it may be that they are misrepresenting this. Let's stay neutral in that. TFD (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we are getting to the crux of the issue. The only source which newspapers base their figures on is the party itself - the newspaper citing the party figures do not make them more reliable, but in fact may suggest a false sense reliability by obfuscating the original source - which is self stated UKIP figures.
In my opinion the only consistent position is to either deem the figures too unreliable to include at all, since there are no independent third party sources for the figures themselves (only for the fact that UKIP claims these figures), or we include them with UKIP as the source (and other sources on top of that, if people wish). Atshal (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Media base much of what they report on what people tell them. They have procedures for determining whether this information is factual, such as double sourcing. They also use judgment in determining whether specific sources, some of which are unnamed, are likely to be truthful. Therefore the facts that they report are considered reliable and we rely on them in writing articles. We cannot play newspaper reporter ourselves, nor should we question the methodology of news articles. Maybe we should, but the policies of "No original research" and "Reliable sources" do not allow us to do that. If you have a problem with those policies then you need to change them, and in the meantime not violate them in this article. TFD (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The reasons why those are not applicable have been explained above by multiple posters, including myself. A political party is the only source for membership figures. The media reports only add reliability to the fact that the party has reported those figures, not the figures themselves. The only source for the figures is the party. Atshal (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the problem here. The figure doesn't seem such an extraordinary leap that we can consider, from our editorial point of view, it suspect. No one seems to have disputed the figure. It is a factual membership number, of the sort perfectly allowed under our rules on primary sourcing (major bug bear; people who claim we don't allow primary sourcing). It's good we've had this discussion & are skeptical. And it's a good idea to make a note that the figure is self-reported. But other than that it seems a storm in a teacup :) --Errant (chat!) 09:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one has said we can't use primary sources, but where we use primary sources for claims such as membership figures (unaudited and unverifiable) it needs to be stated as such or sourced to a third party. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 10:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm just still confused about why this is such a long discussion for a mundane matter? --Errant (chat!) 12:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Because people get upset and raise WP:ANI and accuse editors of being vandals because they request 3rd party sourcing. This debate comes up again and again. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
No, editors such as yourself simply delete the membership (rather than "request 3rd party sourcing") despite the fact, as ErrantX makes clear, that primary sources and self-reported figures are ok in this type of circumstance. That is the issue. Atshal (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop making things up, also just to let you know it is expected that users with accounts should always log in when editing. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I have made nothing up. It has been demonstrated that the primary source for UKP membership is fine. You keep reverting editors changes because they cite the primary source. You are part of the problem here. I expect you to stop making these reverts now. Atshal (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Given you claim I have removed membership figures and not asked for 3rd party figures, yes you are making things up. Also we have not reached concensus for your latest edits, and yes third party sources are required. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The evidence in the history of the UKIP page refutes you. Care to explain your edits on 18:21, 16 June 201 and 04:54, 17 June 2014? Here you twice revert edits from another user, who has added more up to date membership figures, by claiming UKIP is not a reliable source. We have just established in this talk discussion that primary sources are fine for this type of information - this is not controversial! You should not have made these reverts. You are in the wrong. Atshal (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
How does that edit demonstrate your claim that No, editors such as yourself simply delete the membership (rather than "request 3rd party sourcing) Given that I reverted to the figures provided by the WP:RS and didn't delete them at all, and the fact that I tagged the figures for young UKIP rather than "just deleted them"? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 09:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Because, you simply reverted the edits (twice), rather insert a request a for a third party source  :-) Atshal (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, how does that demonstrate your claim? I have not deleted the figures, and I did ask for third party sourcing. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 09:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I feel I am being trolled here. An editor twice updated the membership gives from 38,000 to 39,000 using UKIP as the source, and twice you reverted back to 38,000 thereby deleting the more up to date figure. Atshal (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Silly me, I didn't get the memo that the definition of 'delete' had changed. And also silly me for having this discussion for nearly a week but not realising it didn't constitute as 'asking for third party sources'. I'll try to be more up to date on the lingo from now on. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 10:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think the discussion is getting a bit on the silly side now, from both of us. Let's just put this behind us, see what the result of the RFC is, and try our best to improve the article together in future. Atshal (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,...so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." TFD (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think the issue is a lack of wp:agf, this problem could arise for any of the main parties. There is a conundrum in that arguably our most reliable source -a parliament research paper, -says there are no reliable sources for membership. In these circumstances, WP:IAR applies & it is reasonable to use UKIP and any other main party as a source for their figures. JRPG (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that source is pretty clear in noting that the membership numbers are unreliable because they are not always reported. I'd be more concerned if it highlighted potential problems with inflating numbers etc. I don't think IAR is even needed; it's a pretty simple and common situation really :) The cynic in me would suggest that the reason we are having this discussion is because of the higher profile of UKIP recently (and the strong feeling therein). So, I always feel we should simply default to how it is done in other similar, less high profile, articles. --Errant (chat!) 15:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it unlikely that a slump in membership of any party would be reported with enthusiasm. Edward Heath said that after Home resigned, more mps came to tell him they'd voted for him than his total votes. Fortunately so far party membership has exceeded party votes! Note section 2 Trends in UK party membership says pre-1993 Conservative membership & pre-1980 Labour membership appears to have been exaggerated though their methodology isn't stated. Including attributed figures doesn't hurt. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Libertarianism/Classical Libertarianism

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

One editor is repeatedly adding Libertarianism into the infobox, sourced to a Telegraph blog post, and declaring that removing it is tantamount to vandalism. Not only is the piece a dubious source in the first place for such a bold, unattributed assertion, but we have the usual problem of different sources saying different things and people cherry-picking those they happen to agree with. For example, here are two similar comment-style pieces saying the exact opposite, from a journalist writing on the Spectator site and a self-described "Libertarian Conservative" writing for the Huffington Post. We have to look at the broad spread of analysis – which currently would not allow us to offer this unqualified epithet in the infobox. The main text of the lead already notes, and attributes, UKIPs claim to be a "libertarian party", as early as the second sentence. That should be enough. N-HH talk/edits 14:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether that description should be included, but I think there is more than enough sources to justifiably say that it could be included as a valid and verifiable description e.g. within the article itself there are a couple sources for the description "libertarian", and as you mention this is also how UKIP describes itself. The are plenty of "comment" style article in newspapers that use the terms and UKIP seems to even get a mention on the Libertarianism in the UK article on Wikipedia. The question for me is whether the libertarian aspect of their policy and attitudes is central enough to UKIP warrant such a prominent place in the page - I don't know. Atshal (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In one of my previous (since deleted) edits, I posited that one of UKIPs ideologies could be Libertarian conservatism and its position "Right-of-centre to Right-wing". The sources that I cited are among many that describe UKIP as, "libertarian", "right wing", "right-of-centre" or even "conservative". I realise that part of the reason my edit was deleted was because for such a significant edit there should have been discussion about it. Well, I'm glad we're having that discussion now. In my opinion, if one reads the Wikipedia article on "Libertarian conservatism", I think UKIPs ideology aligns rather well with the descriptions given. Regarding the politcal position (understanding this point might be more appropriate in another section), the term "right-of-centre" is used in many Wikipedia articles and I am currently trying to get Centre-right politics and Centre-left expanded and renamed "Centre-Right/Right-of-Centre politics" and "Centre-left/Left-of-Centre politics" respectively, as I feel there are important differences between these descriptions (btw, any assistance in this endeavour would be appreciated). In any case, referring back to the "Libertarian conservatism" article, it seems to me such a person or politcal party (like the examples given in said article) could quite accurately be described as "right-of-centre" more than "Right-wing". Regarding, however, the outcome of previous discussions on that point, I believe it would be reasonable for UKIPs political position to read "Right-of-centre to Right-wing" and for "Libertarian conservatism" to be included in the list of its ideologies. Those are my thoughts and I welcome any and all constructive dialogue and suggestions. MBFCPresident (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but "I think it fits as a description" is not enough. WP content is not based on people's individual assessments (see WP:OR). Beyond that, definitive and absolute descriptions need to be not only sourced but broadly agreed upon across the range of authoritative sources. That was my opening point, and applies whether we are talking about "libertarianism", "libertarian conservatism" or anything else. As for your points about left/right terminology, I am not sure I understand them. If someone is "right of centre", they are "right-wing" – the two things are broadly synonymous and using them both here would be tautologous and cumbersome, not to mention rarely seen as a description. I'm not sure what benefit would accrue from renaming the main pages on the centre-right and centre-left either. N-HH talk/edits 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As N-HH said, that's original research. The only two things that matter for the purpose of this article are: what do UKIP describe themselves as and what do independent reliable sources with demonstrated expertise in evaluating claims of political ideology think of such claims. UKIP's constitution claims that it is a "democratic, libertarian Party", that they "favour the ability of individuals to make decisions in respect of themselves", they "seek to diminish the role of the State" and "lower the burden of taxation on individuals and businesses", and they want to "strengthen and guarantee the essential, traditional freedoms and liberties of all people in the United Kingdom". I'm no expert, but that seems like a pretty good prima facie claim to be libertarian. Claims and counter-claims about this can be discussed in the article and baed on reliable sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added Libertarianism to the UKIP info box only to have it angrily removed on several occasions. Has to be said, this really does bemuse me. The vast majority of UKIP spokespeople not only recognise themselves as being "Libertarian", they easily define themselves as being "Libertarian". I myself am a UKIP member, I define my political views and stances as being "Libertarian". Nigel Farage defines the party as being "Libertarian", yet people affiliated to other parties seem desperate not to link UKIP to Libertarianism as it is such a logical construct.

Libertarianism is defined as being "a policy of leaving things to take their own course, without interfering which involves political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens". A core component of UKIP's domestic (County Council), European Election and General Election policies are that the individuals and people make decisions for themselves and do not stick to a "party line". I can cite 3 examples in all 3 instances. 1- (County Council) UKIP's Louise Bours on BBC Question Time said that UKIP's policy on the issue of creating a new 3rd runway at Heathrow would be to allow the local community to decide as to whether this would be acceptable. With air pollution and noise pollution to be taken into consideration. It should be the locals choice not big business or Government. 2- (European Elections/European Parliament) Italy's Five Star Movement have joined the EFD on the condition they can vote their own way, and not be forced to keep to a group line. This has been agreed to. During the European Elections UKIP prospective MEPs were allowed to campaign individually according to their own stances and not a party line. 3- (General Election/National stance) The main focus on UKIP's standing in the 2015 General Election is that they feel the people of the UK should have a Referendum on EU membership. They want their influence to encourage the people to have a choice. This is a key element of Libertarianism. Allowing the people to have the choice and not forcing the choice on the people from Government level. This clearly proves UKIP 'is' Libertarian, and as such this definition should be added to UKIP's profile page on Wikipedia.(talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

Sorry, but the problems here have been clearly and concisely explained already in the initial posts in this thread. Arguments along the lines of "I'm a libertarian and I'm a party member" or "this individual policy, if you think about it, is pretty libertarian" really don't address those fundamental issues or override those concerns. In any event, as also already noted, the recognition of the party's assertion of its libertarianism is there in the second sentence of the lead. N-HH talk/edits 10:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a school of thought called right-libertarianism which seems to suit UKIP better than pure libertarianism, how about using this term? (Until a couple of years ago they seemed more libertarian but some of their views about reducng immigration are now sounding like they are socially, rather than economically, motivated. Social control would put them to the right of regular libertarians. Similarly, my local council UKIP candidate is campaigning to spend more money on bus shelters and to control rural house building, both for right-social rather than free-market reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.13.198 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
All the reasons set out above as to why "Libertarianism" on its own is problematic apply to this option too, including the point that the idea is not for us to try to work out what we think happens to be the best term to describe some aspect of the party's beliefs. Indeed, there are probably even fewer sources for that specific phrase than there are for libertarianism. In any event, when people do refer to UKIP as libertarian, it can be clearly taken as read that they mean the right-wing sort of libertarianism rather than that the party are, possibly, some sort of anarchist group. N-HH talk/edits 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect to N-HH talk/edits. I would say that UKIP's status as a "Right Wing" party is also up for debate.

UKIP get referred to as a Center-Right party by MP's, Councillors and have been referred to as Center-Right on many occasions. Whilst UKIP aspire to be a "Libertarian Party" and exhibit plenty of Libertarian traits. With UKIP's implementation of 'Direct Democracy' and 'Right To Recall' as a policy, this policy of "advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens" is a direct reference and reflection of UKIP's 'Libertarianism'.[1][2]RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:14, 07 October 2014 (GMT)

[Request] Current members of the European Parliament

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

In this section it states: "UKIP has 24 members in the European Parliament." and proceeds to list only eleven of the twenty four. I would add the rest myself, but the section provide no citation for any of the information and I wouldn't know where to find that information. I request that we find out exactly who all 24 members are, add the other 13 to the list, and provide proper citation for that information. Thank you. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Pointless request. At the time that you wrote, all 24 MEPs were listed (and have been since 26 May 2014). I imagine you counted the eleven constituencies that they represent rather than the names. Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's one way to be a dick about it. You're right about the number of MEPs but the information still lacks any citation. --Jacksoncw (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added in a little bit of clarification, noting that UKIP has representatives in eleven of the twelve UK constituencies - hopefully that helps resolve your issue Jacksoncw. Atshal (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but it still doesn't have any citation. I'll see if I can find a source myself. --Jacksoncw (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I googled it and found two sources, both primary, and I'm not sure how to script citations into an article. Here they are if anyone is willing to do it:

http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_5_UKIP-MEPs.html ----- http://www.ukip.org/people_meps --Jacksoncw (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Have I been called a dick by a plonker?? There are many reliable sources, not least the official results published by the Returning Officer in each constituency. However, to avoid giving 11 separate refs, I've added a single one from The Independent. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you were rather rude when you initially responded to his request with "Pointless request", and then again when you described him as a "plonker". I don't think this kind of thing has any place on a talk page (or Wikipedia in general). Atshal (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It was pointless, though. Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time for this right now. I refer you to WP:CIV. Atshal (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Private Eye a reliable and reputable source?

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion

I say yes. And it is "Britain's best-selling current affairs magazine", according to its Wikipedia entry. So it does have significance. (I'm commenting on an edit summary.) And what "balance" could be expected when clearly they have decided that there was only any thing worth mentioning regarding Ukip and not the other parties? Kookiethebird (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The UKIP page is not a dumping ground for any and all comment on UKIP as a party. An entire section labelled "UKIPs MEPs performance", based on one Private Eye article, with cherry picked statistics chosen to portray UKIP in the worst possible light is not balanced. Is the Private Eye's opinion and appraisal significant enough to warrant an entire section on UKIPs wiki page? Has this analysis had significant repercussions in the political world? There have been literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of critical articles published on UKIP this year - why is this Private Eye article alone worthy of inclusion? There are also questions to be asked about the accuracy of the statement that UKIP has a policy of not voting (since it seems the UKIP MEPs do vote and this is on record). Atshal (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, about Private Eye as a source - I read and really like Private Eye, and should not be ruled out as a source. But the magazine is extremely anti-establishment and the point of the magazine is that is attacks the political classes quite viscerally - there is no balance in any of what Private Eye does. Essentially, this piece is just a journalist saying "UKIP MEPs - a bit rubbish really" which, while it may be true in your or my opinion, does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Atshal (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course Private Eye is a reliable source. Anti-establishment? Yes. So what? So is UKIP. Does it "portray UKIP in the worst possible light"? I doubt it, but seeing as UKIP's policy is to take no part in the EP, I'd say it shows them, if anything, in a favourable light - true to their word. The text is just bald figures - no comment for or against. Why this Private Eye article rather than the "literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of critical articles published on UKIP this year"? Well, include other critical sources if you wish; this one just happens to be factual (numbers, nothing else) rather than opinion. And the Eye source was actually UKIP, so what's the problem? Or are you once again desperate to remove anything that readers might just possibly see as critical of UKIP in the interest of 'balance'? Emeraude (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Private Eye is not RS, it is nothing but opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Private Eye is well known for its investigative journalism as well as its satirism. I'd say it may be a reliable source depending on the section of the magazine being quoted. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The section which falls under HP Sauce. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, a bit more than that. Anyway, I've rewritten the section using the Times, Telegraph and FT. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For me the issue is not Private Eye as the source, but the idea of including a section appraising the performance of UKIP MEPs. There is no official mechanism for appraising performance of MEPs - everything will come from comment in the media (or comment by politicians) that is essentially opinion e.g. that Private Eye article. Including an "appraisal" section is not really what an article on a political party on Wikipedia is for in my opinion - it is not about passing judging on UKIP, or including the opinions of journalists or politicians (which are generally riddled with bias in one direction or another). The article should report significant facts and events related to UKIP, not opinions about UKIP. This is true of all political parties. Atshal (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • If multiple reliable third-party sources have written complete articles about exactly that issue (rather than it being mentioned in passing) then IMO that makes it notable. And it's not as if UKIP regards it as a negative issue, as Farage's quote which I have included makes clear. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is still essentially just judgements and opinions on UKIP in the press. That kind of thing is completely normal in the run up to any election, when hundreds (probably thousands) of opinions were expressed in the main stream media, many of them saying similar things. It does not mean they should be included in the Wiki page of the party.
It would be very easy, for example, for an editor to write a section called "Appraisal of Nigel Farage's performance as leader" and cite numerous media sources that praise his effectiveness, how he turned UKIP around, how good an orator he is, how he is able to touch a nerve with the British public that other politicians can't etc. and then back these up with stats listed in the media about how he dramatically increased the vote share of UKIP, opinion polls showing many people identify with him, how he beat Clegg convincingly in the 2014 debate etc. Clearly that has no place in this article, for reasons that should be clear. The same is true of collating opinions from the press about the UKIP MEPs and putting them in an section claiming to be an "appraisal". I would oppose the inclusion of either section. Atshal (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point - they are not simply opinions, they are mainstream news stories which contain opinions and analysis, but ones which are based on simple facts. This is the simple bedrock of newspaper political reporting. We wouldn't, for example, omit analyses and opinions of party performance based on polling figures (X party did really badly/really well in election Y) so I don't see that this is any different, especially as UKIP actually makes a point of "subverting from within". As I said, as far as UKIP are concerned, low attendance for UEP sessions is not a negative trait. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've made the point I want to make, let's see what other editors think about it. How about you post your changes here? Atshal (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Another thought I've just had. I believe the section is really the about media and political comment on voting record of UKIP MEPs in the run up to the 2014 European election. It might be more appropriate to include this in the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) page, if it can be demonstrated that this formed an important component of the election campaigning/debating. Might be something worth considering. Atshal (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with what BK has added. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is an improvement on the previous version, but I still think there are problems with it. For example, the Farage quote seems to be out of context, as Farage at length justifies the participation figures of himself and another party member, and this was one part of a larger dialogue concerning Clegg and Farage specifically. The voting record of other UKIP MEPs is also much higher I believe, and this is not mentioned. Also, I believe there is no official policy of "low participation" - that is certainly not in the source cited. This is why I suggested the editor posts it here for discussion. Atshal (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you have persuaded me that I was wrong to delete the revised version, so I have undone my undo and made a few changes. Firstly, I have moved it from the "Current members of the European Parliament" section to the section above "European Parliament" - it seemed more appropriate there, as that section is more discursive. I have removed the statement that UKIP have a "low participation" policy, as I don't feel that is back up by the source. I also removed the bit above the fisheries vote, as I did not quite see the relevance of that very specific bit of information over the more general and important 3/6 , 61%, 76/76 figures. I added the context in which Farage made his quoted statement. Atshal (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. So we now mention that UKIP as a party has a low attendance rate, but we have ignored what individual UKIP MEPs did to earn their laurels. Why are they not named? But in any case, the first entry I made on this topic (per Private Eye) referred to the actual work of the European Parliament, not just attendance, i.e. voting in debates, asking questions, writing opinions. Some of the other sources mention this - and clearly Private Eye is reliable because the other sources agree with it. Can anyone find sources that, unlike the FT and Times, do not need a subscription? I appreciate this is not a Wikipedia requirement, but it would be useful. Emeraude (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's continue on our crusade to find anything we can that paints UKIP in a negative light.--99.98.180.79 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You can if you like. Personally, I'm looking for anything that shows factual information about UKIP. I'm happy to let readers make up their own minds whether or not it shows UKIP in a positive or negative light. Emeraude (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course, let's continue to go out of our way to find pseudotabloid sites like private eye for useful "facts".--99.98.180.79 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Except PE is not "pseudotabloid" (it's genuine A4) and it's not a site. Are you claiming that facts about representatives' attendance are not useful? Or are you claiming that Private Eye was wrong with its reports of UKIP MEPs' attendance figures? Or do you just not like them? Emeraude (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they have low attendance given that they disdain the EU. No other political party page has their EU MEP attendance record randomly placed into the article. There's clearly an agenda behind adding that random piece of trivia that doesn't seem relevant into the article. No one seems eager to cherry pick every other party's attendance records and place them into their respective pages, if this really is just about adding facts. I know nothing about private eye, I just know that I went to the website and it looks like a tabloid and seem very unprofessional, I have no interest in it and am apathetic towards its use as a source.--99.98.180.79 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Good observation. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?--99.98.180.79 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In this discussion, I think it is best to quote Atshal in saying: "For me the issue is not Private Eye as the source, but the idea of including a section appraising the performance of UKIP MEPs.". However, I will not back down from that stance. As far as the political pages I have looked at, which include the Conservative, Labour and Green parties, a section about MEP performance is unprecedented. It seems like there is an agenda here in cherry picking seemingly irrelevant data, saying they are "76th out of 76" in attendance. It seems totally irrelevant and out of place. Again, it is totally unprecedented in Wikipedia's UK party articles, and seems quite against NPOV to randomly cherry pick that single "factoid", and I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. We could go on endlessly injecting random "factoids" from sources into different sections, whether painting them in a negative or positive light, but that isn't what Wikipedia is about, I think.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason that MEP attendance isn't in any of the other party articles is twofold; firstly the attendance figures for their MEPs are generally unremarkable, but far more importantly, only for UKIP have multiple reliable sources written entire news articles about MEP attendance, which immediately makes this not a "factoid", but a notable issue. Wikipedia is not biased; it reflects what reliable sources have said. The section mentioning this is only very short and thus not WP:UNDUE, so I believe it is perfectly valid to include such information. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is. But there's a wider issue here. For any political party, we should record what it stands for and what its elected representatives do. The former is difficult for UKIP given that they have repudiated their last general election manifesto and don't seem to have any published, coherent full policy statement yet. But they do have elected MEPs - remarkable given they have no elected representatives in the UK Parliament - so we can only comment on their performance in Europe. But they haven't performed in any way that gives an indication of their policies on specific issues. That's fine - that's their choice, consciously made - but to ignore this is to omit a major part of what UKIP does. Or doesn't. Emeraude (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Just to be clear I am a moderately leftist environmentally minded individual who is concerned about such issues as the Environmental impact of shipping and optimum population. The figures in the "List of renewable resources.." article indicate manifestations of ways in which Britain is far from a state of independence or (in my personal POV) from a situation in which our country can, resultantly, act in a non-exploitative manner in many dealings related to the rest of the world. Our increasing demands cause us to draw from their supplies. Our dependence on other nations is, in my reading of the situation, further added to by any excess in levels of immigration that go beyond levels of emigration. I will revert the reversion and will leave it to interested parties to debate the continued inclusion of this link. Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no opinion on your opinions, but what has it got to do with UKIP that it necessitates a link under See also???? Emeraude (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Using "See also" to as part of an argument is to be avoided. This doesn't belong here. I can understand the motivation but that's not enough. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The link has no place on the UKIP page in my opinion. Atshal (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! I find it desperately hard to believe that a group that purports to take an anti immigration stance can't work it out to take up the most ethical and altruistic arguments to support that position. It seemed like a no-brainer to me that this would have been a view that would be adopted. Is there really nothing in UKIPs thinking that cares about UK resources and the effect on our situation to have a positive effect on international affairs. Gregkaye (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gregkaye. The removal of the link you added does not reflect on whether what you are saying is right or wrong - it is about Wikipedia policy. The ideas and opinions of the editors should not be included in the page - rather, well sourced and significant material, that is directly relevant to the subject and that does not constitute original research. If you can find a good source for the argument you are making - for example, an academic article or prominent expert making the argument - then you may be able to incorporate the into the page, provided it is significant in the context of an article about the entirety of UKIP. In my opinion, in order to justify the inclusion of that particular link, we have to rely on the arguments you made above, which constitute original research, and therefore cannot be included. The is my reading of the situation anyway! Hope you follow the sightly rambling explanation... Atshal (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I'm sorry you think my comments were hypocritical and prejudiced but I fail to understand why. I reverted your addition of a link under See also simply because I could not see why it was relevant to this article - other editors have agreed. I said "I've no opinion on your opinions" precisely because that's the position - I neither agree nor disagree; that's not a criticism, nor is it hypocrisy, nor is it prejudice. But even if I did agree, I would still oppose the link for the reasons that Atshal has attempted to explain above, as well as Dougweller earlier. Emeraude (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely Atshal, I quite agree with you in retrospect that it was the right decision to remove the link and (again in POV - "other points of view are available") I am more disappointed in the situation than the decision. To my mind the far fairer, more reasonable and ethical argument is as stated by the opposing People's Democratic Party who state in their manifesto 16. IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ... Immigration is an issue of resources not race. The section on UK_Independence_Party#Immigration begins: UKIP's policies on immigration are currently under review after receiving criticism for not having "clear-cut" immigration policies. I'd hope that if they find their clear-cut policy it will be based on a genuinely moral foundation but UKIP have been at this for over 20 years. I'd hope that issues related to resources issues would have been raised along the way but, even so, what gets covered private may differ from issues that get publicly aired. That's politics I guess. Emeraude my comment has also been removed and this sentence is similarly deletable. Gregkaye (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The talk page is not a forum for general discussion of UKIP. I don't see this going anywhere.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC On Membership figures

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments13 people in discussion

There is a clear consensus to include the membership figures but make clear that UKIP itself is the source via in-text attribution.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

There is some disagreement as to whether the above topic (UKIP as a source) has reached a concensus, my reading is that the general agreement is that membership figures in the info boxes are controversial enough to require third party sources for verification because of the nature of infoboxes. Other users dispute this and claim the concensus that WP:PRIMARY is fine and we can take the figures directly from source. Can any uninterested users please voice an opinion on this contentious issues GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As noted above by me, but perhaps not clearly, no one has provided anything to suggest these figures are controversial. My feeling when I saw this dispute was that it's one of these faux-controversies engineered by a couple of Wikipedians disagreeing. It happens, no matter. What might change the situation would be, for example, a source that claimed UKIP were inflating membership. In lieu of that the sourcing is fine, the caveat that it is self-reported is fine. Although we do apply editorial judgement, we can't cross the line into judging whether an organisation is telling the truth or not. I think you should all move on. --Errant (chat!) 09:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Membership numbers are the type of factual information that is perfectly fine to be sourced from primary sources on Wikipedia. In the case of party membership figures, the only source is the party themselves, since membership figures are not a matter of public record i.e. there are no independent third party sources for this information. Citing newspaper articles, or other third party sources, that quote the original party announcement gives a false sense of reliability to the figure, as it implies there is a source of this information that is not the political party itself.
The current situation on the page is that the figures are taken from the official announcements from UKIP, but it is made clear that this information is taken from the UKIP website/announcement. This is perfectly acceptable, as it makes clear what the original source of the information is, and allows the reader to judge the reliability of it for themselves. I see no problem in having a newspaper article that quotes the primary source as an additional sources (if such an article exists), but this is not a requirement for this type of information. Atshal (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Atshal that citing 3rd party sources can seem to give some sort of false sense of reliability. So long as it is clear in the infobox that that party is the source of the figures (ie made explicit, not just a footnote) then I think we have complied with our policies and guidelines. I don't think we actually need anything else unless there is a reliably sourced dispute as to the figures. I note that this is an RfC and respondents are not required to be uninvolved with this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree pretty much entirely with what's been said by ErrantX, Atshal and Dougweller. While I aprreciate the concerns about the precise reliability of the figures, this has gotten a bit bogged down in legalistic arguments re WP rules and some overconfidence about what third-party "verification" might actually ever show. Ultimately, I don't see the harm in noting the figures but then describing/qualifying them as "party figures" or something (that term might be clearer than the current "UKIP (official website)"). N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Official party figures for membership in the infobox with a note to say "official party figures" - Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine to use the UKIP figures since it clearly states UKIP is the source. Even if there were a 3rd party source, it likely would have taken it's figures from UKIP. How does one assess independently a group's membership figures? Primary sources are all right to use in this instance. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Couldn't agree more. However, this misses the point about why this discussion was raised in the first place - figures were being used without attribution or were being attributed to reliable sources that had not even given the figures! It now seems to be accepted that it's OK to use UKIP's figures if it is stated that they are UKIP's figures - that gives the reader enough information to form a view on whether they are accurate or not, depending on how reliable they view UKIP. I would also suggest that when an independent source (say a reliable newspaper) gives a figure that we use that (properly cited) on the grounds previously stated that the paper has a better chance of fact-checking than Wikipedia editors. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on primary sources says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity...." Neither condition applies. It is self-serving because it backs up UKIP's claim that it is closing its membership gap with the third party Liberal Democrats and is therefore a major contender.
The argument that reliable secondary source have no way of knowing a party's membership and are therefore no more reliable than what a party reports is not supported by policy. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on information presented in reliable sources. We do not investigate or question them, except when they conflict with other reliable sources. One may think for example that the argument for climate change, evolution, etc. is inadequate, but policy requires us to accept mainstream sources on those subjects.
Ironically there are reliable sources that use UKIP's figures, so why not use them instead?
TFD (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay to Keep UKIP's figures. I only arrived here from an RfC bot notice, so I'm not involved here. If the UKIP membership records were public record, secondary sources could be used. Since the membership figures are not public record, and since the source for the figures is clearly stated as being from UKIP, then WP policy has been fulfilled. Primary sources are allowed on WP, and this is an instance where it is appropriate to use them. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove (Arrived from RfC bot notice) The membership count clearly carries WP:WEIGHT, however IMHO an un-audited organization is not usually a WP:RS for its own membership count. There's too much ambiguity as to what exactly a member is, and too much incentive for any un-audited organization to "accidentally" overcount, by making a mistake on a spreadsheet or by dragging its heels in removing lapsed members who haven't yet payed the new year's dues from its official count. Even an organization with as many eyeballs on it as the NRA has been accused of padding membership: see [6]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've read this section and the consensus is almost unanimous that the figures are fine and that primary sourcing is appropriate. @Rolf H Nelson, I'm not sure how a membership count carries any WP:WEIGHT seeing as there is also a membership count on Green Pary as well as Liberal Democrats and I'm sure every other party's page. If, however, you meant to say that the primary sourcing gives it WP:WEIGHT, then it is clear from comments above, especially that of SW3 5DL, that primary sourcing is fine under these circumstances. It is a very minor issue so I'm not sure what might be controversial about it, but my vote is to keep the material. I believe we have reached consensus on this issue.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate that UKIP has an incentive to inflate their membership figures. However, as has been said above, other sources will probably take the membership numbers from UKIP too, and on top of that, they may be out of date. If there is a proper audited third-party membership count out there somewhere that's not too much out of date, then we should use that. But in the absence of that, I think it is fine to use the UKIP numbers and simply note that we got them from UKIP themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:37, 12 July 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.

Ukip, not UKIP

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why does Wikipedia use 'UKIP' instead of 'Ukip'? The British press uses the latter: see the Guardian, Telegraph and Times websites. Nigel Farage himself has an article in the Independent today in which it is styled as Ukip. WP is simply wrong, and should change. (I am not involved in Ukip and do not support it.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You should inform UKIP that they are simply wrong too. They use "UKIP" all over their website here. I'm sure they would be very grateful to you for correcting their error. Ground Zero | t 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The names of parties are usually capitalized and when initials are used they are capitalized too. For example, SNP, DUP, SDLP. TFD (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This issue was discussed in April/May this year - see Styling of Ukip v. UKIP in archive pages. Emeraude (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Time to change the opening paragraph.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738787/Cameron-faces-Ukip-election-bloodbath-Party-set-win-Commons-seat-shock-poll-reveals-Farages-staggering-44-point-lead-Tories.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.2.130.215 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempted removal of disowning manifesto story

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

There have been repeated attempts today to remove the sction of the article which covers Nigel Farage disowning the 2010 election manifesto and describing it as "drivel". Among the reasons given for this deletion are :

Please justify in talk why this section is worthy of inclusion in a section on the history of UKIP. It is verifiable but not significant and there is no justification to include it.
No, there is massive undue weight. There is an entire para and two quotes about an interview with no wider repercussions or coverage.
It is a single interview given undue weight as there were no repercussions and little wider coverage.

Just to be clear: It was not just "a single interview" (on The Daily Politics, BBC). He repeated these views at a lecture at the London School of Economics. But regardless, how many times does someone have to say something in interviews for it to be noteworthy.

Little wider coverage. Hardly. See, for example:

And that's without looking at foreign news sources.

Neither was it just a just a flash in the pan, soon forgotten. See for example:

For a party leader to not only disown his manifesto (for which he wrote the foreword) but to describe its contents in the way he did is remarkable and unprecedented. Depending on one's point of view, it's either a refreshing change to the way politicians behave or an example of fruitcakery gone mad, or somewhere in between. It's certainly not something that happens every day and is thus eminently important in the context of UKIP. Emeraude (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would include it but would omit the "direct quotes", and the editorializing "even though he wrote the introduction." All we need to say is that he rejected the manifesto. In fact it is not unusual for parties to write new manifestos for new elections. The sources do not say why he disliked the previous manifesto but hint that it was because of the extreme right wing populist agenda. It would be helpful to find a source that is explicit. TFD (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's not unusual to write a new manifesto for a new election - that's not really the point - but to disparage your latet manifesto and those who compiled it in the terms used is extraordinary. In fact, the sources (and NF's original comments on The Politics Show) make it abundantly clear why he didn't like it: he thought it was bonkers, but I can't see how that has anything to do with not liking an "extreme right wing populist agenda" (painting trains the same colour??). Agreed about "even though he wrote the introduction" though - how about just "to which he wrote the introduction"? Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with The Four Deuces - there does seem to be a bit of editorialising and the quotes unnecessary. I agree with Emeraude that it is reasonable for there to be a mention of it. Reading the citations I would change it to a sentence saying something like "In January 2014, Farage distanced himself from the 2010 UKIP manifesto and said party is working on new policies which will be unveiled by the end of 2014", and use the existing two articles that are cited. That seems neutral and a fair reflection of the content of the article. Atshal (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how being that anodyne is neutral really. NF didn't "distance" himself from the manifesto - that's far too mild a report of what he said. (See the actual show, not the reports of it, though they are accurate). He absolutely slammed it and the people who wrote it - see his own words - which is why the direct quotes (or some of them) should be there. Emeraude (talk)
I find my version more encyclopaedic, neutral and appropriate - the word "distance" is also used in many of the citations you provide. A matter of opinion I suppose - lets see what other editors think. Atshal (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Farage appears to be saying the manifesto was excessively long and devoted too much attention to trivial issues ("drivel"), such as what color to paint trains. Who could disagree with him on that? But the other issue is that it was too hard right, which he does not say. So we should not imply it. TFD (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Four Deuces - if you have a moment, perhaps you could suggest an alternate version of that section? Atshal (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, Farage's comments MUST be included. A party losing an election usually changes leader before reversing policies. Farage wasn't the leader at the last election but he did write the forward. Like TFD I object to the phrase "despite the fact that" -as it invariably precedes a very wp:pov statement. I was happy with Black Kite's edit which removed the phrase.JRPG (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Re disowning of the manifesto, it is clearly correct to use his exact words. We’re hopefully all trying to write an wp:npov encyclopaedia article. I suspect that like Farage’s statement on guns which someone removed, some editors are objecting to things which they judge are likely to cost UKIP votes. That, most definitely, isn’t their job. JRPG (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. His comments should be in the article, and we should rarely if ever use "despite the fact". Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The key issue - why I started this topic - is whether NF's disavowal of the manifesto should be in the article and I think we have agreed it should. As to "despite the fact" that's debatable. It is, after all, perfectly correct that he wrote the foreword, was at the launch and campaigned on the manifesto, despite never having read it, or so he says. (I say "or so he says" because we have no way of knowing if this is true or not beyond what NF says.) So how about He said he had never read it - though he wrote the foreword and helped to launch it - and said that it was written by .....? Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think even saying "though he wrote the foreword and helped to launch it" is POV, or at least in danger of insinuating that he *must* have read it. I know several cases where leading figures in a field have endorsed a book on a subject one imagines they care deeply about, yet when one reads the content one tends to assume (or hope) that they never had the time to actually read that book carefully. (Just this year, I've come across a case of a book endorsed by two leading conductors which turned out to have several passages copied and only lightly amended, without attribution, from another publication.) Of course we're talking politics, but it's still entirely likely that someone could take a publication "on trust" and write an introduction endorsing it without actually finding the time to read it. With that possible doubt in mind, I think we must be very careful how we word this not to stray into POV editorialising. Alfietucker (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how writing what he said insinuates anything. He says he didn't read it. I believe him, or maybe I don't - that's irrelevant. He says he wrote the foreword. I believe that - I've actually read it. He launched it. I believe that - I saw the launch on the news. The remarkable thing is that, whether he read it or not, he wrote the foreword, launched it, campaigned on it and subsequently disowned it. Emeraude (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't express that very clearly. I meant phrasing it "He said he had never read it - though he wrote the foreword and helped to launch it" seems a little less than NPOV, since such a sequence/juxtaposition seems to deliberately raise the question whether he was lying or not, rather than presenting the facts in a straight-forward manner. Meanwhile I've had a go at rewording according to the given sources. Alfietucker (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Understood. That seems better. I've tweaked it ever so slightly. Emeraude (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ideology 80.229.149.63 (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ideology anti-Federalism 80.229.149.63 (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First MP overkill?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Election of first MP by UKIP obviously significant, but so significant that the story has to be told three times in the text in almost identical wording? Once is enough, surely, but where? Emeraude (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27973093
  2. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/10920632/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-backing-Direct-Democracy.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Independence_Party/Archive_12&oldid=1136387416"