Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 23 January 2013

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Populism? I disagree

Right at the very beginning of the article, UKIP is described as a right-wing populist party; being name populist can be perceived as an insult or a nasty comment against someone, their political beliefs or the views of a party. UKIP does not describe itself as a populist party but rather a libertarian party. UKIP is not populist either, representing the views of everyone including the mega-rich and the poorest or the poor; they are NOT populist.

I request and require the word 'populist' be removed from the heading paragraph as a statement and rephrased as a suggestion.

Johnxsmith (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, populist is just not appropriate! If you think about it, it is a normative phrase, what's populist will depend on one's opinion! Also the sources provided to justify this word are splurious at best, I mean these are well known accademics that are notoriously pro federal Europe! have explained all this below but some peope are just incapabe of looking at the partiallity of a source when it goes against their own opinion! Nick 11:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll remove it from the article and leave a link to this page for those who disagree.

Johnxsmith (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What total nonsense. Firstly, "populist" is not a 'normative phrase' (apart from being a word and not a phrase!) whose meaning "will depend on one's opinion"; it is a clearly used term in political science. Secondly, it is not "an insult or a nasty comment". If you think it is, you need to read up on the subject. Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason why a party cannot be both populist and libetarian; indeed the two frequently go together, especially on the right of the political spectrum. Fourthly, there are sufficient reliable sources, quoted within the article, to support UKIP being populist, and it is reliable sources that Misplaced Pages always goes by, not perceived notions by editors based on what they think a word means. Fifthly, this issue has been discussed at length previously (see archives) and consensus reached. Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think people need to read Populism. It strikes me as being a completely fair way to describe the politics of the UKIP. I would very strongly suggest it remains in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Emeraude: How can you just come on here and tell me to read up about populism? You have a different take on what populism is, by all means: share it; do not simply re-direct me to another unbalanced Misplaced Pages article edited by idiots such as yourself. One of your points is telling me to go to an article on populism, the next tells me the meaning of populism is my own opinion as with the next victim of your stupidity. If the meaning of populism is one's own opinion, how can it be placed on a Misplaced Pages Article? I hate the Labour party, how about I go over to Labour and change the heading paragraph to: 'The Labour Party are a disgraceful, borderline-communist, British political party lead by an illiterate person who speaks funny...' You think populism is good and describes UKIP, great; go shove your ideas up another poor sod. Johnxsmith (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Nick on this one, populism is normative, it's only popular if you think it's popular, also I don't see us using this label on other parties that clearly fit the criteria. I really can't remember the Lib Dems having this label in early 2010 and believe me, I have checked! It just looks a bit biased if I'm honest, I mean I'm a real stickler for consistency and to use this label on this party and not to have used it on other parties when the relevent qualities are atributed to thoeparties to me seems deeply inconsistent! You can get al the academics in the world to write the same thing over and over again but as far as I'm concerned if we don't apply the sam rules and criteria to everyone then we are being biased. Sheffno1gunner (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not normative. "Populism" and "popular" share a common etymological root, but their meanings are absolutely distinct. As I have said, and Blue Square Thing has repeated, some people need to read up on populism (within and outside of Misplaced Pages) before commenting. The subhead for this discussion illustrates what is wrong with it: Populism? I disagree. Frankly, whether you disagree or not is totally irrelevant. That UKIP is "populist" is self-evident to people who know what the word means and how and why it is used, but, even more significantly, it is referenced as such by reliable sources of the type which Misplaced Pages demands.

Johnxsmith: Your personal attacks on me are totally unacceptable and do your case, weak as it is, no good at all: "go shove your ideas up another poor sod", "edited by idiots such as yourself" (personal and general!). I did not direct you to a Misplaced Pages article, I advised reading up on the subject. Your comments demand an apology. However, give the way in which you rant, I will not hold my breath. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not Libertarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't say the party is libertarian (it seems to be more populist), but there certainly is a true Ludwig von Mises-style libertarian faction within the party. I think the solution is to do this the same way the Conservative Party (United Kingdom), the Republican Party (United States) and the Democratic Party (United States) were done, have a general section in ideology (for UKIP, I think Euroscepticism might be the only one, given that there are some former Labour Party people and other people with generally left wing views in UKIP. Populism would probably also be appropriate. After the general section, have a column of "internal factions". These factions could include: Libertarianism, Social conservatism (because of opposition from some UKIP officials to gay marriage) and maybe Fiscal conservatism and Thatcherism.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

UKIP is purely Libertarian party, with Austrian economics, emphasis on Civil liberties and support of Ethnic diversity. Let's talk about facts, not biased statements without quotations. 217.159.212.102 (talk) (talk)‎ 11:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And the above is not a biased statements without quotations??? Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. Read Libertarianism in the United Kingdom Wiki article first, I quote "The Eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have defined themselves as a libertarian party, construed by some as an attempt to outflank the Conservatives on economic issues. Under the leadership of Nigel Farage, Farage's stated intention was to broaden the public perception of UKIP beyond merely being a party seeking to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union, to one of being a free market party broadly standing for libertarian values." Then a list of Prominent libertarians: "Nigel Farage (born 1964), UK Independence Party Leader", so the leader of a party mentioned as prominent libertarian. Next: UKIP – the only home for libertarians (http://www.indhome.com/2012/06/ukip-home-libertarians/) and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/06/leaving-tories-ukip-alexandra-swann). Watch video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STZGH9fInek) Examine UKIP's policies and program to make correct evaluation of their ideology. 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.212.102 (talk)

Well, just a few problems with that. First, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source! Second, Nigel Farage I'm sure would appear in a list of prominent plonkers, but it doesn't meean that UKIP is a plonker because its leader is. Third, as has been explained ad nauseam, what UKIP says about itself is not a reliable source for anything other than a sentence which begins "UKIP describes itself as...." (And we have that sentence in the article.) Fourth, while The Guardian is generally regarded as a reliable source, the piece you quote is not BY The Guardian as such, nor even a Guardian writer. To quote the paper: "Alexandra Swann is a 23 year old member of UKIP. She was previously the national deputy chairman (political) of Conservative Future and is studying for a PhD in intellectual history at the University of Sussex." In other words, as it does most days, the paper has allowed someone unconnected with it to write a personal opinion piece. (The clue is in the http address: "Comment is free" is the relevant column.) Fifth, "UKIP Nigel Farage MEP talks to the Oxford Libertarian society -2009" on YouTube fails for the reasons stated already. Emeraude (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an insanity of Misplaced Pages. Some bribed and biased journalist (knowing nothing about politics) writing an article in some newspaper, and that's a "reliable source" enough but words and deeds of a party itself are nothing. Documents, programs and manifesto, policies and decisions are literally nothing. Journalists that most of the time lie or unprofessional in the topic they are writing about, only their words are gold, that counts for Misplaced Pages. I can google the topic and find a lot of "third party" sources that say UKIP is a libertarian party. But I am sure it's pointless because you are biased towards UKIP. Don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.212.102 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. Once you have read them and have a little better understanding how wikipedia works, then come back and have a grown up discussion. GimliDotNet 09:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a model of civility to be condescending toward an unregistered (and obviously new) user. --RJFF (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to give more than a cursory glance at the edit history you will see the IP is bouncing about being disruptive. Thanks for the input though. GimliDotNet 11:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Even BBC accused of leftwing and liberal bias. That's everywhere on the news today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/10/bbc-review-liberal-bias), (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9599899/Why-did-the-BBC-sideline-David-Camerons-speech-on-the-Today-programme.html), (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-leftwing-bias-7268459.html). I think the same problem is with Misplaced Pages. And yes, I read all WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS links you provided. Didn't find myself wrong in any sense. To call UKIP a right-wing populist party, having so few and unreliable sources for that (2 sources, one of which is just an individual from Germany: Wolfram Nordsieck, Merkurstraße 1, 40223 Düsseldorf, Germany, is bias and incivility. I quote from WP:RS "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim". Populism is a heavyweight claim that should be supported by heavyweight sources. And finally, you sounded so smug, overbearing and patronizing... We (unregistered new users) are just wogs, right?--217.159.212.102 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is tiresome. Please read the comments above, and in the archives to this talk page, that explain why "libertarian" is not reliably sourced and why "right-wing populism" is. You have also been pointed to Misplaced Pages policies and procedures that cover the issue of reliable sources, and why your behaviour is unacceptable - please take the time to read and understand them, rather than ranting about supposed bias of journalists in general and the BBC in particular. And I note you have not actually criticised either source save one seems to you be an individual; I presume the academic journal Parliamentary Affairs is acceptable. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Nordsieck's website is cited as a source in several scholarly publications. It is accepted as a resource by the EUDO, an academic platform at the European University Institute ("The editor (Nordsieck) began his comparative study of political parties, party systems, elections and constitutional laws in the late 1980s.") (Right-wing) populism is not an insult, judgement or stigma, but a valid category for classifying political ideologies, used by a great number of reputable political scientists. (And please don't tell me they all have a left-wing bias and just want to vilify parties like UKIP.) --RJFF (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the journal already cited (Abedi, A. and Lundberg, T.C. 2009. "Doomed to Failure? UKIP and the Organizational Challenges Facing Right-Wing Populist Anti-Political Establishment Parties." Parliamentary Affairs, 62 (1), 72-87) we may add:

• "Right-wing populism is on the rise - and it is shamelessly courting working-class people. The BNP is unlikely ever to establish itself as a credible party, but it is an ominous portent of what could come. The populist right can also boast the presence of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), ...." Owen Jones: Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, p 245, Verso 2011

• "The List Pim Fortuyn and New Democracy are not the only examples of radical right – or right-wing populist – flash parties: the Schill Party in Germany, the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) in Greece, and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) would qualify as well." David Art, Inside the Radical Right, p 188, Cambridge University Press, 2011

• "But when set against the advances made by the populist radical right in many other parts of Europe, UKIP and the BNP remain minor parties in British politics." Stephen Driver. Understanding British Party Politics, p 151, Polity Press 2011

• "...other British parties had played a leading role in ushering this populism towards the mainstream. UKIP had formed the Europe of Freedom and Democracy bloc,...." Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, p 154, Verso 2012

• "Recent events have created a seemingly perfect storm for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the right-wing populist eurosceptic party that has supplanted the British National Party as the main electoral force to the right of the Conservative Party." Adam Carter Searchlight, June 2012

All available from your local bookshop or library, and maybe even online. But, on reflection, let's not add them and pad out the article with excessive referencing. Emeraude (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for the UKIP mainstream supporting the Austrian economic theory?--Jay942942 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a mainstream media source stating that UKIP are LIbertarian: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100191811/ukip-are-libertarian-theyre-also-conservative-pro-free-trade-and-anti-mass-immigration-and-theyre-coherent/ I can not see why people can't accept this. It's making wikipedia look very biased! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly a mainstream source is it? It's a blog. And it doesn't specifically say that UKIP is libertarian (apart from the wide-ranging headline); rather it suggests that UKIP has policies/views that are not imcompatible with libertarianism. The author is somewaht confused about what libertarianism means ("Libertarian used to ...refer to people ... who preferred social pressure and shame to unnecessary laws"; "Today it is increasingly used by socially liberal people who want all of the permissiveness of the post-60s world but without having to pay for the state to look after the inevitable casualties"). So, not a reliable source. Misplaced Pages's article does say: "The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party." (second sentence). When a source such as a peer-reviewed journal agrees, we will have something useful to go on. Emeraude (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, so we're moving goal posts, ok, just so as I know! I don't see how you can say that the Telegraph is not part of the mainstream media, it's one of Britain's most influential and widely read papers! Also I suggest you read UKIP's policies, they favour scrapping a lot of legislation and as you say prefer social regulation, for example: they are considering the legalisation of some drugs, they want a Royal Commission to look in to this! The Party leader has said he would ere towards legalisation of some drugs on the basis that the current war on drugs is not working. They have said they want to repeal the smoking ban, that should be a matter for landlords to decide! They have said they wan't to repeal the fox hunting ban stating "That should be a matter for personal conscience" Nigel Farage said. There are loads more examples. I don't think your capable of determining a party's ideology if you don't know the party's policies and don't listen to what they and particularly the party eader says! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: It's a blog (albeit a rather good one). It is not the Daily Telegraph as such. What YOU say are the UKIP policies is original research. That you ascribe some of their policies to libertarianism is original research. For any party you care to name, I could pick policies that could be described as libertarian; that would not make it liberatrian, and besides, it would be original research as well! I repeat again: When a source such as a peer-reviewed journal agrees, we will have something useful to go on. This is not, as you put it, "moving goal posts" - it is the way Misplaced Pages works. Emeraude (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I just came here for the first time in ages to tell this discussion thread that I had found a reliable source for the claim that UKIP is libertarian - namely Ed West's Telegraph article (titled "Ukip are libertarian. They're also conservative, pro-free trade, and anti-mass immigration – and they're coherent")! I was sure that this would finally end the sterile dispute which has raged on this talk page for so long, thus earning me the gratitude of all concerned. Sadly, I see that it is not to be. In order to focus the debate, I'm wondering Emeraude if you would be kind enough to indicate which sections of a newspaper's online edition you would regard as sufficiently authoritative to use as references for a Misplaced Pages article? Then we could save wasting your time in the future :-) (Incidentally, I don't think it will ever be possible to settle this as there are too many competing definitions of libertarianism, and any claim about political ideology that can be authoritatively sourced can be matched by an equal and contradictory claim from a different authoritative source; which is why political science, unlike (say) physics, remains in the dark ages. But I don't want to spoil anyone's fun!) Twilde (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would subscribe to the general Misplaced Pages practice of treating all blogs as less than reliable. It is also dangerous to assume that everything that appears in a newspaper is reliable - reliable sources can and do make mistakes (and, in my view, this is especially true of blogs). I'm not a great reader of blogs, in fact I tend to avoid them like the plague. That said, as I indicated above, Ed West's Telegraph blog seems fairly cogent, but it remains a blog. Your rather sarcastic query to me (no offence taken, I like a bit of sarcasm) is an interesting one, but rather wide-ranging. Personally, I would not place much reliance on anything that has not appeared in the paper version, but I'm an old-fashioned hard copy reader! Your comments in parentheses actually get to the crux of the issue: what is libertarianism? As a political scientist I obviously can't agree with your dark ages comment, but I would repeat what has been said many times before in this discussion and its forebears, and that is that we seek the gold standard of acceptable Misplaced Pages resources, i.e. references from peer-reviewed journals that state that UKIP is libertarian and explain why. Unfortunately, that means waiting for someone at such a journal to step out of the dark ages! (Or it may never happen because UKIP is not libertarian......?) In the meantime, as I said before, the article does say that UKIP claims to be libertarian. Emeraude (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

The Ideology of UKIP is complex, I've read UKIP's manifesto and it does appear that the party has a libertarian and traditional or social conservative elements in the party's ideology. It does not appear their are any right-wing populist elements to the manifesto. So I would strongly recommend that UKIP's Ideology is changed.(CatCalledJim (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

TheUKIP manifesto is a primary source and therefore only useful when discussing their own published take. There are multitudes of reliable secondary sources that disagree with it and they get primacy here. GimliDotNet 05:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, a primary source is only useful when discussing their own published take. However, there are many secondary sources which do view UKIP as libertarian, social conservative and traditional conservative. I can only see two ideologies on the article, so I believe it would be beneficial to the article to add those ideologies or similar ideologies to UKIP's Ideology.(CatCalledJim (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

Dozens of editors have tried umpteen times to include "libertarianism" in the ideology field of the infobox - none of them has ever been able to cite one single independent reliable source which categorises UKIP as libertarian. The archives of this talk page are full with the discussions regarding this issue. --RJFF (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I get the distinct feeling that this is the start of another attempt to draw editors into a long-drawn out and ultimately pointless discussion into UKIP's political position. See "Not Libertarianism section" above, which had us all bogged down thanks to the intransigence of one person who refused to accept reliable sources, wiki policies etc etc. I wonder if CatCalledJim has read that; if he has he is wasting our time. If he hasn't he ought to before wasting our time with his own personal beliefs and sythesis of doubtful (for these purposes) primary sources. Emeraude (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Home and Libertarian Meetups both view UKIP as a libertarian party. UKIP is not Right-Wing Populist, and I am sure you cannot find any reliable source which views UKIP as Right-Wing Populist. I also believe that either traditional conservative or social conservative needs to be added to the ideology. More to the point, there are only two ideologies on UKIP's article.(CatCalledJim (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

The reliable sources which verify that UKIP is right-wing populist are already cited in the article. Libertarian Home and Libertarian Meetups are no neutral reliable sources. If the relevant literature describes UKIP's ideology with only two categories, than these have to stand alone. We can't just invent more descriptors, or do WP:original research (like analysing the party's programme by ourselves, as you proposed). --RJFF (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That source claiming UKIP is Right-Wing Populist was in fact very short and insignificant. However, it may be a good idea for Populism to be added to UKIP's Ideology. Libertarian Home and Libertarian Meetups are reliable, their only unneutral in the sense that they are both staunchly libertarian, both organisations view UKIP as libertarian. On the subject of traditional or social conservatism, Daily Mail journalist Nick Wood views UKIP as traditional conservative and has written articles on traditional conservatives defecting to UKIP. I feel there is some cherry-picking going on when deciding which source is right, reliable or neutral.(CatCalledJim (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

I don't agree that a 15 pages academic source in an Oxford journal is "very short and insignificant". I guess that every source that you don't like will be considered "insignificant" by you. There are criteria for WP:Identifying reliable sources and if you are in doubt you can let sources be checked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --RJFF (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the section which only claimed UKIP is Right-Wing Populist. With all due respect, I do think their is quite a lot of cherry-picking when deciding which source to use, because I think you know that there are many reliable sources which view UKIP as libertarian and traditional conservative.(CatCalledJim (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

After reading WP:Identifying reliable sources I have a reliable source by a journalist which highlights UKIP as traditional conservative. (CatCalledJim (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

Now the Daily Mail is on the same level as an Oxford Journal. Interesting. How about some actual academic sources? Ah, right, they don't support your point of view. Too bad. --RJFF (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To make it short: as you can see from the archives of this page, dozens of editors have tried for years to find a single adequate reliable source that would verify that UKIP is a libertarian party. Obviously, they don't exist. On the other hand there are enough sources to verify that UKIP is right-wing populist. Better stop wasting your time. --RJFF (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Let him continue wasting his time if he wants. But don't let him waste ours! Emeraude (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a decided body of opinion that suggests that UKIP should be described as "the BNP in blazers" (do a Google search on the phrase). For example, Melissa Kite ("Ukip hopes to climb out of the wilderness", Daily Telegraph, 30 May 2009) reports Robert Kilroy-Silk calling them: "bloody Right-wing fascist nutters", David Cameron valling them "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" and Andrea Berardi, "an Open University lecturer from Naples, is worried by what he sees as a rise in the Far Right", accuses Ukip of being "the BNP in blazers". Andy McSmith in The Independent ("Ukip surfs the rising tide of protest in South", 1 June 2009) writes: "The Independent appropriately described its members as "the BNP in blazers"." And, "So is this little more than the BNP in blazers, as its critics suggest," asked Gaby Hinsliff in The Observer ("It feels like the BNP - only in blazers", 30 May 2004). Much better sourced that libertarian. Emeraude (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to promote UKIP, I am simply here to improve this article and Misplaced Pages's reliability when it comes to politics. I feel the way some people are treating me is unprofessional and disrespectful. I don't see why the decisions on changing this article should be in the hands of some people who have no respect for any new ideas which they disagree with. Saying that I am "wasting my time" and saying "too bad" I find is sarcastic in a provocative way.(CatCalledJim (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

I didn't mean to provoke you and I am sorry if I did. But indeed you are wasting your time and ours, because this issue has been discussed ever and ever again during the last years. Please take a look in the archives and search them for "libertarian". See? The current state of the article, especially the introductory sentence and the infobox, already is the result of dozens of discussions and disputes. Believe me: umpteen editors before you have tried to find reliable sources verifying that UKIP is a libertarian party. If they all have failed despite trying very hard, I have to believe that these sources do not exist.

UKIP claims to be libertarian, and some people outside UKIP may believe this, but the political scientists who publish studies on UKIP do not confirm it, but classify UKIP as a right-wing populist party. As long as the party's claim is not acknowledged by a single independent scholar doing research on this party, Misplaced Pages cannot acknowledge it either, because Misplaced Pages is based on independent, third party, reliable sources, and not on parties' self-portrayals.

The article is based on neutral and reliable sources. And these sources say that it is a Eurosceptic and right-wing populist party. With adding something that is not supported by neutral, reliable sources, you will not improve the neutrality or reliability of the article. --RJFF (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time in that a self righteous tag team of bias editors have been working together for ages to ensure that this article is always skewed to their bias pov. Until wikipedia can be protected against this sort of abuse it will always continue and outisde input will never be welcome. They cherry pick then tag team edit any changes and team up to shout down any opposition. The ring leaders of this little propaganda outfit are emeraude, rjff, one night in hackney, snowded and a couple of others. Emeraude in particular seems to be actively dropping all pretence at neutrality as late and is slipping his mask, hence the pig ignorant remarks here and the outright anti-ukip statements (farage is bonkers, bnp in blazers. etc) elsewhere. Ukip's recent popularity has got these deluded pseudo socialist cyber warriors terrified and they think misinformation on a wiki page will change that. This happens on many, many articles with different tag teams pushing pov and getting their rocks off. Pity them in their wasted lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.84 (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for the above remarks to remain - they provide a suitable comment on the writer's attitude to collaborative working within Misplaced Pages. "Pig ignorant" is pretty rich coming from someone who refuses to accept what is meant by consensus, reliable sources, wiki policy and who generally does not recognise a sense of humour when it crops up. His previous edits (see, for example ) resulted in a warning and tell us all we need to know. Add to that his claiming that I called Farage "bonkers" (when the first use of the word on the page is his) and that I called UKIP the "BNP in blazers" (I didn't, I quoted others who did) mark him for what he is and show he doesn't even read properly. Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"deluded pseudo socialist cyber warrior"! Moi? Emeraude (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources on why UKIP is libertarian: . Or maybe a more suitable ideology to add would be Libertarian conservatism.(CatCalledJim (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Please read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:BLOGS. Please compare the sources you propose to the ones already cited in the article. The former are blog entries, the latter are academic sources by political scientists, published by universities and reputable peer-reviewed journals. --RJFF (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You could debate that any source could be unreliable and not neutral. I could argue that the source claiming UKIP is right-wing populist is not neutral as the source has come only from Oxford. I have seen many sources on this article which have been derived from newspapers, it would be very unfair to say that I am limited to sources which only are "academic sources by political scientists, published by universities and reputable peer-reviewed journals". I feel there is a sense of cherry-picking going on when deciding which source to use.(CatCalledJim (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Neutrality plays no part in a source's reliability. You can have two opposing sources of equal reliability. The general rule on reliability is that the greater the scrutiny a source comes under prior to publication, the more reliable it is considered to be. A peer reviewed paper is generally of high reliability as it has been considered by subject matter experts. Newspapers vary in editorial quality and their ability to check facts, so judgements can be made on their relative reliability. Self published sources come under no prior scrutiny and are not considered reliable except in limited circumstances when referring to themselves. The Backbencher and Libertarian Home blogs appear to be self published sources while Peter Hitchens blog appears to be an opinion piece. Road Wizard (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting my blog, though a more reliable source might be Harry Aldridge of the party's youth organisation claiming, on video , that he is libertarian. Though I was skeptical as to the effectiveness of the party's libertarian positioning in practice. --62.173.203.142 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets not forget UKIP is still a relatively small party in British politics, so there wont be many peer-reviewed papers on UKIP. There are no peer-reviewed papers claiming UKIP is not libertarian. The article on the Green party shows that the party's ideology has Republicanism in there ideology, and there certainly no peer-reviewed papers claiming the Greens are Republican, but because the Green Party itself says they are Republican their article has it down. Because UKIP has said it is libertarian it would be right for Libertarianism to be added to the ideology.(CatCalledJim (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

On the contrary, there is a large number of peer reviewed journal articles on UKIP. Many have been listed on this discussion page previously. None says that UKIP is libertarian. Those that give a specific position all say right wing and most say populist. Journals are not easy to access without a subscription, which is why I listed some books not two weeks ago (see above, almost last posting under "Not Libertarianism") which also describe UKIP as right wing populist. They don't say libertarian (or any fancy type of libertarianism). Once again, please go back over this talk page, revise what makes a reliable source and what doesn't and then either come up with a citable source or stop wasting everyone's time rehashing old issues. Emeraude (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (aka deluded pseudo socialist cyber warrior)

Sanitized article ?

This article seems to whitewash the more controversial aspects of UKIP, such as its links with the BNP and EDF and its members views on race. There are academic sources (e.g. Sim, Stuart (2006). Empires of belief: why we need more scepticism and doubt in the twenty-first century. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 109. ISBN 9780748623266.) which describe UKIP as a racist, extremist, organisation, and the significant body of work which suggests that UKIP really belongs on the far right of the British political spectrum is not incorporated into the article. I do not suggest that this is how we should explicitly portray UKIP, but the fact that it is viewed in this way by some political scientists suggests that this is a valid viewpoint worth discussion in the article. The party's anti-Islam stance, a major part of its platform, is barely discussed.--Claritas § 09:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but you risk joining the ranks of the "deluded pseudo socialist cyber warriors" (see above) for even thinking it. Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC) aka deluded pseudo socialist cyber warrior

I have never heard such stories about UKIP so i'm assuming that it may be a fringe view. Then again I don't really follow the party, but have never heard anything like this in any press or media. Mabuska 17:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fringe view. There are plenty of academic sources available which expose UKIPs links with the far right. Check the book above for a start, or go for a quick GoogleBooks search for "UKIP Extreme" or something similar. --Claritas § 23:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues. Massively bias wiki editors pushing to smear other parties. What a shock.87.112.170.123 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Other parties? Other than....? You accuse editors of being "massively bias" (sic) - this is a direct personal attack, contrary to Misplaced Pages ethos, and demands an apology. Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Members or former members of the BNP are forbidden from joining UKIP according to its manifesto so I would describe Mr Stuart's position as untenable at best. --94.173.22.24 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW? Worth nothing at all, since none of the manifestos on UKIP's website mention the BNP!! Perhaps you meant the membership application form, which does say that members of former members of British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People's Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party are banned. But that is in response to exposures over the years about fascists joining UKIP, exactly as described by Stuart et al. Richard Corbett, former MEP, was one of the first to describe these links in 25 things you didn’t know when you voted for UKIP which shows that even UKIP parliamentary candidates have been former members of these parties. Interestingly, UKIP does not seem to proscribe New Britain Party, but since even UKIP's leaders and MEPs (e.g. Jeffrey Titford, Michael Nattrass) have been members we should not be surprised.Emeraude (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I meant the 'terms and conditions of membership'. Thank you for pointing out my heinous error. Perhaps you might acknowledge ('membership application form') thine own?! --94.173.22.24 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm loving your neutrality by the way. Very repfreshing and just how an encyclopaedia should be. You're not related to Joyce Thacker by any chance, are you? --94.173.22.24 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No error on my part. I was quoting from the small print on the membership application form on their website, which lists those seven parties and asks applicants to certify that they are not a member of either of them. . Emeraude (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Most POV article ever

I have read a few seriously pov articles on non-English wiki pages but this takes the absolute biscuit. I am returning the article to a semblance of neutrality, if any editor has an issue with that discuss it here, do not revert my edits without consensus. Twobells (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Just who do you think you are? Editors are free to revert and discuss changes as they see fit. Please do not issue ultimatums regardless of how well intentioned your edits are. GimliDotNet 11:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is the product of well-discussed (often at inordinate length) consensus. Coming along and unilaterally declaring thet this is the most POV article ever (who are you to say? UKIP member?) and threatening any editors who may revert you is contrary to just about everything WIkipedia stands for. Emeraude (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the most pov article I have ever read, using negativity in place of neutrality. If you continue to revert edits I will have the article locked. Twobells (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And just how will you do that? We work by consensus not threats. GimliDotNet 12:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is what I mentioned in my opening, from the disputed notice it is obvious there is no consensus so please return the article to a neutral position. An editor has reverted yet again without consensus, I am calling for a lock. Twobells (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If Twobells has an opinion on the neutrality of the article - having read all the previous discussions here - we could discuss it further. We should obviously make sure we don't descend into edit warring, which is what could happen if major edits are not discussed here first. Starting off a discussion by describing an article as POV, when it has clearly developed through the edits of numerous good faith editors, is likely to be counter-productive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The article does need some work, but it's not the most pov article on wikipedia. Unfortunately most editors who come here claiming it is not neutral are POV pushing themselves. Neutrality does not mean publishing a pro-UKIP article it means representing how they appear in mainstream reliable sources. GimliDotNet 12:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have got to the edit warring stage. I've warned Twobells. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert the article, protection has been requested. Twobells (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The request you have made is meaningless. Semi-protection only affects Anons and Newly-registered users. One more revert and you will be reported to administrators for violating WP:3RR GimliDotNet 12:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on this article, there is a tag team of bias editors who forced it into the heavy pov article that it is. This tag team is now pushing to gain a "consensus" (ha ha) to make it even more bias with the usual utter lies and smears. This is all a result of the surge in UKIP popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.138.37 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to say Twobells has a point here! Phrases such as "Right-wing populist can only be described as biased libertarian is a fairer description, this is how the party is officially constituted. Please bear in mind that Libertarian is written into the constitution of UKIP and the constitution is a legal written document, written by lawyers hired in by UKIP, the part leader and the NEC have not written the constitution, real bonified lawyers have! Other places describe UKIP as Libertarian, admittedly not the EU and Jose Barrosso, he of course prefers the term populist and can be quoted as having said this on a number of occasions! To have an opening paragraph and an ideology description such as this I'm afraid shows extreme bias! Very disapointed wikipedia! We don't want this page to be an advert, neither a positiv one or indeed a negative one. We want a fair encyclopedia entry, I hope thats not too much to ask from a website that claims to be an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This argument has been done to death, and you are not adding anything to it by re-hashing the same old POV pushing agenda. 3rd Party sources count, not what UKIP describes as itself. GimliDotNet 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So you don't even accept that aopening sentence for the main introductory paragraph is in any way biased or written in negative manner, I quote: "UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons, but has three members in the unelected House of Lords, all of which are as a result of defections by Conservative peers." Is that written in a positive or negative fashion? I'm not asking for a positive fashion, I'm asking for neutrality, that sentence is not neutral and neither is a lot of what is on this page! Once again wikipedia is showing political bias! I do not want a positive article, if I want that I'll got to the UKIP website, I want impartiality from a supposed impartial source! Also I really can't see how you justify the term "right-wing populist". It's a case of being selective with your sources, apparently legal documents aren't suitible sources....fine. It's incredibly odd and unorthadox but if wiki doesn't want to recogise the rule of law, thats fine! Also what about all the examples of other sources that have been brought to wiki's attention, only to be dismissed. If you don't like Libertarian as a description then try and find a better one. Libertarian is certainly more appropriate than right-wing populist out of those 2 options. What about neo-Libertarian, I'm tryng to be constructive here but all you can do is be dismissive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If you'd care to read the sections below you will see I am attempting to get a better start for the opening paragraph. UKIPs legal documents have nothing to do with how we describe the party here. Find 3rd party sources describing them as libertarian and it can be added. As it stands populist right-wing is well sourced and backed up by multiple sources too. GimliDotNet 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

People are very selective with sourcing, for example all 3of the sources used to back up the claim that UKIP are "right-wingpopulist" come from pro-EU sources, blatent biased, one of the sources is actually from the European Union's own website, how can that be a credible source, of course they are going to use deflamatory terms! There is no sense of fair play or accurate reporting on wikipedia. I use to think there were sufficient safe guards but clearly their are not, it's all down to editorial opinion, just like a newspaper! I can not see any reaon why wikipedia should keep this incredibly biased term. I personally find it insulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Resposne to above: That's pretty good of you to accuse the EU of being biased - would you by any chance be a UKIP supporter? Seriously, you are stating a case with no evidence to back it up. You say that "all 3of the sources.....come from pro-EU sources" with no evidence of that at all. And, as it happens, none of them "is actually from the European Union's own website". One is from a peer-reviewed journal, the 'gold standard' for Wikipdeia citations. Please get your facts right, then try again. But before you do, be aware that there is nothing "deflamatory" (did you mean 'defamatory' or 'inflamatory'?) about the term right wing populism - it is a precisely understood description of political position and style. Emeraude (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've aready said I'm a UKIP supporter! I'm being open and honest abutit, so please don't try and pull that card. I'm simply arguing for an unbiased article. For starters "http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/unitedkingdom.html" as a web address sounds pretty official to me, what more look at the author a bit closer, he is known for being fiercly pro-EU! Note I say pro-EU and not pro-European, I'm pro-European, I love Europe and it's diverse culture, I just object to polictial and economic union and that is that party's stance! The second source from Parliamentary Affairs is also questionable, just look at the way it's been written, also it's hardly a well renowned credible source! What's more Lundberg has written for the EU Commission before see: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/legal-metrology-and-prepack/files/r44_en.pdf I think this shows where his loyalties lie! As for the third source, that is not even accessible which emidiately invalidates it, also the author is a pro-EU writer, Giacomo Benedetto argues for EU "Fiscal Fderalism", again we can see how his impartiallity might be comprimised when refering to UKIP. There we have it, not one of these sources is uncomprimised, authored by people that oppose UKIP. All we want is a fair hearing and for wikipedia not to behave like a newspaper, wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia! Also if you want to try and insult someone who's a bit dyslexic about their spelling, by all means carry on, it really doesn't bother me. Your just making yourself out to be the sort of people you claim that we are. All I'm asking for is fair treatment. Just read the opening paragraph of this page, it's written very negatively "UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons" as an opening sentence is not a neutral statement, it plantsa negative seed straight away. I don't want a positive one, just a neutral one. I fully accept that what is written is a fact but it is not written in an appropriate manner for an encyclopedia! Please reconsider! I was trying to play nice enitially, both on this page and the Rotherham by election page but I do feel that people are deliberately trying to word things for the purposes of sabotage! Thats a concern I'd like to see addressed sensibly, instead of just shutting down debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying a cabal of editors is deliberately mis-representing UKIPs position is not debating. There is a section below on how to address concerns over the opening paragraph - Why don't some of you anons join in that debate rather than try mud-slinging here? I notice two bells got the article locked and then has show zero interest in joining the debate. GimliDotNet 06:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, Twobells should not have behaved so rashly but I'm not Twobells am I! I can understand why he behaved the way he did but once again it wasn't the right thing to do! Also I know the opening paragraph is being debated, what I am arguing for is for the entire article to be rewritten, it's not just one or 2 things, it needs to be rewritten by someone impartial not by people like me and not by people like yourself and previous editors, this is not a newspaper! We need someone impartial to start again! The reason we get the impression UKIP are being mis-represented is because for years now this has being going on! If anything is ever questioned people are emidiatly shut down and in some cases abused, I'm sorry but that's just not nice! A lot of people are fed up with trying to debate with people who behave like this and they get so wound up they end up behaving like that themselves and behave worsely! Try and treat people like human beings please, it's not a lot to ask! In behaving like this you (you collectively not you personally) are engaging in he exact form of biggotry that you accuse UKIP of engaging in. Just think about it for a bit, I'm trying to explain why some of us get so adjitated on here and behave a bit out of character, I hope this gets through to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has accused UKIP of being bigots, I personally voted for them in the recent PCC elections. The problem is UKIP are described by the vast majority of sources as right-wing and populist. The Libertarian label is one they apply to themselves, which if you read the history of the debates above I have supported including. GimliDotNet 09:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point but ask yourself if hese sources have comprimised their partiallity? Sources from renouned pro-EU writers are bound to describe UKIP in as unfavourable way as possible. Look above, I have pointed this out, sources from people who have done work for the EU commission makes them biased, they have an interest in this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fostering Row

I don't see how the Fostering Row is notable enough for it's own section, we're not a not a news site. It needs to gain far wider significance before being included. GimliDotNet 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be deserving of a brief mention once the dust has settled, but for the time being it is impossible for any of us to present a neutral point of view as new information is emerging. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem in laying out the facts in a neutral manner now, with time the section can be laid out. Twobells (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It fails WP:NOTABLE for now. We don't have enough facts to condense it into a coherent neutral encyclopaedic entry. GimliDotNet 12:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the article is being locked. Twobells (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact this scandall has gained more coverage and as been more wider reaching than Nigel Farage's controversey with Prince Charles....sense of proportion. If you ask me this entire page neds rewritting, it is embaracingly biased in places.... I mean "right-wing populism" as the title for their ideology is quite inaccurate and unfair. No this article is very biasd based on people being very selective with their sources. I have now got zero confidence in the impartiality of Misplaced Pages! Misplaced Pages will happily report negatives about UKIP with no sense of balance. How sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A balanced view cannot be possibly be provided until results of the enquiries are published, we haven't heard "the case for the defence" though even then I expect significant facts will remain confidential. See WP:NOTNEWS JRPG (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It should not have escaped anyone's notice that there is a by-election in progress in Rotherham at the moment. Most of the comment on this story is blatant electioneering and seems almost entirely based on what the UKIP foster parents say they were told; next to nothing from Rotherham Council's social care dept.. This is a live news story and we should not cover it until the dust settles, and even then it may turn out to be a lot less significant than Nigel Farage ("prejudice" and "discrimination" against UKIP, which opposes multiculturalism?) and other politicians are saying. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been suggested that UKIP leaked what was obviously a confidential matter to the Telegraph. Whatever, it's clearly been built up as electioneering froth rather than as a serious issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fact check, UKIP did not leak anything, it was Rotherham Borough Council that brought this story to the news. It was the parents themselves that contacted the telegraph, this is why the Telegraph has their version of events in their own words. UKIP did not leak this story, stop making things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither source (UKIP leak/Rotheram Leak) address the issue that his is a local incident that needs to gain more widespread significance before being included. If if becomes notable we can then add it in, using 3rd parties information rather than drawing our own conclusion. If this were a negative story about UKIP would you be as keen to put information up before facts where truly known? GimliDotNet 06:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons - lets get concensus

Currently the article opens with

UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons, but has three members in the unelected House of Lords, all of which are as a result of defections by Conservative peers. It also has 12 seats in the European Parliament, which is a reduction from 13 won in 2009 because of defections, but with one gained from the defection of Roger Helmer from the Conservative Party. UKIP currently holds one seat on the Northern Ireland Assembly due to a defection from former Ulster Unionist Party MLA David McNarry in October 2012.

This could be re-written as something along the lines of

UKIP has 12 seats in the European Parliament and three members in the House of Lords - all defections by Conservative peers. It is yet to win a seat to the House of Commons. UKIP currently holds one seat on the Northern Ireland Assembly due to a defection from former Ulster Unionist Party MLA David McNarry in October 2012.

This is a slightly less negative view point. GimliDotNet 12:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems fairSlatersteven (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Stricty speaking not all are defections of conservative peers, one was a crossbencher for over a decade, makes it a bit different really! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happier with a shorter version: "UKIP has 12 seats in the European Parliament following the 2009 elections. It also has three members in the House of Lords, and one seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly, all of which are the result of defections by members of other parties." There's no need to say what parties they are from, and no need to say either that they "have never" or that they "have not yet" won a parliamentary election - either of which could convey a non-neutral meaning. When in doubt, leave it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wish to register my approval of this new sentence, I feel it is neutral (neither positive or negative), nice to see some progress on this, even if it is small, it's something! So thankyou for being reasonable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So whats happening about this? Were discussing one opening paragraph! This entire encyclopedia entry is written like a newspaper, need to pick up the pace a bit here! Also Ghmyrtle, I've just realised who you are, you have an account on yahooanswers under the name Myrtle , I recognise your writting style and well I can just tell it's you! I really think it is wholly inappropriate that you have any futher involvement in this entry on the basis that you have expressed political views online that have compromised your impartiallity with regard to this article! I have seen you slag off UKIP before, that is perfectly fine on YahooAnswers, that is your right if you choose to use it but this is not the place for it. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Heres an article of what Myrtle has asked as a question: [[Banks are the cathedrals of capitalism ...................? Then isnt it a tad unfair these private enterprise, free market, capitalist, bloodsuckers are saved by socialist policies - the tax payer are keeping them afloat. YET - most other businesses are left to sink. while the bankers rake in the bonus pay.]] Now this sounds like someone who is very anti-capitalist full stop, perhaps social-democrats are too "right-wing" for you as you might see it! The truth of the matter people from UKIP are sympathetic to the anger associated with this kind of thing but have different ways of dealing with things! The problem is that people like Myrtle are emidiatly anti-UKIP because they're trying to save capitalism, whereas really Myrtle wants it too fail. Personally I just want a system that works and for this article to be written by someone impartial, that rules both myself and Myrtle(Ghmyrtle) out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not me. I can 100% guarantee that I don't have an account on Yahoo, have never posted there, and have never made those comments. So I suggest you withdraw that claim, per WP:NPA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% convinced either way, I'd like to see it looked in to if you are to have any further editorial input, just so that we can be 100% sure either way. I have no personal grievance with you, I don't wish to discredit you, I'm sure most of your contributions are perfecty valid and impartial and it might well be the case tat it isn't you, in which case I'd owe you a full appology and retract any suggestion of this being you! However we are not 100% sure at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It says under "Myrtel"'s account (note spelling, by the way), that he says: "My knowledge base is Consumer Law and Boxing. I have helped numerous people over the years on consumer issues and never lost a case when challenging any seller. I was an Amateur boxer and trainer." If you can find the remotest trace of evidence that I, ghmyrtle, have any interest in, or knowledge of, either consumer law or boxing, I will immediately renounce my membership of whatever political organisation you think I am a member of. (Which will be very easy for me to do, as I'm not a member of any.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Re your post, who are "we", exactly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what we can do to prove this either way, like I say I'm dyslexic and a bit of a technophobe so don't know/understand how you can verify these things. As for "We" we well if you refering to me, it's people that aren't militantly against capitalism and if it's you (not 100% either way if it is you) then it's people who are! I just want to reiterate that I accept it might well not be you but I have had my reservations about your partiality in all of this, other contributors have been more pragmatic and not dead against including certain things, there has been a sense of balance by accepting quotations from all parties. You don't seem so willing, so this is where my suspicions come from and you just reminded me of this person, in the way this person answers political questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Verification is not going to happen. What you are doing is a personal attack. What someone does outside of wikipedia with other accounts is irrelevant. The only behaviour that matters is what goes on here. I suggest you withdraw this accusation before it goes too far GimliDotNet 06:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it has already gone too far. Emeraude (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that we don't know either way but for the sake of peace I'll say I'm not making allegations and say my suggestions was simply me thinking a loud and that it should not be taken as an allegation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "I've just realised who you are, you have an account on yahooanswers under the name Myrtle, I recognise your writting style and well I can just tell it's you!" Quote: "ou have expressed political views online that have compromised your impartiallity." Quote: "I have seen you slag off UKIP before." Seem like allegations to me.

Quote: "we don't know either way" Quote: "if it's you (not 100% either way if it is you)" Quote: "I'm not 100% convinced either way" Doesn't sound like contrition. There is still a matter of a personal attack to be resolved here. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And outing (almost) this has to be dealt with now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP should read WP:OUTING GimliDotNet 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source from a member of the mainstream media stating that UKIP are Libertarian, I don't see why people can't accept this! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100191811/ukip-are-libertarian-theyre-also-conservative-pro-free-trade-and-anti-mass-immigration-and-theyre-coherent/

Personally I'm fed up with all of this as I'm sure you all are but I'm going to stand my ground! I don't want a fight but when people react the way they do on here, it brings out another side of me that is completely out of character and aggressive. You tend to find that with a lot of UKIP supporters, we feel enraged with how we've been treated and it kind of takes over. We should know better, I know. What I'm trying to say to Ghmyrtle is I'm sorry if I have caused you ny offence, that was never my intention and please don't take my comment as an accusation because it's not and just to be sure I retract the implication! I was thinking aloud! All I want is a fair crack and you have been so obstructive, no other editor on this page has behaved like that, your clearly not neutral and neither am I! Other editors have demonstrated balance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No improvement. You are still accusing an editor who preceded your original rant with a perfectly reasonable comment of being "clearly not neutral", with no basis for that at all. You can only make such a comment based on the accusation you made from an external source. For that, you were clearly wrong, but it should not have been made in the first place. You have still to apologise for your behaviour ("sorry if I have caused you ny offence" does not cover it). And seeing as you claim not to be neutral...... Emeraude (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I'm not scared of admitting when I've done wrong, I was just trying to explain why I said what I said, why I got irate etc! For further clarification, I whole heartedy appologise for my comments, I clearly have no evidence for such an accusation, therefore I withdraw any implication of an allegation! I appologise for getting irate, aggressive, loosing my temper and getting emotional. Generally it is not within my character to do so, I over reacted, I felt ganged up so, so I fought back! For that I am also sorry! As far as Ghmyrtle's partiality is concerned, I can only say that my opinion is based on that feeling of feeling like I've been percicuted! I have found other editors on this page that have been willing to try and work forwards in this. Ghmyrtle changed their mind part way through a discussion which has blocked further progress. I suggest that this could either be that he/she has something against UKIP or against me. Either of which are understandable, everyone's entightled to their poitical views and everyone's entightled to dislike whoever they like! I can see how I'm responsible for Ghmyrtle disliking me, my over reacting (out of character) makes that perfectly understandable. I'm happy to make a further retraction if I can be assured that we're going to be able to move on, get on with fixing this entry and that everyone get's a fair crack, i.e. that a simple majority can't use their collective will to discriminate. That's all I've wanted all along - a fair crack, and well I don't feel I/my cause has 100% had that. That is not to say that I have found some editors to be great and in my view perfectly neutral (or as near to perfect as possible)! Can we move on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just read through all of this and well it's concerning to say the least! Editors do seem to have been deliberately pushing our guests buttons! Yes, editors have the last word but that doesn't give us a right to act like this. As for the IP user; Please refrain from this behaviour! I understand the point your tryng to make and it will be heard! However, you do not get a "fair-crack" via the mean you have been using! I hope your retractions are genuine and I hope other editors ake heed of them! Let's call that an end to all the biterness!

Right then, what we going to about this article? If I'm honest I have to say it's one of the worsed and most impartial I've ever read! The IP makes the point about the opening paragraph... we should hang our heads in shame that it's been like this for so long! Lets sort it! Nick Dancer comment added by Nick Dancer (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Er...what's the difference between an editor with a name and an editor with an IP? None. So what's your point? Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But to get to businesss, please indicate which IP you are referring to and suggest, at risk of going over old ground, exactly what you (and whichever IP) object to in the first paragraph, which to avoid to much back clicking I reproduce here in its entirety:

"The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is a Eurosceptic right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party".
Emeraude (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, firstly if you've not been bothered to get a sign on then I don't think people have as much respect for your contributions. That at least seems to be the way they get treated. But also in fairness, if they've not bothered to get a sign on, how important do they think it is to make wiki contributions? Both as it happens. I didn't actually check the IP numbers, I just assumed it was 1 person! Well specifically, I think an opening paragraph such as this is shockingly biased e.g. "UKIP has never won a seat in the House of Commons...." is an incredibly negative and (seemingly dliberetly so) way to start any article! Also, I think the term "right-wing populists" is bad, this is a political slur, as pointed out, used by the party's most powerful opponent, the President of the EC! Populism is a subjective term, what is popular depends on ones opinion! I have to say I agree with theaove rewrite and think it should be changed to that! Also in fairness the party is constituted as a Libertarian party. Political party constitutions are legally binding documents, written by lwayers, not politicians and I think really this needs some recognition. I get why there are objections to this being out right labeled as an ideology (wiki policy or at least precedents seem to ignore this part of the law) but I don't see why we can't put: "The UK Independence Party is a Eurosceptic political party in the United Kingdom. The party is legally constituted as a democratic, libertarian party." I really don't get what's wrong withthat for an opening sentence. And then we can also add the drafted paragraph from above to replace the second one. Can we have some agreement on this?Nick Dancer (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Nick Dancer (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very careful where you are going with this, saying we are ignoring the law is verging on WP:NLT. Misplaced Pages policy is very clear on the point, UKIPs constitution is not the source we go to when describing it's ideology. We use WP:SECONDARY and even WP:TERTIARY sources. I agree that UKIP's view of itself should be in the article but not as the defining text. For example they are not Libertarian in social policy (against gay marriage, pro-monarchy etc) so their constitution is not consistent. GimliDotNet 06:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone on wiki of breaking the law, I'm merely saying that wikipedia's policy seems to be to ignore a legally binding document! For instance UKIP are unable to have a policy that discriminates on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. In order to do so they must 1st change their constitution! Labour had to repeal Clause IV of their's so that they could change the policy of nationalising state utilities and railways! Your over simplifying things if your saying that UKIP are against gay marriage! There only against gay marriage (for now) because there isn't a seperation between church and state and that means that rulings from the ECHR and ECJ could potentially mean individual churches could loose their marriage liscences if they refuse a same sex couple solely on those grounds. Look at what happened with women and car insurance, it folows the same precedent on their discrimination policy! Your over simplifying things! This is not inconsistent, it is anti-libertarian to take liberty away from others, in order to give more liberty to one other group! Libertarians believe in striving for equal liberty, given our current legal framework, to legalise gay marriage would be anti-libertarian! Also don't know if you've noticed but all 3of the main parties are pro-monarchy! Our monarchy is ceremonial, your argument is weak! As far as things like extraditions go, they have sided with people like Shami Chakrabarti, head of liberty UK! Also allowing smoking in pubs and aloing fox hunting are also libertarian! Libertarianism is about freedom of choice, having the liberty to do what you like and be who you are! Libertarians don't believe morals should be determined by government, if you want to chase a fox on a sunday afternoon, that should be a matter of personal conscience! I think it's stupid personally but Libertarians don't believe in dictating morals! They believe if people are given more responsibility, they will learn to be more responsible! I suggest you read up on Libertarianism, you don't seem to know what it is! Look I could go through the whole manifesto with you if you want! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dancer (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the three main parties do not describe themselves as libertarian. This legal document argument is meaningless nonsense, a parties constitution cannot be discriminatory - but it is not legally binding in terms of left/right leanings GimliDotNet 12:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you want to put right-wing on here, I really don't care! What I'm objecting to is the term populism, it is subjective and opinion based! As far as Libertarianism goes. I'm not even arguing it get's put down as an official ideology, I'm not, so get that out your head! I'm simply saying instead of putting "The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party"". We put "The party is constituted as democratic, libertarian party." Which it is, there's no use of the word legal in that phrase or anything like that, it simply replaces "describes it's self as" with "is constituted as", that's all. It's more accurate at any rate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dancer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RJFF has removed an edit that can only be assumed to have consensus since this talk page has been silent for a week. I will do a partial reverted edit to try and address this indivisuals concerns! Please come to talk pag before reverting edits to a discussed section. Nick 00:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This new edit is much better than the earlier one you did, RJFF was right reverting your previous edit as that was completely against consensus. GimliDotNet 07:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit protect

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add libertarian to the Ideology section of the infobox. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I changed it to "libertarianism", though, to match the other items, and I also gave it a wikilink. Let me know if this wasn't what you intended. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 03:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now please delete it again. This has been discussed ad nauseam (see above at Not Libertarianism and extensively in the archive for this page) and there is no justification for it. Indeed, it has been the subject of long-running edit wars, usually when anonymous IP editors turn up, make the change, get reverted, revert back, refuse to consider reasoned argument about reliable sources etc. Now, it seems, with the article locked, someone can just turn up, ask for libertarian to be added, no discussion, in it goes. Disgusting. Emeraude (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As for the cited source, this is what it says: "United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP): A libertarian political party, founded in 1993, whose main goal is the UK's withdrawal from the EU, on the basis that the latter has destroyed the country's political sovereignty." That's it in total. In the Glossary on p 541. It is the only mention of UKIP in the whole book - the index to this 576 page work does not list UKIP at all. The book is for trainee social workers and the like, not political scientists. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
• As someone who apparently has seen it all on this issue, you could perhaps enlighten me on whether the Edinburgh University Press book by Chris Robinson ever came up in all of these discussions. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No I can't. To be honest, I can't be arsed to go back through archives going over and over the same old ground. Emeraude (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you mrstradivarius for finally sorting out the ideology tags. Please ignore the anti-libertarian tag loons. They have been tag teaming to keep this article heavily biased to their pov on ukip, rather than neutral, for ages. Their was never a consensus to their pov, as is claimed above.146.90.35.186 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done And removed again. My apologies - if I had my brain more tightly screwed on I would have realised that there obviously wasn't a consensus for that edit. Perhaps it is time to take this dispute to WP:DRN? — Mr. Stradivarius 15:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Emeraude (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this section in

Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament

UKIP do not currently have any representatives in the other devolved nations of Scotland or Wales. UKIP fielded 29 candidates at the Scottish Parliament election on 5 May. The party also fielded candidates in the Welsh Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.177.208 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 November 2012‎

Why add non information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.228.252 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't non-information.. This is information as to the strategy of the party in devolved institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.177.208 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So what you're looking for is a sentence like: UKIP has fielded candidates in elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; as of 2012, none have been elected. That's all it needs, and that would be OK with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a fine statement. Please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.177.208 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2012‎ (UTC)

 Administrator note Please reactivate request when the wording has been agreed on. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have deactivated the {{editprotected}} template again. You need to wait another couple of days for other users to comment. If, after that, there is a consensus to add a particular version, please reactivate the template. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle's suggested sentence would go nicely at the end of the second paragraph in the intro. This does not need a separate section. Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Mabuska 11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't have anything in the intro that isn't expanded upon in the main body. GimliDotNet 11:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer to that point would be to add my sentence to the lead, and User:92.14.177.208's wording to the main article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

By-elections

I'm not supplying a necessary phrasing for it, but I think it's necessary to highlight the results from by-elections of the 29th of November 2012 results in Rotherham and Middlesbrough. 21% in Rotherham was the most ever in an English by-election excluding University seats, while UKIP previous to last night had only ever come 2nd twice, then did it twice in one night. Because this is a large development in electoral support for a relatively small party, it is worthy in my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.201.82 (talk • contribs)

Again this boils down to long-term significance and coverage in third party sources. WP:NOTNEWS dictates that we don't just report what happens because it appears in a news paper or is of transient interest. If this becomes the start of an upward trend for UKIP then it becomes notable, as it stands the elections where amongst some of the lowest turnouts ever (in the top 10 lowest turnouts). If this turns out to be a blip then this is a non-story. GimliDotNet 09:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. What seems to me significant is not UKIP's vote (not particularaly good in any of the three constituencies in the by-election apart from Rotherham, but that was probably influened by the fostering story so not representative) but the collapse of the Lib Dem and Con vote. UKIP came second practically by default after the Coalition lost so many votes percentage wise. The big story here is the drubbing that the coalition government got, but that also is "news" and cannot yet be said to be a trend of encyclopaedic merit. Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disregard this, someone beat me to it.--24.240.187.254 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Far-right

The recent change to Far-right is not from an acceptable source. If a telegraph comment page is not sufficient to prove UKIP are libertarian, then certainly a Guardian comment page isn't good enough to claim they are Far-right. GimliDotNet 06:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're twisting reality again. What you "call a telegraph comment page" was no such thing: it was a blog on the Telegraph website, as was pointed out very clearly above. The "Guardian comment page" you claim is not good enough appeared actually in print (hard copy) and is by a respected academic who has an acceptable level of renown within the topic; as such it is a reliable source. However, his article does not fully support the use to which it was put, to state that UKIP is far right. Indeed, even the title ("Ukip shares more with the far right than it admits" - the only appearance of the phrase "far right" in the article) is a bit of a give away. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's still appropriate to call UKIP "far-right". There are better sources around. --Claritas § 11:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment is free is a blog site (regardless of whether it appears in print), it does not come under the same rigorous journalistic standards as the rest of the paper. I also do not appreciate I am 'twisting reality' - that is verging on a WP:NPA, you really need to start assuming good faith when dealing with editors, especially those of us who are trying to improve the article from a neutral standpoint. GimliDotNet 12:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reality is this: You reverted a series of edits on the grounds that they were "contraversial, that is a 'comment' blog and not sufficent for such a claim". Firstly, it was not particularly controversial; the source is a good one, but not for the claim made for it. Secondly it was not a "comment blog" as you stated or "a blog site" as you repeat above. Thirdly, you have persisted in referring to a "telegraph comment page" when it has been clearly pointed out to you it is a blog. To me, that's twisting reality. I could also describe it as being deliberately misleading. If you don't appreciate it, stop twisting reality. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment is free section on the guardian is the equivalent of a blog site, it is an opinion piece it is not journalistic. It is the same as the Comment pages on the telegraph that where 'not good enough to describe the party as libertarian'. If you continue to accuse other editors of bad-faith editing then I will have no choice but to take this to arbitration GimliDotNet 09:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Goodwin writes that "Ukip is not a rightwing extremist party" Having similarities with the far-right (as Goodwin claims) does not mean that the party is far-right. This source isn't strong enough either. If a UKIP defector claims that the party is linked to far right organisations, this doesn't automatically make UKIP themselves far-right. --RJFF (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The context is clear: Goodwin was not saying that UKIP is not far right, but that it is not extremist. Emeraude (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be difficult to argue, however, that the UKIP is not perceived as being towards the far right. Might be worth making the point in a subsection dealing with perceptions - this might have been tried before, I'm not completely familiar with the tortured history of this article having come to it via a persistent SPI. What does strike me as very, very odd however is that Cameron's description of the party doesn't feature anywhere at all in the article. That's pretty high profile and a not unreasonable thing to include from a NPOV. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think to simply describe UKIP as far-right in matter of fact terms would be inaccurate and wrong. I think Blue Square Thing has made a good point about public perceptions. Instead of reporting all the media slander as fact, why don't we report it in it's own seperate section. We've got to be careful here. I have tidied the introduction (with consensus above) because it was the most POV thing I had ever read and others had said so as well. I have made every effort to use neutral, non-negative and non-positive words. People seem to think it strikes the right balance. We have just got to get on with the rest of the article now. Like I say Blue Squares idea would solve the problem, I'm in favour! Nick 11:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you use phrases like "reporting all the media slander as fact" you blow your case and expose your own POV. Of your own writing you say "People seem to think it strikes the right balance". Evidence? Or do you mean it strikes your own personal view? Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:POT springs to mind. GimliDotNet 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Right wing

One of the sources used in the info box for this statement of fact is an opinion piece, It needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is political science we are dealing with here. "Fact" and "opinion" are not the same in the discipline as in mathematics or science. The test is whether or not it is a reliable source and here there is a similarity of what we would look for in articles on maths or science. I don't know the News Statesman that well, so whether you are correct in your assertion that its article is an opinion piece or not I can't say, but I do know that NS is a respected and reliable source within its field, i.e. politics and social issues. So, the question should be, is the author a reliable source for what he has written? Is his "opinion" based in his area of expertise? (When my doctor says it his 'opinion' that I have an infection....... ) Emeraude (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are kdding me! You've actually used a New Statesman article to justify this! They are notoriously the most anti-UKIP paper that exists! Also this was taken from the period that Mehdi Hasan was in charge, he was an editor of the paper at the time. Husan is UKIPs most publicy outspoken critic, I can not see how this can be seen as a credible source. Ok, the New Statesman has a long history and is a respected paper but all papers have their prejudices and you have picked the paper that exherts the most amount of prejudice to UKIP. This can not be seen as impartial behaviour! Nick 11:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if this is political science we are dealing with here, all that matters is policy. Policy dictates we do not use opinions for statements of fact. So I think I shall just go ahead and remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, we just can't use sources like this, I think it might actually be worth having a source review of the entire page. I just happened to spot this one because of this discussion but what if there are more? Source review anyone? Nick 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Please see discussion right t the bttom of the folowing page: Talk:European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). We need more people in his discussion, proposal is to remove Greens and BNP from info box to make it cnsistent with every other bocks. Please see links at the bottom of the pag to point you in the direction of evidence! Nick 13:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Er...Has anyone actually read the article complained of. It is not an "opinion piece" but a detailed personal account of life in UKIP. Whether it is a valid reliable source (and NS usually would be) is another matter, but let's not attack the piece under false pretences. By the standards some people are using here, we could not use ANYTHING from any newspaper, since they're just about all anti-UKIP. Slandering the sources is not the way forward. Emeraude (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I get what your saying, the Guardian for instance aren't exactly pro-UKIP but they don't resort to demagoging and using phrases like "right-wing populist". The Guardian behave sensibly with their opposition. By the way I don't see a single source from say the Express on the Lib Dem's page (probably the Lib Dem's most outspoken and unflatering critics). You see what I'm saying? This is what we call double standards! As for another thing there are loads of sources on the Lib Dems page which are 1st party! And your saying that we can't even say "UKIP is constituted as a democratic Libertarian Party", a constitution is a legally binding document, if any 1st party source is allowed then legally binding ones have got to be at the top of that pile! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I understand the points you're making, the quality of or sourcing of other articles is irrelevant. The guidelines are well established. Now, having said that, somewhere in the article there needs to be some reference to what other people think of the UKIP - whether than be Cameron and his comments or those from a supportive viewpoint. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "UKIP is constituted as a democratic Libertarian Party" is misleading. UKIP claims to be such, it is true. But "constituted" is not the right word to use, and to use that sentence as a whole gives the Misplaced Pages seal of approval! As is plain from this talk page, there is no agreement that UKIP is libertarian, it might be, it might not. But we do not rely on what people say about themselves except in so far as we say it is what they say about themselves. That's common sense. It is entirely possible that UKIP's constitution framers are the biggest load of frauds ever; it is possible that they are genuine honest people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. It's possible that they are honest and well-informed. We don't know, and in fact we don't make those judgements. We depend on reliable sources: when thet say that UKIP is liberatrian, we can say so and give the source. There are countless examples of parties (and organisations and people) who make false or exaggerated claims about themselves, which is why Misplaced Pages has strict criteria on sources. Just because UKIP says it is "democratic, libertarian" doesn't mean it is. By the way, Blue Square Thing is quite correct: failings in other articles are not relevant arguments to use in discussing this article. Emeraude (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a comprmise that should address all concerns: "The party is described in its constitution as a democratic, libertarian party." I think this wording works because we will not be stating these qualities to be an absolute fact. I have a real problem with simply using the phrase "describes it's self", it's a bit too misleading in the other direction. For instance Nick Griffin describes himself as not being a racist and he has nothing to back this claim up with. However, UKIP have a document that has been written by a firm of paid lawyers, not politicians and it's terms and conditions are binding. Now I get what your saying about 3rd Party sourcing...that's fine. I'm not asking that this be recognised as an absolute fact, I'm just asking for recognition in this paragraph that it is not just something they say or "describe" themselves as, that a comitment has been made. I really think "described in its constitution" works because it's a non-comital statement. Please consider this, I'm trying to work with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that wording. It has the added advantage of using a more straightforward form of English. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

At first sight the differences appear trivial, but there is a crucial difference in emphasis. "Decribes itself as" is factual and allows that others (e.g. Farage et al) use the desciption. "Is described in its constitution as" suggests some independent, external legitimation that actually is not independent and has the clear intent of justifying UKIP's claims. Let's not go overboard about the work of lawyers on UKIP's constitution. I doubt this very much, and in any case, they would not have had any input into this particular piece of drafting. The key issue is that, whatever wording is used, Misplaced Pages is not saying, editorially, that UKIP is libertarian (or democratic even) but simply that UKIP says it is. Emeraude (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Emeraude, you doubt that the constitution was written by lawyers? Why don't you look into it a bit deeper! Your right to say that drafting is done by the party but it's the lawyers that make all the changes and aprove all the wording. Your refusal of using the word constitution is beyond me! I bet you wont even accept "describes its self in its constitution as..." I don't understand are you fundamentally anti-UKIP or something? I understood your argument before which is why I tried to accommodate and fall in line with your criticisms! Let's be clear we're not arguing that Libertarianism is being put down as an official ideology, we're arguing that we state that that's what it says in their constitution. Massive difference, all be it seemingly subtle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Look into it deeper? Why should I? Lawyers will only examine a constitution of a party to ensure it complies with relevant law (in this case, laws on electoral registration, discrimination and financial probity). They will not care whether the party is, in fact, libertarian or not (or democratic, come to that). But that is irrelevant, because it's not going in the article anyway. I repeat what I said about the difference above: it is subtle, and my words need to read carefully. Incidentally, whether I am "fundamentally anti-UKIP or something" is none of your business, has no bearing on what I write, the article or my suggestions. It is, though, bordering on a slur on an editor and is not the proper way to proceed. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage is now LGBT issues

Have expanded this section which outlines the party's full position very clearly, using direct quotes from spokesman and using sources from the party's policy website. This section is now a lot more detailed and neutrally writen, highlighting the recent controversey accurately.Nick 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been adding the logo and the slogan of the LGBT wing. I think it's important that these images are included because other political parties actually have their own pages for their groups such as LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, LGBTory and LGBT Labour. However UKIP's group is nowhere near big enough for it to have it's own page (not yet), so inclusion of these images seems a sensible alternative.

Also, I'm having problems positioning them so that it works best with the text, can someone help me? Please :-)Nick 17:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry about all my edits to the LGBT section on the page, it is all sorted now.Nick 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been some issues concerning some of UKIP's LGBT logos, these are in hand, permision has already been granted for the Logo officially by the owner, in the same email confirmation was sent for the second image, the banner and this was meant to be approved at the same time. However the owner is having to send yet another email as a formaily. The banner should stay as it aready has permision to be on the page, it's just a case of verification, which I believe we're aloud up to a week to get! It will onlybe a day or so. Nick 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised about sourcing: please see source 66, it's a 3rd party source from the UKs main (most reliable) LGBT News pubication, this states the groups existance with a picture of the group logo, approval has been sent for both images by their owners. Facebook is an extra secondary source. Main source is PinkNews and this is reiable and reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@User:Emeraude. I think your grammar corrections were fair sensible and have improved the article. So Thank you. However I have removed your extra paragraph as it is purely media speculation. The quote you used does not assert what 'The Guardian' were claiming. May I remind you that this is a policy section and the quotes that others have used were specifically outlining and clarifying policy. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The words of mine you object to are these:

"The Guardian reported in December 2102 that Farage intends to exploit the government's proposals for gay marriage which, he said, "present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw". He hopes to attract Tory members and voters who are opposed to the policy, believing that it will "rip apart" the Conservative party."
(Source: "Gay marriage row: Ukip plans to derail David Cameron", The Guardian, 12 Dec 2012.

For the article, Farage spoke to the paper. The quotes I have given of his are verbatim quotes used in the paper. The article says,

"The Conservatives' turmoil over David Cameron's plans for gay marriage has been compounded after Ukip pledged to exploit their divisions and go after the votes of Tories who abandon the party over the issue. Amid signs that Conservative associations are losing members in their droves over what is being dubbed the prime minister's "clause IV moment", the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, warned that gay marriage could "rip apart" the Conservative party. He plans to put the issue at the heart of Ukip's campaign for the 2014 European parliamentary elections."

It directly quotes Farage:

"David Cameron's proposal has the potential to rip apart the traditional rural Tory vote. While Ukip wholly respects the rights of gay people to have civil partnerships, we feel the prime minister's proposals will present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw. The division between city and rural is absolutely huge. In my village pub in Kent they are just completely against. Ukip is not a one-issue party, ....but the gay marriage case is closely interwoven with the European court of human rights, as is so much of our life. Ukip will be seen to be a party campaigning not just about who governs Britain but about how we think that Britain should be governed."

So UKIP in its own words, directly related to gay marriage policy, LGBT policy, how their policy differs from the Tories.

You say that "the quotes that others have used were specifically outlining and clarifying policy" (one might say that the confusion was of UKIP's own making). What I have added clarifies further.

As for speculation, the Guardian's two opening paragraphs, based on interviewing Farage, are pretty damn well conclusive. Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your missing the whole point. This is a policy section, what you have quoted relates to political tactics, which is something completely different! The policy is already fuly clarified, we've got to be conscious not to put too much emphasis on recent events. Also one thing that is in your quote that is key to your argument absolutely is speculation: "He plans to put the issue at the heart of Ukip's campaign for the 2014 European parliamentary elections". He has not said this, no one has, all news papers do it, we've got to stick to policy for this section and avoid media speculation as well as discussions on political tactics because they are simply not relevent and most importantly, they are not policy! If you want to join the discussion on UKIP coverage in the media, then pick up Blue Square Thing's point and start a discussion on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Could your objection be linked to the suspicion that UKIP's policy is entirely cynical and we wouldn't want to suggest that would we? How do you now what Farage has not said? Have you some inside knowledge that is not available to the rest of us? The policy section has several statements that are not, as you describe them, policy, but elucidate the reasons and thinking behind UKIP's policies. For example: "UKIP's economic stance is based on what it claims to be the need for..."; "UKIP claims that the Armed Forces are 'starved' of money...."; "UKIP asserts that "former New Labour staff maintain that this policy has been a deliberate attempt...."; "In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP,....." etc. And it is not correct to continue as if this is just a Guardian issue: see also The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail. Emeraude (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not have any inside information but based on the information you have provided, he simply has not said what you claim. This is media analysis of which you are refering to, it is not policy. Like I say, if you want to do a section on UKIP coverage in the media, then please by all means re-start that discussion. What you are trying to put in the article is not policy. It is media analysis and suggestions of political tactics, that is not policy! I agree this entire article needs cleaning up, it simply has not been written in the same way as the other main parties. I'm not having a dig at the Guardian, I'm just saying that not all their articles can be used as a reliable source for conveying policy, I could say the same thing about the Daily Mail or the Express. The substance content of the article is what matters, not the opinion, not the analysis and not the speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I've just read this and I don't see how Emeraude's addition relates to policy. It doesn't give a clearer idea of what UKIP would do in Government and at the end of the day that's what policy is! I wouldn't invalidate the Guradian as a source, nor any other paper but I do think we have to be careful and look at the relevence of an article on an individual basis. It seems clear to me that this particular article does not add anything to this page. We can't simply act as a news feed, this addition would skew the article too much towards current events without even giving further clarity to policy. As for the speculative side of things, I also agree with Blue Square Thing's point about including a seperate section for media comment or we risk a propaganda war with pro-UKIP activists compeeting with anti-UKIP activists over sourcing, phrasing etc. Lets keep this section as what it says on the tin ie: "Policy"Nick 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New Pages for Key People

I propose that we create a new page for the Party Director: Lisa Duffy, who s also the Mayor of Ramsey, Cambridgeshire. Jonathan Arnott, the party's General Secretary has had a wikipedia page for quite some time. Lisa Duffy's role is of similar status to Arnott's and she is also an elected mayor, there have ben a number of instances where I can see linking her in would make sense but there ha ben no page. Nick 18:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you check the notability criteria for politicians (at WP:POLITICIAN). Duffy might have gathered enough coverage in and of herself rather than the coverage being related to the election itself. There's a subtle distinction there - I think she needs have been the primary subject of coverage beyond that event to be sure that she would be notable enough for a page of her own. But, heck, people make articles about all sorts of stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, to me it seems that she would qualify, she has been news worthy in other parts of the country for doing other things as she also runs political by-election campaigns as part of her job as party director. Unless anyone has any justifiable objections, I will make the article when I get round to it at some point soon.Nick 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not here and what people think that you need to be thinking about - if she's notable and there are enough reliable third party sources relating directly to her (rather than events surrounding her) then she is notable enough for an article. That battle would be played out in any Prod or AfD resulting from that. So long as you have the sources it'll be fine - but there's no need to seek approval for it here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if she's notable enough then our ownership claiming friends cannot enforce removal. GimliDotNet 07:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ukip drugs and crime policies?

Does Ukip have any policies on drugs? What about on crime? If so, it would be good if someone could add them. Kookiethebird (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is an important area: UKIP want a Royal Commission to be set up to look into the war on drugs asthey believe it is failing. Nigel Farage ha suggested that the best way to cut down use is to legalise certain drugs like cannibis in certain controled conditions in order to drive the dealers out of business (as they no longer charge a risk premium). If you want to write a section I'd be happy to help. One thing though, use the individual policy links on their website, the 2010 manifesto is out of date and has been invalidated by the party leader and NEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Social conservatism

After viewing a few reliable peer reviewed sources. I have come to the conclusion that Social conservatism should be added to the Ideology section of the article. I would seriously recommend for Social conservatism to be added to the Ideology section.(CatCalledJim (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

I reject this idea, the ideology in general is already in dispute! This unsigned comment by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please cite the sources you mentioned. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Third-party source needed"

Throughout the policy section, someone at some time has added the tags "Third-party source needed". So, for example, a UKIP policy is stated, and the manifesto or similar source is quoted. This seems totally adequate - "from the horse's mouth" as it were - and obviates any requirement for the third party source. ("Fred Bloggs says that UKIP's manifesto says what UKIP's manifesto says.....") Unless I've totally misunderstood, I propose that these tags be removed.

Similarly, the heading and several subheads are followed by "This section may rely too heavily on sources with too close a tie to the subject...." Where the article is dealing solely with what UKIP itself says, what's wrong with this?

On a related issue, I have noticed that several of the sources are cited to dead links. This has come about because UKIP has updated its website. This does not invalidate the sources, of course; Misplaced Pages does not require that sources must be available online. They will all be available in hard copy somewhere and were all "approved" by the normal editing procedure when first posted. In these cases, I have gone ahead and tagged them as dead links, where appropriate replacing the "third-party" tags. Other links have already been tagged as "dead" because items have been moved behind a pay wall (The Times for example). In fact, these are not dead links if you have a subsciption, so I have removed the dead link tag from them.

In some sections, a citation is directly followd by the tag "citation needed" - redundant. Where a citation is still valid, I have removed the tag; if the link is dead I have replaced with dead link tag. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that large parts of this article should be based on sources by the party itself. The whole policy section is only written from UKIP's point of view, based on UKIP's sources. UKIP has a website to present their platform. It is not Misplaced Pages's objective to present UKIP's platform in a close paraphrase, without neutral or critical reflexion. One of Misplaced Pages's main pillars is WP:Verifiability which regularly means reliable, independent secondary sources. UKIP's platform is a primary source which normally should not be the base for a Misplaced Pages article, even less when it is the sole source for several whole sections. This should be addressed. Are there no independent sources that deal with UKIP's policies? Can these sections not be based on secondary sources? --RJFF (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is about UKIP policies not interpretations of their policies. I think UKIP are the best source for what their own policies are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.43.102 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course we should not provide a platform for UKIP (or any other party), but if we are going to cover its policies the only reliable source is UKIP itself. Practically by definition there can be no "independent sources that deal with UKIP's policies". While it is essential that we give no interpretation of policies, and certainly no appearance of endorsement, I can see no other source for simply stating what the policies are, without comment. I actually agree that, as RJFF puts it, "It is not Misplaced Pages's objective to present UKIP's platform in a close paraphrase, without neutral or critical reflexion" but just try and add any critical refelxion while this article is patrolled by UKIP supporters! Emeraude (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

UKIP lies about their policies. The BNP claim not to be racist, but of course they have an extremely racist program. In the same way, UKIP claims not to be Islamophobic but in reality it's hating against Muslims right left and centre. Hence we should only use academic political science works, which clearly indicate UKIP to be a xenopobic political party, and a radical right populist front. Claritas § 12:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is about policies and where to source them, not whether these policies are or are not xenophobic. Claritas I think you are getting confused about a different debate. Dja1979 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polls and suggested sources, December 2012.

I noted that User:31.52.210.196 recently added uncited text about opinion polls and UKIP's rise to 3rd position. I intend to add a brief description from a suggested source meeting wp:NPOV and avoiding wp:undue for the simple reason that this should improve the educational value of the article -our objective. Feel free to discuss. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source is OK, though it's doubtful this is a permanent and significant trend. However, the use made of the source is dishonest and I have deleted the second sentence relying on it: i.e,:"According to pollsters, three quarters of prospective UKIP voters did not regard problems in the Eurozone countries as one of the top three issues and Lord Ashcroft believes opposition to gay marriage has caused the reported one sixth of Conservative voters to switch to UKIP." The source does not say one sixth of Conservative voters have switched to UKIP. It says the Tories have lost one sixth of their support (not voters), with some going to UKIP. Neither does Lord Ashcroft say what is attributed to him: his quote makes no mention of gay marriage at all and suggests that Tory supporters have moved to UKIP because of its draconian stance on immigration and "benefits culture". The relevant parts of the Guardian article are:

"Tories have lost a sixth of their support over the last two months, with much of this going to Ukip" and

"Lord Ashcroft recently suggested that Tory voters are moving to Ukip because they're attracted to its much more draconian stance on immigration and "benefits culture"."

Emeraude (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Chart

Since UKIP's growth in the opinion polls throughout 2012 seems to be the undoubtedly most relevant/note worthy and indeed newsworthy event for the party since the last election, I thought it appropriate to include the chart for 2012 from commons.

I have put this in such that all of the text for 2012 fits perfectly along the left hand side of the graph! I have also put an explanation in a text box below with links so that readers can look at relevant related subjects. I don't doubt that someone will come on here and claim that some of what is in the text box is original research! So I will now address this claim before it is made! I have included a link showing a list of every opinion poll conducted by a British Polling Council member in 2012. In the 2012 table there is a 3rd party lead column, showing the difference between 3rd and 4th place. On that same page is links to pollsters methodologies whereby they admit that their margin of errors are around 3%. I have also provided a link so that readers can find out what this means! It is not original research to make this claim because it is already clearly stated in the table!

I have also used this information to rebut UKIP's claim that they are now the 3rd Party of the UK. It's important we present both sides on this article (which includes the factual evidence), so that we are able to have a fair and unbiased piece. We already have a source on the page that says "a series of opinion polls have indicated that UKIP had drawn ahead of the Liberal Democrats to become the third most popular party". We now have a piece that basically says this might be true but there is no proof of that and that's not what the evidence says!

I am confident that readers will find my phrasing unbiased and fair, I am also confident that this is not original research! because I have only written things that are clearly stated on other Misplaced Pages pages and in the sources already provided!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, it's got all the links in so people can check things out. You've not implied anything that isn't already elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Now if people want to demand that more sources are put in for the sake of it, then fair enough! They can, I can't see the point in copying sources over when the links are there for the pages where the info actually already exists on Wiki. Good work!217.41.32.3 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 DoneTo avoid any potential problems I decided to source everything anyway! I have included 6 sources that verify the commentary in the text box. this is in edition to the existing links that already give a full account.217.41.32.3 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

3rd party Chart - disclude Labour & Tory

Have added a new chart instead, there was no need to include Labour and the Conservatives in the graph, it was only taking up more space and distracting from the real point. Here's the new box.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Greatest problem is the use of the word "throughout", both throughout your text above and in what was added to the article. The last few polls of 2012 are most definitely not "throughout 2012". Also significant is what is actually significant in the chart, and what you have removed from it - the large fall in Tory opinion polling which, given the size and statistical margin of error, is much more important. UKIP's "performance" (it's an opinion poll, not an election) must also be set against the failry steady share of the LDs over the year and the collapse of "others". It is likely (but the pollsters give no detail) that this mostly represents a collapse of BNP support as that party has crumbled over the year, to the benefit of UKIP(?). Emeraude (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds a bit like your starting a political/analytical debate which we are not allowed to have! So I will not bite. I will merely answer your relevant points: I take your point on the use of the phrase "throughout2012" and hence accept it's omition! Poor phrasing on my part!

The issue we're referring to here is 3rd party, if I wanted to I could point you in the direction of the UKIPs higher scoring polls(Survation and Opinium, cough cough) where you will notice that Labour loose as much as 5% (down to as low as 37%). So the top of the graph is besides the point. The point is that statistical polling tie! A phrase, I don't see why you removed? It is sourced material! I don't see your link between the 3rd party margin of error and the Conservatives? You just seem to be trying to make a political point, which is of no relevance to the matter at hand!

Your right to observe that LD support has been statistically static throughout 2012, can't argue with that. You then mention the collapse of other parties and then try and make a political point involving the BNP. You are correct to say that "Others" have lost vote share, if you look at the breakdown of the others columns in the polls you will see that this is for a number of reasons! The BNP never had more then 2%, so your claim does not add up!

1. Labour have recovered in Wales which has harmed Plaid Cymru figures.

2. The SNP have had a bit of a rocky time with Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond's lies about legal advice regarding the EU and Independence. The SNP's mid-term blues are also starting in a more general sense as well.

3. The Green Party are not picking up any extra vote share.

4. And yes the BNP's vote share has crumbled and it does seem fairly likely that the party will collapse before 2015. Does that mean their votes are going to UKIP or back to Labour(where they came from), who know's! I suspect it's a bit of both, Ed Miliband has been making a number of speeches about Immigration, Multiculturalism and Englishness. Maybe people are listening to him. I don't know and neither do you, so lets not guess!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've added in all your sources for you!217.41.32.3 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I intended no political point and hope you didn't really read my comments in that way. I am concerned that opinion polls (not election results) are being used to state as fact things that can only be inferred (and inference is not allowed in WIkipedai). I'm also concerned that two of your sources are in no way supportive of the claims you have made for them: a book and an Economist article both from the 1990s (despite you dating one of them as 2013!) have nothing to say on UKIP's position in 2102. Indeed, neither even mentions UKIP. This is disingenuous. I don't suggest a deliberate attempt to mislead. While the sources do have useful things to say about margins of error in polls generally (and I have used similar arguments in this and other talk pages) to then use them to say that UKIP and Lib Dems are neck and neck or some such is original reaearch/synthesis. By the way, a lot of what you say in your points 1, 2, 3 and 4 is also original research or pure guess work and, while I might agree with some of it, it has no place in this discusion which is supposed to be about the article, not the news or our views on it. Emeraude (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 217.41.32.3. I believe people need to know UKIP is growing in popularity, because its denying the readers of interesting information regardless of their opinion on UKIP. What is so misleading about giving the readers interesting information?(CatCalledJim (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

What is misleading is that there are no facts to back this up. A couple of opinion polls (not all polls, or even a large number of polls) have shown UKIP's "support" rise from a small amount to a slighly larger but still small amount. But these are only polls and, as has been pointed out, the margin of error in respect of minor items in any poll is so significant that the result itself is frequently insignificant statistically. The real test, as always, is what happens in elections and the real test of elections is general elections - in 2010 UKIP was hammered. In recent by-elections, UKIP did much worse than they (or some commentators) had predicted, with the exception of Rotherham where there were special circumstances. So, until there is concrete voting evidence, it is not only misleading to say that UKIP is "growing in popularity", it is also wrong. Emeraude (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your point about using those sources for that one sentence. I accept the removal of that one sentence and that one sentence alone! As for my point: 1, 2, 3 and 4. I accept that if this was in the article it would be original research and therefore it has no place in a wiki article! The reason I added those points was to show that a lot of what you were stating as fact is indeed not fact but your opinion, I only sought to demonstrate that and as a result that required a bit of OR commentary. Now other editors know not to accept anything mentioned by myself or yourself on the of points 1, 2 ,3 and 4 as a fact and should therefore not argue for inclusion! Hope this makes my position clear.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Accepted, but it might have been better not to have made the points in the first place(?). Er, what is it exactly that I am "stating as fact" but was "is indeed not fact but (my) opinion"? Emeraude (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been following this debate in detail, but I have to say, it does look to me like Sheffno1gunner and 217.41.32.3 are the same person! Kookiethebird (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kookiethebird We are not the same person but yes we have worked closely alonside one another on a number of articles. I regularly click on his/her contributions page to see what they have been up to, I assume this works vice versa! this tends to mean that we edit/discuss largely the same topics. I have done this with other users in the past such as Nick and more recently User:CatCalledJim. This is not unusual, that is why the contributions page is there!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the account and the IP work nicely in shifts and never at the same time. And I know very few users who always put their signature directly behind the punctuation mark without a space. This could be coincidence. But if you just forget to log in from time to time and edit under your IP, I would advise you to better admit it. No one would take offense. Being convicted of sock puppetry and lies is much more unpleasant. If it is really coincidence, please don't take it badly, but there is really a number of signs indicating that you and the IP are the same person. And you know that we have methods to identify sockpuppets. Again: I just utter my suspiscions. Please don't take it amiss.--RJFF (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)]]

Can RJFF concentrate on the subject we are presently discussing. Rather than falsely accusing Sheffno1gunner of breaching the rules of the website. As I have said, what is so misleading about giving the readers factual and current information? Most users agree that we should add that opinion polling graph.(CatCalledJim (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

I didn't intend to accuse Sheffno1gunner. I just wanted to advise him to better inform others if (and only if) he sometimes edits under his user name and sometimes under his IP. It's just better for him to make it transparent. And how can you know if he does or doesn't? If I falsely accused him, he can defend himself. --RJFF (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry because of work pressures (which are rapidly increasing) I am less able to respond as swiftly. I am disapointed that I am being accused of someone that I am not. I am not user:217.41.32.3, we merely work on the same articles. Someone has suggested that we are never on at the same time, have you noticed the different times we edit! if we were the same person we'd have to be on Misplaced Pages practically 24hours a day! Who has the time to do that, honestly? I am not 217.41.32.3, I have never even met this person! However in the interests of transparency, I will freely admit that I discuss Misplaced Pages things with 217.41.32.3 on Youtube via personal messaging. I don't think it's for me to tell you what his Youtube sign on is but I can tell you 217.41.32.3 is a he and not a she! If they wan't to tell you their sign on, then that is their business, I will respect his privacy! There is nothing wrong with 2 people discussing something freely in another forum, it's a free society! now will people get off my back and get back to the matter in hand!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm conviced that there's nothing untoward here! Now kiss and make up!130.88.52.103 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - the matter in hand. Sheffno1gunner has reinsated some sources that I deleted from the blurb under the chart. The sources had been used to justify the statement "The small distance and indeed intersection of the yellow and purple lines show that the party has been within the margin of error (normally 3%) of their Liberal Democrat rivals since April 2012." Now, this may well be true, but the sources do not say or suggest this and their use in this context is dishonest. Why? Well, firstly, because neither actually mentions UKIP! But more significantly, despite both sources being dated by Sheffno1gunner as January 2013 they are actually both over 10 years old. The first source is an article from The Economist dated 17 April 1997. The second is Nick Moon's book Opinion Polls published in 1999. Clearly, they have nothing to say about events in 2012, or UKIP, or UKIP in 2012. I deleted the sources on 14 January with the edit summary "Sources from 1991 and 1999 do not support a '9 month statistical polling tie for 3rd place' in 2012. (And neither even mentions UKIP))". I thought that was plain enough. Yesterday, Sheffno1gunner reinserted them with the edit summary "Readded sources that seem to have been removed. They are relevent and part of the discussion on the talk page". No, they are not relevant, as explained above. They may have something to say generally about margins of error and may even be relevant to this discussion on the talk page (though I doubt it), so I have deleted them again with the comment "May be releveant to talk page but not here: falsely dated sources from1991 and 1999 say nothing about 21012 and do not even mention UKIP." Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point about me putting the wrong dates on the sources, that was a genuine mistake due to copying things accross, obviously those dates need changing. Point accepted, sorry for the mistake! The next point is what the sources are being used to justify, those 2 sources are being used to justify the 3% figure, it's to show that 3% is pretty standard, it shows aknowlagements by leading accademics. Those sources were not intended to be used for illustrating that "that the party has been within the margin of error (normally 3%) of their Liberal Democrat rivals since April 2012." The source that justifies that they have been within 3% since April is the BBC Source! If you really want me to, I can repeat the same sources 3 or 4 times in the same paragraph but the point is that if you read the whole paragraph in it's entirity you will see that everything is sourced. Who reads one sentence at a time and then checks each individual sourse? No, one, you read the paragraph and then check stuff out! I will replace them and the text, I will also change the dates on the sources, as this is clearly a mistake on my part, that I apologise for!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We are having a related conversation at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and I would agree with Emeraude. As I've suggested there, Sheffno should review Misplaced Pages policy on original research as I feel s/he and some other editors are relying too much on their interpretations and not sticking to reliable sources when it comes to coverage of UKIP.

Emeraude and Kookiethebird, I would appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election on related matters. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very suprised at your actions Bondegezou, you seem to be starting an edit war, we are having a discussion on this and you clearly have not read my last comments on this page! If you have something to raise then raise it. Do not simply revert an edit and then leave comments when the subject is already in open discussion, this is improper conduct. Emeraude seems to disagree with me on a numbner of points but has behaved reasonably by discussing as opposed to simply reverting and shouting other editors down. I have been addressing Emeraude's concerns one by one. I seek to do the same with ], if you are prepared to conduct yourself in a less aggressive manner! i hope that you are, up until this discussion I had always considered you one of the best editors in the UK politics section, i am not so sure now. Sorry, prove me wrong by discussing this properly!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I was guided by WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:OWN. Might I also recommend we reflect on WP:FOC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheffno1gunner is still missing the point. If it is necessary to say that UKIP has narrowed or closed the gap on LDs in opinion polls, the source, naturally, is the opinion polls themselves. I don't argue with that - who could? (Whether it is significant is another matter and not for Misplaced Pages editors to decide.) We use reliable sources and most of them seem to be still out on the matter. My own view is that it's too soon to tell as well. The key issue here is the use to which Sheffno1gunner is putting what are perfectly reliable sources. It's a question of context. As I have said and repeated, the sources are totally irrelevant to this article and to this discussion. (No mention of UKIP, 14 or more years old, etc.) The text below the graph referred to the margin of error in polls, quite rightly, and the phrase is linked to the Misplaced Pages article margin of error. It is not necessary to rehash parts of that article here in an article about UKIP - that's why we have internal links after all. Otherwise, they can only be taken as sourcing the substantive point about UKIP v. LD in 2012, which neither source can do. Emeraude (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Sheffno1gunner, I think that by your multiple reversions the edit war, if there is one, was started by you. Emeraude (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not Sheffno1gunner, I am no way near as clever/incredibly nerdy! (no offence mate) Umm, yea how about we keep it short and sweet on here and put the extra detail on the other page because there is a link to it! No point in repeating ourselves!81.133.12.45 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, ok lets end this discussion on this talk page! I agree there is no point in saying the same thing more then once, the internal link is there, the graph is there, that's fine. The rest of the info can be fleshed out on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election where it belongs. I have left comments on that page that give further details. Can we consider the matter closed on this page? i.e. that short description stays as it is!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with a shorter text but would prefer it to say something about 3rd place in the box....you know, to kind of say why the graph is there....217.41.32.3 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Transplant text from Opinion Polling page

This is how the graph appears on the page>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done this because we have decided to remove this graph from the opinion polling page. We have done this to avoid duplication. there is absolutely no point putting the same graph twice on different pages just for the sake of it. Especially when you consider that this is just a condensed version of the graph above it on that page. This is the right place for this text.

I am pleased to say that this text has been approved by other editors on that page. If you wish to discuss it here, fine but it is the same to what there was consensus for before. And margin of error isn't even mentioned! So can we leave it at that?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, just thought, I'd put comments on here to confirm what you say and declare that an end to the matter.Nick Dancer (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to declare that's an end to the matter? Do you own Misplaced Pages? Emeraude (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But anyway, there are other issues to address, including whether this chart is even wanted here. I don't recall a consensus on that, though my memory is not what it was. The wording beneath it WAS all right, I'm not so sure now - it stinks of original research and synthesis again. It does not show Jan to March, yet is used to talk about 2012. It takes some outlying results to push the idea that UKIP is growing in popularity. Flash in the pan, from one or two rogue pollsters? Apart from which, YouGov's poll conducted 17-18 January and published on 20 January gave UKIP 7% and LDs 11%. The latest ICM Research poll, conducted on 18-20 January 2013 and published 22 January, gives UKIP 6% (down from 7%) and LDs 15% (up from 13%). Emeraude (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way Steve the Lib Dem's and UKIP are tied in the most recent YouGov poll, both parties with 10%. Also if you look at all of ICM's polling and I mean all of it, ICM have generally had UKIP on 6% anyway, it has never gone above 7%! ICM are the only polling company that I am aware of to have never published a poll where UKIP have not been in the lead. So this seems to me another example of a Liberal Democrat picking his sources to suit what he wants to write! Flash in the pan? That's an intesting analysis and yes Steve that is analysis! It's a bloody hot pan if it's been going for 10months! Also it seems UKIP have recovered from the Ollyshambles, that would be a better analysis of the temporary dip in the polls!

I am not really surprised that a self confessed "card carrying Liberal Democrat" doesn't want something like this to be publicised! Shame really because it only reflects the most talked about polling story at the moment..... well, that is according to our reliable sources. I'm sure UKIP supporters aren't best pleased when they read things like being called "right-wing populists" but as you have so often reminded people, it comes from reliable sources! You might have a go at Nick for thinking he owns Misplaced Pages but it is bit rich really when generally you sir and a few others seem to think you are on the board of directors!81.133.12.45 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, turn it down a bit you to! I just want to clarify that those percentages were changed by Bondegezou, the percentages I initially wrote were changed and I accept that, if people prefer what it said before then can we please make our minds up!

Also Emeraude, your argument doesn't hold, your being selective with your evidence! I really fail to see how this is of irrelevance to the article. We have a section on the Lib Dems period in government and this is a key part of it, rightly or wrongly, their support is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 what it was at the last election, that becomes even more noteworthy when another party consistently ties/overtakes/narrowly tales them in the poles. And yes, all the reliable seem to think so to. I can see why you don't want to see this change happen, I mean surely you accept yourself that there is a significant conflict of interests here.

I'm going to try and move on from all of this: What are your specific concerns with the wording? Have you a sensible alternative suggestion?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OK 81.133.12.45 , let's get this straight. You call me Emeraude, not Steve. I am not 'a self confessed "card carrying Liberal Democrat"' nor even a crypto one. To make that assumption shows a complete lack of nous on your part and I assume is meant to disparage my contributions. I am not a card carrying member of anything and I demand that you retract that accusation and implied slur immediately.

As for "another example of a Liberal Democrat picking his sources to suit what he wants" - well I've dealt with the LIb Dem bit, but I notice the generic slur against Lib Dems in this statement. As for me picking sources, not at all. They are the two most recently published polls, as you would know if you had any expertise in the subject rather than a pro-UKIP inspired agenda.

To say that "the Lib Dem's and UKIP are tied in the most recent YouGov poll" is a blatant lie, or possibly total ignorance which is just as bad. I even gave the latest figures for you! The latest YouGov poll is as I stated above: UKIP 7% and LDs 11%. You can see it online here. The ICM result was in The Guardian today - look it up online for yourself. Sorry if the evidence hurts, but there you go. Going on for 10 months? Well, in some polls, but not all; your evident bias against ICM, presumably because it hs never given UKIP >7% shows that you the graph only covers 9 months; UKIP has not won a single seat so the whole thing is quaintly academic anyway.

And "the most talked about polling story at the moment"? No, hardly. It was a topic that excercised the press a couple of weeks ago, but look at any of the quality papers over the last week and they're all debating the signficance of the gap between Labour and Tory ("Labour lead over Tories shrinks to five points, according to Guardian/ICM poll", The Guardian headline, 22/1/13).

You think I don't "want something like this to be publicised". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. It is not a place for UKIP or any other party or organisation or individual to "publicise" anything. If you think it is, you are in the wrong place.Emeraude (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To Sheffno1gunner. How can you accuse me of "being selective with your evidence"? I have merely quoted the two latest opinion polls. How is that selective? If I'd quoted one and not the other, maybe. If there were three published this weekend and I only quoted two, maybe. But I am aware of two polls and have quoted both of them. And, please note, that is here in the talk page and not in the article! This is not he first time you have openly questioned my probity. On 15th Jan I asked you to explain your assertion "that a lot of what you were stating as fact is indeed not fact but your opinion": you have failed to respond.

Acceptable wording? Relevance to the article? Ditch the graph. It adds nothing. It's a distraction. A simple sentence would do: "During 2012, UKIP's popularity in opinion polls increased." Add a median figure even. But what really counts is electoral success and UKIP has failed on that score, despite its best endeavours. What we are loking at here is a transient news story, but we are supposd to be writing an encyclopaedia. Do these polls have any long term encyclopaedic value? If UKIP picks up parliamentary seats in 2015 great, add it to the article and who'll give a toss about polls in 2012? But by the same token, if UKIP fails to win a seat in 2015, add that to the article, and again who'll give a toss about polls in 2012? Emeraude (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You say you'd picked the 2most recent polls? Really at the time of your comment the most recent poll was the YouGov poll showing the parties tied at 10%, that is a simple fact. I was merely backing the IP up saying that you had got that wrong and you had, check the time the poll was published if you like. Ok the link the IP put up doesn't seem to be working but I managed to find it ok. You had clearly ignored or innocently not been aware of this poll that showed a tie within your set time frame. So ok, you were wrong on that, that is what I was saying.

if I can just say about the 2 of you, you both seem to over react and immediately get aggresive, I've found myself get aggressive in reaction to it. it's not helpful guys, calm down, it's not good for yours or any of our health. So please give it a rest! It's unhelpful for one of you to accuse the other of being a Lib dem and the other to accuse the other of being pro UKIP. Your both being childish, I don't care who started it. So let that be an end to this childish behaviour on both your parts!

The fact remains that the race between UKIP and the Lib Dem's is still a feature of the current climate. The graph covers a significant period of time and is therefore not covering an anomoly! The graph stays, the text stays, although if there is an issue with the wording then please discuss it sensibly. You say it's a distraction, a distraction from what exactly? It's not a distraction from their lack of seats in Parliament because that is plain to see in the info box at the top of the page, it is also stated in the opening paragraph, although not quite as blatantly as you and others had previously argued for when rewritting the section. You seem to keep changing your mind about what is acceptable. I have removed this graph from the polling page in the interests of duplication and the interests of not making the polling page all about 3rd place. I'm trying to introduce balance here! So please just accept that this is part of this article, I have removed it from others.

I don't want to fall out with anyone on here but these attitudes are very difficult to work with! I'm finding it difficult to be polite, all your negativity and aggression is very wearing (both of you). It wasn't even me that wrote the text, it was Bondegezou who changed the writting and if you look on their page, you will see that they admit to having an interest in the Lib Dem's. If I have not responded to you please send me a personal message with the link, I appologise for not getting back to you. Lets end this discussion now, please! For the sake of all our sanities!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I broadly concur with Emeraude's position above. I had a very long discussion with Sheffno1gunner on the Talk page of the opinion polling article about text there. The text there now is in replacement of material that (I felt) clearly contradicted WP:OR. The current text improved the situation, but I am not wedded to the text there. I also don't feel that text needs repeating here. I remain concerned about WP:OR issues in both that article and this one. I would urge a number of people in this discussion to pay more heed to Misplaced Pages policy and guidance, including WP:OR and WP:OWN. I would particularly suggest Sheffno1gunner reviews WP:FOC and WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to apologize, I made a massive school boy error and have caused offense! I actually got Emeraude confused with Doktorbuk. I'm really sorry and did not mean to cause offense. That said I stick with my position on this article but make a full retraction of anything I have directed at Emeraude and sorry for calling you by your first name.

@Bondegezou: I really fail to see how this graph is not relevant to this page. As far as the text goes, if you have changed your mind what do you want it to say. Also you are wrong to state that this is repeated on another page because it is not. Sheffno1gunner removed it from the opinion polling page because of concerns over "duplicity". He said it was best placed on this page with a link to this page on the grounds that it overstated the position of 3rd place was already highlighted to a sufficient level. I think we need a short text on this somewhere, I get why it's not necessary to put the graph on more pages then one, I accept that. This is the right article for this graph and a basic description of what it shows is not unreasonable. Also you did re-write most of it yourself! Why you changing your mind?217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

While it is nice you have apologised to Emeraude, you should not be making intemperate comments at any editor. I remind you, again, of WP:AGF and WP:FOC.

Sorry, I have not kept up with the several edits Sheffno has made, so I didn't realise he had removed all the text from the opinion polling article. That notwithstanding, I don't think such a long legend for a figure is appropriate. Let's have this material in the main text or not at all. Also, what text may be suitable in one place may not be somewhere else. The question now is whether that material is suitable here, and on that point, I concur with Emeraude.

As I sought to explain in my previous comment, the text I wrote, as you describe, was an immediate solution to the problems with the prior text. It was a work in progress. I was being bold and fixing the problem. None of us own the text on Misplaced Pages; everything remains up for consideration. I have no attachment to that piece of text just because I came up with it.

I remain concerned, as I've said repeatedly, with WP:OR issues. It would be helpful if you and Sheffno engaged more with policy in this area. You appear frustrated with policy on reliable sources, but I'm afraid that is how Misplaced Pages works. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am frustrated by Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources but I am more annoyed about how certain editors (I'm not referring to yourself) use certain sources that back up their political views, often making bigoted comments and yes it is bigotry to falsely label something because you don't like it. In particular I'm referring to things like the labeling of "right-wing" populism, many of their views are mainstream anyway! And people attempting to label them far right all the time. Misplaced Pages is being turned into a Newspaper, I've been trying to address the balance. The more these things happen, the more me and others will challenge them, it's that simple.

OK, I accept that this text needs reviewing but can we have some positive input as to what is acceptable text instead of having people like Emeraude putting up brick walls to acceptable discussions. I accept your argument of a smaller caption but all we get from Emeraude is "no, no no, I'm not having it", it's like he's constantly trying to pick a fight is it any wonder I react the way I do? Tolerance and respect are two way things. I tend to treat people how I am treated, which is why I'm more able to be open to discussion with yourself, there's a kind of mutual respect. Whereas I feel that Emeraude think's I am filth, I think he has respect issues and is intolerant of views that are different to his!

Anyways that's buy the by, lets get on with sorting this paragraph out. What is your suggestion?81.133.12.45 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

1. http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=Re9Pdfxbaa | accessdate=26/11/12
2. Constitution of the UK Independence Party (UKIP)| http://www.ukip.org/page/constitution-of-the-uk-independence-party-ukip%7C accessdate=05/12/12
3. Alcock, Cliff (2008). Introducing Social Policy. Pearson Education. p. 541. ISBN 978-1405858489. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-12964769
5. http://www.ukipwales.org/ukip-polling-at-12/
6. "Opinion Polls: Standard Errors(explanation and examples using 3%)". 13 January 2013.
7. "Opinion Polls: History, Theory and Practice - Page 31". 1999. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
8. ^ "Nigel Farage: "UKIP is now Britain's 3rd Party"". 13 January 2013. Cite error: The named reference "The Guardian" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
9. "Latest opinion polls". 13 January 2013.
10. "Election Polling Centre(see list of polls at bottom of page)". Opinium. 13 January 2013.
11. "Survation Survey Archive 2010-2012". Survation. 13 January 2013.
16. http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/q3rvpspggu/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-210113.pdf%7Caccessdate=22/01/13

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class political party articles
• Mid-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles