Misplaced Pages

Talk:UK Independence Party: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:15, 10 September 2017 editDelors1991 (talk | contribs)80 editsm →Political Position: Change to "Right Wing to Far Right?"← Previous edit Revision as of 22:24, 10 September 2017 edit undoDelors1991 (talk | contribs)80 editsm →Political Position: Change to "Right Wing to Far Right?"Next edit →
Line 78: Line 78:


Should the "Political position" in the infobox be changed to "Right Wing to Far Right"?- Although previously there was not a consensus that UKIP contained far-right elements, I would suggest that is certainly the case now due to the ideological changes in the party following the loss of the European Union emphasis. For example, since the Brexit vote, the party's drift towards more anti-Islamic based positions in the past year is strong evidence of it, but more explicitly, the rise of ] in the party and subsequent entryism, her likely successful leadership bid and her alliances with groups such as the EDL very much bring the party into "far-right" territory --] (]) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Should the "Political position" in the infobox be changed to "Right Wing to Far Right"?- Although previously there was not a consensus that UKIP contained far-right elements, I would suggest that is certainly the case now due to the ideological changes in the party following the loss of the European Union emphasis. For example, since the Brexit vote, the party's drift towards more anti-Islamic based positions in the past year is strong evidence of it, but more explicitly, the rise of ] in the party and subsequent entryism, her likely successful leadership bid and her alliances with groups such as the EDL very much bring the party into "far-right" territory --] (]) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
: If you are joking, may I assure you that your defamatory assertion (above) is being taken seriously. The Labour Party has serving Councillors who are former BNP members. There are hundreds of examples available of published racist comments by members, even officers or those holding elected officers, of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Do these make those parties racist? Consider ] (]) 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
: That would be original research until such time as a consensus of reliable sources describe the party as far-right. That may happen if Waters is elected as leader but until she has been she does not set party policy.] (]) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC) : That would be original research until such time as a consensus of reliable sources describe the party as far-right. That may happen if Waters is elected as leader but until she has been she does not set party policy.] (]) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

::You misread my proposition, it is not to change the position entirely to "Far Right" on it's own, but to shift it say it says '''"Right Wing to Far Right"''', which entails there are some factions or groups within the party who actively embody far-right ideas. Thus the argument is that there is a far-right wing which now exists in UKIP through AMW, not that she has took over the party and made it wholly far right, whereas there are others who do not. This is not original research as there is significant media evidence now which supports this thesis , , , . Thus the consensus of the media is 1) AMW is far right 2) She has led to a growth of that associated faction within UKIP --] (]) 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) ::You misread my proposition, it is not to change the position entirely to "Far Right" on it's own, but to shift it say it says '''"Right Wing to Far Right"''', which entails there are some factions or groups within the party who actively embody far-right ideas. Thus the argument is that there is a far-right wing which now exists in UKIP through AMW, not that she has took over the party and made it wholly far right, whereas there are others who do not. This is not original research as there is significant media evidence now which supports this thesis , , , . Thus the consensus of the media is 1) AMW is far right 2) She has led to a growth of that associated faction within UKIP --] (]) 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::: Firstly I think you are over-stating what those sources are saying. Some only say that AMW has some far-right friends and she is just one member. Until the election results are in we don't really know how big her following is. Secondly, the political position of a party is determined by its stated policies rather than the opinions of its members. Any party will have members with a mixture of political views. How would Labour's political position be described if it was based on the range of political views of its members for example? ] (]) 21:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC) ::: Firstly I think you are over-stating what those sources are saying. Some only say that AMW has some far-right friends and she is just one member. Until the election results are in we don't really know how big her following is. Secondly, the political position of a party is determined by its stated policies rather than the opinions of its members. Any party will have members with a mixture of political views. How would Labour's political position be described if it was based on the range of political views of its members for example? ] (]) 21:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:24, 10 September 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UK Independence Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Political parties Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, UK Independence Party → UKIP, not moved, 23 May 2014, see discussion.
  • RM, UK Independence Party → UKIP, no consensus, 8 July 2016, see discussion.
The contents of the Young Independence page were merged into UK Independence Party on 27 December 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UK Independence Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Recent history

Shouldn't the history section cover the long-running feud within the party between Farage/Banks and Carswell? Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it significant enough? The history of UKIP is a history of feuding, and we don't mention the vast majority of other examples. I'd be hesitant about adding anything on this unless the most reliable sources (i.e. academic studies of UKIP) begin to describe this as a highly significant development. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Other political party articles do not only rely on academic studies, which tend to have a different perspective. Plenty of reliable and considered analyses in newspapers and magazines discuss the feuding, which is long-running. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
An interesting point. Might it be better to write later from hindsight rather than risk having to rewrite every few days? Emeraude (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I to agree, Misplaced Pages is not a live news feed.12:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Really don't think it needs rewriting every few days but key points should be included for a balanced article. I always prefer wp:Suggested sources#Current news as few UK editors would dispute the credentials. JRPG (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Bondegezou, perhaps it would be a good move if you proposed a brief sentence or so that would summarise the current fracturing of the party. We could then discuss whether such a sentence would be appropriate or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We are discussing events that have been going on for many months, indeed years in some ways: I am not suggesting material that needs to be rewritten every few days. I am suggesting something like the material at Labour_Party_(UK)#Opposition.2C_2010.E2.80.93present that describes the pro/anti-Corbyn tensions in the party.
I am rather busy the next few days, so if someone else would like to start things off, go for it. Or I will try to draft something later. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be cautious about seeking to imitate the Labour Party article in any way. That article is a truly dreadful mess. Nevertheless, I see what you are getting at. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Crowther is now the interim leader after Paul Nuttall, not Peter Whittle Weburbia (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Reflist

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on UK Independence Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Political Position: Change to "Right Wing to Far Right?"

Should the "Political position" in the infobox be changed to "Right Wing to Far Right"?- Although previously there was not a consensus that UKIP contained far-right elements, I would suggest that is certainly the case now due to the ideological changes in the party following the loss of the European Union emphasis. For example, since the Brexit vote, the party's drift towards more anti-Islamic based positions in the past year is strong evidence of it, but more explicitly, the rise of Anne Marie Waters in the party and subsequent entryism, her likely successful leadership bid and her alliances with groups such as the EDL very much bring the party into "far-right" territory --TF92 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are joking, may I assure you that your defamatory assertion (above) is being taken seriously. The Labour Party has serving Councillors who are former BNP members. There are hundreds of examples available of published racist comments by members, even officers or those holding elected officers, of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Do these make those parties racist? Consider Delors1991 (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be original research until such time as a consensus of reliable sources describe the party as far-right. That may happen if Waters is elected as leader but until she has been she does not set party policy.Weburbia (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You misread my proposition, it is not to change the position entirely to "Far Right" on it's own, but to shift it say it says "Right Wing to Far Right", which entails there are some factions or groups within the party who actively embody far-right ideas. Thus the argument is that there is a far-right wing which now exists in UKIP through AMW, not that she has took over the party and made it wholly far right, whereas there are others who do not. This is not original research as there is significant media evidence now which supports this thesis , , , . Thus the consensus of the media is 1) AMW is far right 2) She has led to a growth of that associated faction within UKIP --TF92 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly I think you are over-stating what those sources are saying. Some only say that AMW has some far-right friends and she is just one member. Until the election results are in we don't really know how big her following is. Secondly, the political position of a party is determined by its stated policies rather than the opinions of its members. Any party will have members with a mixture of political views. How would Labour's political position be described if it was based on the range of political views of its members for example? Weburbia (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Weburbia: let's not overstate AMW's significance in the party until/if she wins the leadership election. Bondegezou (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Also agree with Weburbia: TF92 seems unaware that there are "some factions or groups within the" Libdem, Conservative and Labour parties "who actively embody extremist ideas". TF92 has a history of citing The Guardian almost to the exclusion of everything else - little prospect of a balanced view from such monochromats. See WP:NPOV Delors1991 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
A parties position is what it as party (not some fringe of it) officially says. We can say they have been called far right by X (if such RS exist).we cannot say it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There are people in this discussion who seem to be offended by the proposition and are making personal attacks against me. This is inappropriate. I started this very talk page discussion to ensure that nothing was controversially added into the page without a reasoned consensus. You should more be content an editor actually sought the opinion of others rather than just to edit the page and place it in anyway as so many do, please remember WP:CIVIL--TF92 (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, it is impossible in discussion to be other than incivil to people who are below a certain threshold of intelligence. The criticism of the illogic melds into ad hominem. The Guardian only publishes articles on extremist UKIP members. Therefore, all or most UKIP members are extremist, right? Socrates was a man. All men are mortal. Therefore all mortals are Socrates. All unintended offence is regretted. Delors1991 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
In fact, the official position of UKIP (The Constitution of the UK Independence Party, Article 2.5) is that it is a Libertarian party. Is that Right Wing or Far Right? To some it is, and to some it is something entirely different, neither left nor right. So perhaps the most accurate description of the party is that it is a "Libertarian" party. I suggest that this is what the position is amended to. If Anne Marie Waters wins the leadership election - which, incidentally, is nothing like "likely successful", according to all the bookies, Peter Whittle is the front runner - the Party Constitution may well be amended, but we can deal with this when it happens. Tarian.liber (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You are very rational, but a more appropriate way of dealing with this particular unpleasant transgressor, who is guilty of far worse than breach of WP:CIVIL, is provided for in law. Engaged as he is in libelling everyone associated with UKIP by means of his disgusting attempt to smear the party as extremist - I am no extremist. Given my own background, origins, education and so on, I have reason to believe these sorts of attacks may be racially motivated and so should be brought to the attention of the police. I am additionally informed that two offended parties have applied for his IP address, after which a court order may well yield his real world identity. I will be there to pass round the popcorn. Delors1991 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Categories: