This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Two editors are suggesting that we need third party sources for all citations in this article. I refer them to Wikipedia:Third-party_sources, namely the section on non-independent sources -
"Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization claimed 10,000 people showed up to protest." is ok when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not."
Let me go through each sentence where the 'third-party source needed' tag has been incorrectly added:
"The Chairman of Young Independence, Harry Aldridge, was enthusiastic about the results, saying, "What we have seen in these elections is a raft of enthusiastic first time candidates from YI, from whom we have got some very encouraging results."
This is a direct quote from the chairman of the youth section of UKIP put on the UKIP website. It would be impossible to have a third party source for this - only a secondary source from someone who has read this quote on the website and repeated it. The primary source in this case is the appropriate one. The only reason for a third party source would be if someone doubted that this individual actually said this. Another question would be if the sentence is appropriate or relevant content at all, which I would question, in which case it should be deleted and not have a (impossible to meet, and unnecessary) 'third-party source' tag added to it.
---
"In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil" nationalism of extremist parties.
The sentence says UKIP claims something in it's 2010 election manifesto, so the citation should be the 2010 election manifesto, and it is. Note in particular the use of "In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises" makes this perfectly ok according to Wikipedia:Third-party_sources. Again, only a secondary source is possible for this, not a third party source.
---
" In addition, a withdrawal from both the European Convention on Refugees and European Convention of Human Rights is advocated by UKIP, to "enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable" while still "allow[ing] genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations".
This one is more grey - but the direct quotes indicate this is what UKIP claims. I would advocate putting "which it claims will" before the first quote in this sentence.
---
"UKIP's policies on immigration are currently under review[56] but they have previously outlined a number of measures designed to reduce immigration into the UK."
The sentence says that UKIP has outlined something, and the citation links to where this has been outlined.
---
" In addition, they propose to allow EU citizens who have been domiciled in the UK for seven years to apply for citizenship."
The sentence says that UKIP has proposed something, and the citation links to where this has been proposed.
In each case, the sentence does not state "UKIP is XXXX", which would need a third party citations, but that "UKIP claims XXXX" or "UKIP proposes XXXX" and so on, which means that third party sources are impossible and only primary sources are suitable to deomonstrate the UKIP proposes or claims such a things. The only other type of source for this would be a secondary source (see WP:third_party_sources) and not a third party source. Atshal ( talk) 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
A nice example is this rather useful BBC page on UKIP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690. I think everyone would agree the BBC is a third party source. However, much (or all) of the material here has ultimately come directly from UKIP statements on policy - since UKIP statements/articles/manifesto etc. are basically the only source of what UKIP policy is (unless the BBC employs mind readers). If we want to include what any party's policies are, which I think should be an important part of any political party wiki article, then ultimately the only source of what that party's policies are, is the party itself. Atshal ( talk) 11:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
We accept the veracity of the BBC because they are a reliable 3rd party source, it is not our role to interpret statements that the primary source makes. In your Labour example that statement would have no place in wikipedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
. And a little further downDo not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
. You are ignoring whole sections of policy and picking out the bits that suit you. You cannot base entire sections on primary sources. Also if you cannot find secondary sources on the policy, there is an argument that they shouldn't be in the article at all. If they are not notable enough for discussion in other sources they are not notable enough for Wikipedia, we are not here to reproduce UKIPs website. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
Once again you side step the question. You have accused me of treating the UKIP article differently from the other edits I make. I would like you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You have accused me of treating UKIP differently from the way I treat other articles. You are unable to answer a simple question, where have I treated any other political party's wikipedia page differently from the way I am behaving towards this one? GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 15:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This page is not here to advertise the UKIP manifesto. Unless policies are covered by reliable third-party sources they have no place in this encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think there is a WP:COMPETENCY issue here. The core principles of Wikipedia's reliance on third party sources, rather than primary sources just doesn't seem to be understood. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas for ways to generally improve the article? I think it is in a substantially improved state compared to around a month ago, partly due to some extensive edits from me, but imagine a lot more can be done. I have sat back from editing for a while because of what I feel were some fairly unpleasant accusations of bias directed towards me, but now that other editors have contributed and most of the changes I have made stand I felt I could contribute some more. Any ideas in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No one seems in a rush to add details of the Aberdeen Donside by-election to this article. Britain's "third party" just finished fifth with 4.8% and a lost deposit. Emeraude ( talk) 11:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The last two are dead. The UKIP have revamped their website. 79.67.248.74 ( talk) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In the info box there is a repetition of right-wing which is clearly unnecessary. To repeat the same label is not a neutral way of writing an article, no other political article does this. I have suggested that the label of right-wing populism is changed to just populism, whilst maintaining the link to the correct(existing page), as directly below this it says right-wing anyway. This solution was not acceptable to some editors, therefore I suggest we just remove the political position of right-wing and keep the link saying "right-wing populism". Come what may, I do not think it reasonable to repeat the phrase right-wing with only 2 words separating it. I shall remove the political position label as it already says right-wing above. Its probably worth noting that the phrase "left-wing" is not repeated in the info box for the Green Party. 1 further note: I am not disputing content, I am disputing labeling/tagging, we need to do this in a neutral way. Many Thanks ConsciousKipper ( talk) 08:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This was a well sourced section in the article and it has been removed. I notice that a number of other parts of this article have been rewritten in a less neutral manner than before, this is more than a tad concerning. The removal of sourced material without comment is simply not acceptable. ConsciousKipper ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
As well as editing and tidying, I've had a look at the material that was removed: see here for the diff of the removal regarding the group "LGBTQ in UKIP". The sourcing is adequate for the claim being made: PinkNews is a good enough source for saying there is an LGBTQ UKIP group. There's actually two PinkNews sources on this group - UKIP LGBT group: ‘We really need more candidates from the socially liberal side of society’ exists too, which quotes the International Business Times video article Ukip Leader Nigel Farage Urged to Act against Homophobic 'Fruitcakes'.
I think that one of the issue I'd have is due weight: simply saying there is an LGBTQ group in UKIP doesn't really tell the reader much. The Conservative Party (UK) article has a link to LGBTory in the section 'Associated groups', but that's because LGBTory is independently notable. LGBTory does not have any discussion in the article. 'LGBT Labour' doesn't have any discussion in Labour Party (UK). 'LGBTQ in UKIP' wouldn't pass muster at AfD based on these sources. There's just not enough substance here.
The only real potential point of interest for the reader might be that it's a slightly curious development, and the comments from the LGBTQ in UKIP chairman basically arguing against the "fruitcakes" in the party might be worth discussing in some kind of criticism section (although policy tends to disfavour those now). I'm not sure the homophobia of the "fruitcakes" or the reaction of the LGBTQ in UKIP people necessarily deserves to be included in a section on LGBT issues that is (or was, I changed it) itself a subsection of the section on policy. Internal bickering about homophobia isn't policy, it's internal bickering. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It is an absolute joke to list ukip as being libertarian. They might claim to be, but in practice they are clearly not. They are ideologically much more in line with national conservatism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrime ( talk • contribs)
Is there no way of inserting this without concerns regarding notability or original research? It's quite plain to me that the popularity of UKIP over the last year derives from the media coverage of this single event, but since no-one appears to have published any analysis to that effect it can't be cited, and yet I feel it would be a shame for its significance to go unregarded in the article. Does anyone else at least agree that the indcident is, in this sense, important? -- AdamM ( talk) 00:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd say unless there are third party sources discussing it outside of the context as a news story (i.e not just links to articles reporting the event) then it doesn't need reporting. We are not a newspaper. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Atshal is attempting to remove from the first paragraph of the Policies section the sentence "However, according to academics Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, writing in The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, the party, along with the BNP and the English Democrats, "draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance"." His motives for this are highly suspect. He wrote after first deleting it that it is "Misleading - this sentence refers specifically only to policy on English governance and the Union... NOT on general policy. Possibly include in a section on policy on UK Union issues and English governance." This is in itself misleading. I reverted on the grounds that "That sentence is a summary of a wider exposition and is, in any case, a counter to the previous sentences in this article.". Atshal again removed it, saying "This does NOT belong in the header, as that implies wider applicability to policy. This sentence is out of context and refers ONLY to English governance." Again, not the point and not what the source article is saying.
This is annoying, especially since it was Atshal who introduced the referenced journal article in the first place, though not with the intention to which it has been put! This was gone over at great length in May - please refer to the archive discussion here on this very point; the conclusion was that the sentence is relevant and properly sourced. It seems that having lost in May, Atshal is now back for a second crack. I have reverted to the status quo ante pending discussion. Emeraude ( talk) 15:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
In September 2011 party Leader Nigel Farage told his party conference that the UKIP national executive now supported an English Parliament as ‘the only way of saving the Union’ by addressing ‘English resentment’ over the West Lothian Question and Barnett formula (Farage 2011). The party announced a new policy proposal (with acknowledged input from the Campaign for an English Parliament) which sought to turn the House of Commons into an English legislature with an English first minister, with the current House of Lords becoming an elected upper chamber with representatives from all parts of the UK elected from existing constituencies (Nuttall 2011, 2–3). This would allow England to become ‘constitutionally equal to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and thus rebalance the Union’. However, Trench (2011) notes that UKIP fail to acknowledge the lack of symmetry in the distribution of devolved powers across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) or the potential for a separate English parliament dwarfing the other constituent parts of a federal UK. Such federal instability could be significant, thus highlighting the lack of compatibility between UKIP's unionism and English statehood. In seeking to gain greater electoral returns in England, UKIP could therefore undermine their primary aim of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Whilst UKIP have sought to typify other Anglo-British and English ‘extremist parties’ as ‘blood and soil’ ethnic nationalists who threaten the cohesion of the Union (UKIP 2010b), they and the BNP and the English Democrats draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance. The BNP and English Democrats explicitly support the creation of an English Parliament and the scrapping of the Barnett formula. Although the BNP often frames identity narratives within British contexts, both parties seek to promote a common English culture, history and language together with the celebration of the English national anthem, flag and St George's Day (EDP 2010; BNP 2010). Each party also reject what they see as politically-correct, state-sponsored promotion of multicultural Britishness promoted by the main unionist parties, highlighting the perceived threat of the Islamification of British or English society, culture and civic institutions.
I am a member of UKIP? Wikipedia is a funny place! I have also been accused of being Johann Hari here. Not that it matters, but I have only ever voted for Labour, am the member of no political party and have no intention of ever supporting UKIP.
Now, lets just stick to the facts related to the edit, I have no time for a silly personal feud on the internet. Atshal ( talk) 17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The above section includes the following statement about the 2005 general election: "This placed it [UKIP] fourth in terms of total votes cast, behind the Liberal Democrats and ahead of the Scottish National Party." This is mathematically true as far as it goes. But, seeing as the SNP did not contest any seats outside Scotland, it is meaningless. Within Scotland, UKIP polled a total of only 8,859 (0.4%) for its 22 candidates, compared with the SNP's 412,276 (17.7%) for its 59 candidates. In terms of votes cast, UKIP was eighth. Statistically, it was trounced by the BNP in terms of votes per candidate, both of whom were beaten by the Greens (UKIP: 403 each; BNP: 796 each: Grn: 1,356 each).
It therefore seems sensible to remove the bit about "ahead of the Scottish National Party". But having done that, is there any need to say "behind the Liberal Democrats"? Edited to say: "This placed it fourth in terms of votes cast nationally." (Source for statistics is that given in the section of the article, i.e. The Electoral Commission report Election 2005: constituencies, candidates and results. Emeraude ( talk) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This article lacks a section of UKIP's backwards Education Policies under the sub-category "Policies". IJA ( talk) 12:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Party Resignations/Defections( Coachtripfan ( talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC))
JRPG ( talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
MEP suspension( Coachtripfan ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
Atshal, numerous citations say Bloom has had the whip suspended. Whip (politics) explains what that means: "in the UK and Ireland, a party's endorsement of a Member of Parliament (MP) or a Teachta Dála (TD); to "withdraw the whip" is to expel an MP or TD from his or her political party. (The elected member in question would retain his or her parliamentary seat, as an independent, i.e. not associated with any Party.)" Bondegezou ( talk) 06:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to clear up this section a bit. There is a questionable claim that:
"Overall, UKIP hoped for a hung parliament in which the Liberal Democrats would drive through proportional representation as a key demand to form a coalition government.[citation needed]"
I can find nothing to back this up. Perhaps it is quite true that UKIP secretly wished this but I do not think it is verifiable. Is anyone able to provide a suitable source for this? If not, I think it should be removed. Atshal ( talk) 11:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I still don't agree with either change (there are conflicting sources within the electoral commision regarding whether he was an independent or not, and being a Europhile is not notable in this context) but I really can't be bothered with arguing over such a trivial thing anymore Atshal ( talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
One student handed a formal letter of protest to the President of the European Parliament, heavily criticising Bloom's behaviour.
I deleted the sentence above as it does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. If the anonymous "student" cannot even be named, I don't believe the "formal letter of protest" merits inclusion. Politicians receive all manner of documents from any source imaginable. That it came from a "student" feels like it was a stunt for publicity, and I'm averse to wiki being used in this way, particularly when the "event" is so flabby and insignificant. Jonny Quick ( talk) 07:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is this in the article? It belongs in the article on Bloom, not here. I see no such comparable section (Controversies) on the Labour Party (UK) article for instance, nor any mention of member misconduct. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The UK Independence Party (UKIP, Ukip, /ˈjuːkɪp/ YEW-kip) is a Eurosceptic [1] [2] right-wing populist [3], centre-right..
References: Usherwood, Simon (2008). "The dilemmas of a single‐issue party–The UK Independence Party". Representation. 44 (3). Taylor & Francis: 255–264. doi: 10.1080/00344890802237023. "UKIP is a relatively traditional centre–right party".
Borisyuk, Galina; Rallings, Colin; Thrasher, Michael; van der Kolk, Henk (2007). "Voter Support for Minor Parties Assessing the Social and Political Context of Voting at the 2004 European Elections in Greater London". Party Politics. 13 (6). SAGE Publications: 669–693. doi: 10.1177/1354068807081816.
I have been trying to add this but so far two users have deleted it. Uhseere ( talk) 17:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Is being removed by @ Adn1990: Please explain why you are removing well cited content without consensus. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the removal of reliably sourced content, which has been removed twice of spurious grounds. Please stop removing reliably sourced content. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There are definitely UKIP individuals who hold extreme views against Islam, but is it really as much as the EDL and BNP to merit having this category? Áccénté Áígúé ( talk) 20:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The UK Independence Party is a right-wing 'new populist' party...
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Two editors are suggesting that we need third party sources for all citations in this article. I refer them to Wikipedia:Third-party_sources, namely the section on non-independent sources -
"Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization claimed 10,000 people showed up to protest." is ok when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not."
Let me go through each sentence where the 'third-party source needed' tag has been incorrectly added:
"The Chairman of Young Independence, Harry Aldridge, was enthusiastic about the results, saying, "What we have seen in these elections is a raft of enthusiastic first time candidates from YI, from whom we have got some very encouraging results."
This is a direct quote from the chairman of the youth section of UKIP put on the UKIP website. It would be impossible to have a third party source for this - only a secondary source from someone who has read this quote on the website and repeated it. The primary source in this case is the appropriate one. The only reason for a third party source would be if someone doubted that this individual actually said this. Another question would be if the sentence is appropriate or relevant content at all, which I would question, in which case it should be deleted and not have a (impossible to meet, and unnecessary) 'third-party source' tag added to it.
---
"In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises its belief in civic nationalism, which it claims "is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background" and contrasts it with the "blood and soil" nationalism of extremist parties.
The sentence says UKIP claims something in it's 2010 election manifesto, so the citation should be the 2010 election manifesto, and it is. Note in particular the use of "In its 2010 general election manifesto, UKIP emphasises" makes this perfectly ok according to Wikipedia:Third-party_sources. Again, only a secondary source is possible for this, not a third party source.
---
" In addition, a withdrawal from both the European Convention on Refugees and European Convention of Human Rights is advocated by UKIP, to "enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable" while still "allow[ing] genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations".
This one is more grey - but the direct quotes indicate this is what UKIP claims. I would advocate putting "which it claims will" before the first quote in this sentence.
---
"UKIP's policies on immigration are currently under review[56] but they have previously outlined a number of measures designed to reduce immigration into the UK."
The sentence says that UKIP has outlined something, and the citation links to where this has been outlined.
---
" In addition, they propose to allow EU citizens who have been domiciled in the UK for seven years to apply for citizenship."
The sentence says that UKIP has proposed something, and the citation links to where this has been proposed.
In each case, the sentence does not state "UKIP is XXXX", which would need a third party citations, but that "UKIP claims XXXX" or "UKIP proposes XXXX" and so on, which means that third party sources are impossible and only primary sources are suitable to deomonstrate the UKIP proposes or claims such a things. The only other type of source for this would be a secondary source (see WP:third_party_sources) and not a third party source. Atshal ( talk) 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
A nice example is this rather useful BBC page on UKIP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690. I think everyone would agree the BBC is a third party source. However, much (or all) of the material here has ultimately come directly from UKIP statements on policy - since UKIP statements/articles/manifesto etc. are basically the only source of what UKIP policy is (unless the BBC employs mind readers). If we want to include what any party's policies are, which I think should be an important part of any political party wiki article, then ultimately the only source of what that party's policies are, is the party itself. Atshal ( talk) 11:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
We accept the veracity of the BBC because they are a reliable 3rd party source, it is not our role to interpret statements that the primary source makes. In your Labour example that statement would have no place in wikipedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
. And a little further downDo not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
. You are ignoring whole sections of policy and picking out the bits that suit you. You cannot base entire sections on primary sources. Also if you cannot find secondary sources on the policy, there is an argument that they shouldn't be in the article at all. If they are not notable enough for discussion in other sources they are not notable enough for Wikipedia, we are not here to reproduce UKIPs website. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
Once again you side step the question. You have accused me of treating the UKIP article differently from the other edits I make. I would like you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You have accused me of treating UKIP differently from the way I treat other articles. You are unable to answer a simple question, where have I treated any other political party's wikipedia page differently from the way I am behaving towards this one? GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 15:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This page is not here to advertise the UKIP manifesto. Unless policies are covered by reliable third-party sources they have no place in this encyclopedia. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think there is a WP:COMPETENCY issue here. The core principles of Wikipedia's reliance on third party sources, rather than primary sources just doesn't seem to be understood. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas for ways to generally improve the article? I think it is in a substantially improved state compared to around a month ago, partly due to some extensive edits from me, but imagine a lot more can be done. I have sat back from editing for a while because of what I feel were some fairly unpleasant accusations of bias directed towards me, but now that other editors have contributed and most of the changes I have made stand I felt I could contribute some more. Any ideas in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No one seems in a rush to add details of the Aberdeen Donside by-election to this article. Britain's "third party" just finished fifth with 4.8% and a lost deposit. Emeraude ( talk) 11:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The last two are dead. The UKIP have revamped their website. 79.67.248.74 ( talk) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In the info box there is a repetition of right-wing which is clearly unnecessary. To repeat the same label is not a neutral way of writing an article, no other political article does this. I have suggested that the label of right-wing populism is changed to just populism, whilst maintaining the link to the correct(existing page), as directly below this it says right-wing anyway. This solution was not acceptable to some editors, therefore I suggest we just remove the political position of right-wing and keep the link saying "right-wing populism". Come what may, I do not think it reasonable to repeat the phrase right-wing with only 2 words separating it. I shall remove the political position label as it already says right-wing above. Its probably worth noting that the phrase "left-wing" is not repeated in the info box for the Green Party. 1 further note: I am not disputing content, I am disputing labeling/tagging, we need to do this in a neutral way. Many Thanks ConsciousKipper ( talk) 08:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This was a well sourced section in the article and it has been removed. I notice that a number of other parts of this article have been rewritten in a less neutral manner than before, this is more than a tad concerning. The removal of sourced material without comment is simply not acceptable. ConsciousKipper ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
As well as editing and tidying, I've had a look at the material that was removed: see here for the diff of the removal regarding the group "LGBTQ in UKIP". The sourcing is adequate for the claim being made: PinkNews is a good enough source for saying there is an LGBTQ UKIP group. There's actually two PinkNews sources on this group - UKIP LGBT group: ‘We really need more candidates from the socially liberal side of society’ exists too, which quotes the International Business Times video article Ukip Leader Nigel Farage Urged to Act against Homophobic 'Fruitcakes'.
I think that one of the issue I'd have is due weight: simply saying there is an LGBTQ group in UKIP doesn't really tell the reader much. The Conservative Party (UK) article has a link to LGBTory in the section 'Associated groups', but that's because LGBTory is independently notable. LGBTory does not have any discussion in the article. 'LGBT Labour' doesn't have any discussion in Labour Party (UK). 'LGBTQ in UKIP' wouldn't pass muster at AfD based on these sources. There's just not enough substance here.
The only real potential point of interest for the reader might be that it's a slightly curious development, and the comments from the LGBTQ in UKIP chairman basically arguing against the "fruitcakes" in the party might be worth discussing in some kind of criticism section (although policy tends to disfavour those now). I'm not sure the homophobia of the "fruitcakes" or the reaction of the LGBTQ in UKIP people necessarily deserves to be included in a section on LGBT issues that is (or was, I changed it) itself a subsection of the section on policy. Internal bickering about homophobia isn't policy, it's internal bickering. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It is an absolute joke to list ukip as being libertarian. They might claim to be, but in practice they are clearly not. They are ideologically much more in line with national conservatism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrime ( talk • contribs)
Is there no way of inserting this without concerns regarding notability or original research? It's quite plain to me that the popularity of UKIP over the last year derives from the media coverage of this single event, but since no-one appears to have published any analysis to that effect it can't be cited, and yet I feel it would be a shame for its significance to go unregarded in the article. Does anyone else at least agree that the indcident is, in this sense, important? -- AdamM ( talk) 00:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd say unless there are third party sources discussing it outside of the context as a news story (i.e not just links to articles reporting the event) then it doesn't need reporting. We are not a newspaper. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Atshal is attempting to remove from the first paragraph of the Policies section the sentence "However, according to academics Andrew Mycock and Richard Hayton, writing in The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, the party, along with the BNP and the English Democrats, "draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance"." His motives for this are highly suspect. He wrote after first deleting it that it is "Misleading - this sentence refers specifically only to policy on English governance and the Union... NOT on general policy. Possibly include in a section on policy on UK Union issues and English governance." This is in itself misleading. I reverted on the grounds that "That sentence is a summary of a wider exposition and is, in any case, a counter to the previous sentences in this article.". Atshal again removed it, saying "This does NOT belong in the header, as that implies wider applicability to policy. This sentence is out of context and refers ONLY to English governance." Again, not the point and not what the source article is saying.
This is annoying, especially since it was Atshal who introduced the referenced journal article in the first place, though not with the intention to which it has been put! This was gone over at great length in May - please refer to the archive discussion here on this very point; the conclusion was that the sentence is relevant and properly sourced. It seems that having lost in May, Atshal is now back for a second crack. I have reverted to the status quo ante pending discussion. Emeraude ( talk) 15:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
In September 2011 party Leader Nigel Farage told his party conference that the UKIP national executive now supported an English Parliament as ‘the only way of saving the Union’ by addressing ‘English resentment’ over the West Lothian Question and Barnett formula (Farage 2011). The party announced a new policy proposal (with acknowledged input from the Campaign for an English Parliament) which sought to turn the House of Commons into an English legislature with an English first minister, with the current House of Lords becoming an elected upper chamber with representatives from all parts of the UK elected from existing constituencies (Nuttall 2011, 2–3). This would allow England to become ‘constitutionally equal to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and thus rebalance the Union’. However, Trench (2011) notes that UKIP fail to acknowledge the lack of symmetry in the distribution of devolved powers across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) or the potential for a separate English parliament dwarfing the other constituent parts of a federal UK. Such federal instability could be significant, thus highlighting the lack of compatibility between UKIP's unionism and English statehood. In seeking to gain greater electoral returns in England, UKIP could therefore undermine their primary aim of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Whilst UKIP have sought to typify other Anglo-British and English ‘extremist parties’ as ‘blood and soil’ ethnic nationalists who threaten the cohesion of the Union (UKIP 2010b), they and the BNP and the English Democrats draw on shared narratives emphasising perceived English cultural, political and economic grievance. The BNP and English Democrats explicitly support the creation of an English Parliament and the scrapping of the Barnett formula. Although the BNP often frames identity narratives within British contexts, both parties seek to promote a common English culture, history and language together with the celebration of the English national anthem, flag and St George's Day (EDP 2010; BNP 2010). Each party also reject what they see as politically-correct, state-sponsored promotion of multicultural Britishness promoted by the main unionist parties, highlighting the perceived threat of the Islamification of British or English society, culture and civic institutions.
I am a member of UKIP? Wikipedia is a funny place! I have also been accused of being Johann Hari here. Not that it matters, but I have only ever voted for Labour, am the member of no political party and have no intention of ever supporting UKIP.
Now, lets just stick to the facts related to the edit, I have no time for a silly personal feud on the internet. Atshal ( talk) 17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The above section includes the following statement about the 2005 general election: "This placed it [UKIP] fourth in terms of total votes cast, behind the Liberal Democrats and ahead of the Scottish National Party." This is mathematically true as far as it goes. But, seeing as the SNP did not contest any seats outside Scotland, it is meaningless. Within Scotland, UKIP polled a total of only 8,859 (0.4%) for its 22 candidates, compared with the SNP's 412,276 (17.7%) for its 59 candidates. In terms of votes cast, UKIP was eighth. Statistically, it was trounced by the BNP in terms of votes per candidate, both of whom were beaten by the Greens (UKIP: 403 each; BNP: 796 each: Grn: 1,356 each).
It therefore seems sensible to remove the bit about "ahead of the Scottish National Party". But having done that, is there any need to say "behind the Liberal Democrats"? Edited to say: "This placed it fourth in terms of votes cast nationally." (Source for statistics is that given in the section of the article, i.e. The Electoral Commission report Election 2005: constituencies, candidates and results. Emeraude ( talk) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This article lacks a section of UKIP's backwards Education Policies under the sub-category "Policies". IJA ( talk) 12:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Party Resignations/Defections( Coachtripfan ( talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC))
JRPG ( talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
MEP suspension( Coachtripfan ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
Atshal, numerous citations say Bloom has had the whip suspended. Whip (politics) explains what that means: "in the UK and Ireland, a party's endorsement of a Member of Parliament (MP) or a Teachta Dála (TD); to "withdraw the whip" is to expel an MP or TD from his or her political party. (The elected member in question would retain his or her parliamentary seat, as an independent, i.e. not associated with any Party.)" Bondegezou ( talk) 06:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to clear up this section a bit. There is a questionable claim that:
"Overall, UKIP hoped for a hung parliament in which the Liberal Democrats would drive through proportional representation as a key demand to form a coalition government.[citation needed]"
I can find nothing to back this up. Perhaps it is quite true that UKIP secretly wished this but I do not think it is verifiable. Is anyone able to provide a suitable source for this? If not, I think it should be removed. Atshal ( talk) 11:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I still don't agree with either change (there are conflicting sources within the electoral commision regarding whether he was an independent or not, and being a Europhile is not notable in this context) but I really can't be bothered with arguing over such a trivial thing anymore Atshal ( talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
One student handed a formal letter of protest to the President of the European Parliament, heavily criticising Bloom's behaviour.
I deleted the sentence above as it does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. If the anonymous "student" cannot even be named, I don't believe the "formal letter of protest" merits inclusion. Politicians receive all manner of documents from any source imaginable. That it came from a "student" feels like it was a stunt for publicity, and I'm averse to wiki being used in this way, particularly when the "event" is so flabby and insignificant. Jonny Quick ( talk) 07:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is this in the article? It belongs in the article on Bloom, not here. I see no such comparable section (Controversies) on the Labour Party (UK) article for instance, nor any mention of member misconduct. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The UK Independence Party (UKIP, Ukip, /ˈjuːkɪp/ YEW-kip) is a Eurosceptic [1] [2] right-wing populist [3], centre-right..
References: Usherwood, Simon (2008). "The dilemmas of a single‐issue party–The UK Independence Party". Representation. 44 (3). Taylor & Francis: 255–264. doi: 10.1080/00344890802237023. "UKIP is a relatively traditional centre–right party".
Borisyuk, Galina; Rallings, Colin; Thrasher, Michael; van der Kolk, Henk (2007). "Voter Support for Minor Parties Assessing the Social and Political Context of Voting at the 2004 European Elections in Greater London". Party Politics. 13 (6). SAGE Publications: 669–693. doi: 10.1177/1354068807081816.
I have been trying to add this but so far two users have deleted it. Uhseere ( talk) 17:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Is being removed by @ Adn1990: Please explain why you are removing well cited content without consensus. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the removal of reliably sourced content, which has been removed twice of spurious grounds. Please stop removing reliably sourced content. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There are definitely UKIP individuals who hold extreme views against Islam, but is it really as much as the EDL and BNP to merit having this category? Áccénté Áígúé ( talk) 20:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The UK Independence Party is a right-wing 'new populist' party...
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)