::The point is though, that the coverage of Bloom and indeed Silvester has already been made.(point of fact - Silvester has never been elected as UKIP - lets keep the comments page factual as well as the article its self shall we) We do not need to cite opinion piece after opinion piece and add more and more information for one event in the party's History, history being the optimum word. I have already made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a news outlet or a blog and so journalistic opinion is of total irrelevance. We're meant to cover the facts, this has already been done. I notice you have split the subsection from 2010-present because it is so large. It would not be so large if we did not put so much emphasis on individual events that have little relevance to the long term history of the party. By all means lets cover them (we have) but brevity for small events is necessary or we end up putting undue weight on a recent news worthy event, that may well turn out to historical insignificant. Looking at the party's 20+ years history, given the number of defections and what not, this is just one of many controversies and has little Historical relevance in its own right. That said I accept it may have some relevance historically (we don't know yet as not much time has passed), this is why I have not removed both Silvester and Bloom from the history section. In time, both may just be yet more controversies to the long list the party already has, non of which have significant Historical in their own right but require covering in a controversies & defections list (which is what we have rightfully done).