Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

British Nationalism

UKIP cannot be listed as "British Nationalist" as keeps being added on the profile. UKIP do not hold the opinion of Britain being superior and advocate learning from other nations. For example Canadians education system and the French health care system. "British Patriotism/Patriotic" is a more accurate description. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (GMT)

First, nationalism doesn't necessarily entail holding the belief that one's own nation is "superior" to another. Second, reliable sources authored by academics who have actually spent a great deal of time studying UKIP state that they are nationalists, and we follow the reliable sources, not original research or the opinion of any one editor. Third, UKIP actually describe themselves as "civic nationalists" in their manifesto (or at least they did, last time I checked). This all being the case, the statement that they are nationalists must stay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Midnightblueowl: "patriotism" would not be a neutral description; "nationalism" is the standard term. "Nationalism" does not imply that you think one nation is inherently superior in all things. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Previous I added an edit and it was removed and I was told that it needed to be debated in talk. Now you are saying your inaccurate edit must be left and it be discussed in talk. With all due respect, you are making it up as you go and I am absolutely sick of it. Your edits have redefined UKIP as being something which they are not and none of those issues have been spoken of in the Talk section.

The definition of "Nationalism" as set out here [1] is; "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.

"an early consciousness of nationalism and pride" synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; An extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries. plural noun: nationalisms "playing with right-wing nationalism". The description is not accurate, has not been properly debated and has been wrongly added. A more accurate description would be "British patriotism. Here are the 3 customary links as reference: [2] [3] [4] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2016 (GMT)

Your unilateral insistence on ignoring what reliable sources authored by political scientists say and insisting that you — as a UKIP supporter — can define their ideology flies totally in the face of Wikipedia's policies, Rover. Moreover, you are clearly edit warring in order to impose your own personal views onto the article. It's fine for you to have an opinion and a political belief. Just respect the rules of Wikipedia; argue your case here rather than unilaterally editing the article to impose your (dare I say idiosyncratic) views on the article itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify. You designate links you post that follow your political agenda as being "accurate", and ones that conflict with what you claim, including academic in nature as being unreliable and label anything you disagree with as not being constructive. I shall repeat for the record you have given 2 different lines in 2 different situations over the last year when damaging UKIP's Wikipedia page. A year ago I added a fully referenced "Direct Democracy" ideology to UKIP's Infobox. You removed it and said it needed to be debated. It was debated and referenced and still you rejected it regardless of it being party policy and ideology. Now you are on the flip side adding something to the Infobox without debating it and are ignoring my references as it doesn't follow what YOU think. I do not think you capable of objectively adding or editing the UKIP Wikipedia page and would request a fully impartial individual review the references and clear up the mess you have clearly created. You have proven yourself incapable of impartiality by attacking me in your response. Don't act as if I have judged UKIP something and edited the page accordingly when I have CLEARLY posted references backing up the facts above. The only person imposing edits on the page is yourself. Who haven't so much as justified this edit with a counter argument to what I have said. I will repeat again. You are incapable of objectively editing this page and as such would call on you to leave the page to be edited by a neutral person. Not myself either. The infobox adding of UKIP being "British Nationalist" is wrong, it should not be added as it is not accurate. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (GMT)

I'm not promoting the description of "British nationalism" because I have some axe to grind against UKIP. I'm encouraging its inclusion in the infobox because multiple academic studies of UKIP describe them thusly. No academic sources describe the party's ideology as "British patriotism" (or at least, none that have been presented or that I am familiar with). You've presented three press sources that all suggest that English patriotism (note, English - not British) has contributed to the growth of UKIP. Which is fine; it's probably true! But none of these prose articles specifically describe UKIP as a "British patriotic" party. And yet you continue to use these sources to bolster your (idiosyncratic) claim that UKIP's ideology is "British patriotism". So not only are you totally misusing the source material and ignoring what academic political scientists actually say, but you are acting unilaterally to force your own personal description of the party you support into the article and consistently edit warring in order to do so. That is all way, way out of line. Now, I'm happy to call for some uninvolved editors to come and take a look at this debate; why don't we go for an RfC on this issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: do you think that an RfC might be a good way to go about this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"You've presented three press sources." You think the University of Cardiff and the Fabian Society are "Press Sources"? Did you even check the links I posted? The Cardiff University link I posted is an article titled; "New research finds UKIP is becoming patriotic party of England" and the Fabian Society article is titled; "THE PATRIOTISM PROBLEM". The research/articles are about the growth of UKIP as a result of British and English Patriotism and it's perceived loss among other parties. This is academic research. See, this is why I question your motives. The evidence has been posted as per Wikipedia requirements and due to it not being in line with your edit. You claim it to be "press sources". Here's a third piece of academic research by IPPR, an independent registered charity and thinktank. [5] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2016 (GMT)

Granted, "press sources" probably wasn't the best way to describe these. "Web sources" might be a better term. What is clear is that they are not peer-reviewed, academic publications, however, even if one of the sources does make reference to some research carried out by academics. Regardless, none of these sources support your contention that UKIP's ideology is "British patriotism" - you've yet to provide a single reliable source that makes this claim. Moreover, you haven't responded as to whether you'd like to take this to RfC or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's note that we are discussing the "ideology" box. Patriotism and direct democracy are not ideologies, while nationalism is. While nationalism can be chauvinistic, it also means autonomy and/or independence for the nation, hence the name UK Independence Party - they seek independence from Europe. Also, only specialist dictionaries should be used for defining political terms. The word nationalist can be used to describe an attitude, rather than an ideology, in which case it just means patriotic. But most political parties claim to be patriotic. TFD (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideology tag is a shorthand and we've got plenty of citations to support "nationalism" there. If editors feel it is appropriate, there can be a longer section in the article discussing UKIP's position(s) or relationship(s) with a broader array of ideas: "civic nationalism", "patriotism", "English vs British patriotism", &c. The solution to most infobox disagreements is to improve the article.

User:Midnightblueowl suggests an RfC. Right now, it looks to me that User:RoverTheBendInSussex has not made a compelling case and no other editors supporting his/her position. (In particular, Rover, the cites given are making a specific point about English patriotism and it would be misleading to use them to support the label "patriotism" without that English context. You have not offered any response to that point.) I don't see the point in escalating to an RfC, but if Rover feels concerned about the situation, then that would be the obvious next step. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The British nationalism article linked needs a lot of work, but the stubby bit of text we have at the moment describes British nationalism as something which "promotes the cultural unity of the British" and is closely associated with British Unionism and goes on to point out there are nativist and non-nativist strands of nationalism. The respective Wikipedia articles on patriotism and nationalism describe the former as an "emotional attachment" which is "closely related with nationalism" and the latter as encompassing "several different strands" of "belief or political ideology". UKIP represents a strand of political ideology, not an individual's emotional sentiment. The fact that patriots - people with a strong emotional attachment to their nation - are more inclined to vote for a party espousing some form of nationalism (as Rover's sources accurately but irrelevantly attest) does not make patriotism a distinct political ideology. There is nothing intrinsically objectionable about being labelled a British nationalist. Just as it would be incorrect to label UKIP as supporting white nationalism or ethnic nationalism like the far-right parties, it is correct to label it as British nationalist in the same manner as Plaid Cymru is unobjectionably and unambiguously Welsh nationalist Dtellett (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dtellett: @Bondegezou: @The Four Deuces: Do you all support the reintegration of "British nationalism" back into the infobox list of ideologies? If this is the case, will Rover please permit the information to be restored and desist from edit warring to remove it/change it to "British patriotism"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

RE; TFD Point 1. UKIP have never suggested the UK should leave "Europe", the EU is not Europe. Europe is not a political construct, the EU is. Point 2. As you said, "The word nationalist can be used to describe an attitude, rather than an ideology, in which case it just means patriotic. But most political parties claim to be patriotic." - So under those terms. Much like UKIP ideology not being Direct Democracy, "British Nationalism" would be incorrect as well.

RE; Bondegezou "it looks to me that User:RoverTheBendInSussex has not made a compelling case and no other editors supporting his/her position." Not made a compelling case? I posted 3 academic links showing UKIP as being an aspiring Patriotic party, without any mention of nationalism. Is that how you see choice making? If a mob says something, it must be true? So if I were to get a group of 5 friends of mine to list Labour as being antisemitic, with 3 articles of academic data showing a rise in antisemitism in the party and only 2 people opposed that view. I would be able to add that to their ideology? RE; Dtellett, my concern is when people start dropping things like "nativism" into the debate, which by definition is "a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants. As well as the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation." It completely ignores the fact, that in the UKIP charter, it lists a reconnection with the Commonwealth, and continuation of immigration just at what it perceives to be a sustainable level. When adding "British Nationalism", it inadvertently "stomps on the toes" of other party ideology, and paints a very false impression. My concern is that a distinction needs to be made between the hard line "nationalist", being open minded to absorbing systems employed by other countries and wanting manageable immigration as opposed to ending immigration. Wanting a cohesive society, as opposed to a segregated society. I suggest that some contrast needs drawing before "British Nationalism" is added as an ideology without further context being added at the same time. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (GMT)

Rover, you are aware by now of how Wikipedia works. Silly comparisons do not help.

That some articles do not use the word "nationalism" is irrelevant. What matters is that lots and lots of reliable sources do use that word.

I am all for context being added to the article around the concept of "nationalism". We have some in the "Ideology and policies" section, which discusses about the civic/ethnic distinction: more there would be fine. I would suggest effort is directed to improving that text. I don't see the need to change what's in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"I posted 3 academic links". No you didn't, Rover. Please stop using the term "academic" in an incorrect manner. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals that are written by accredited scholars are academic. Web articles are not "academic", even if posted on the website of a university. And even if they were academic sources, they do not state what you are claiming of them. None of them state that "British patriotism" is part of UKIP's ideology. None of them. You have literally not produced a shred of evidence for your assertion that UKIP's ideology is "British patriotism" rather than "British nationalism". Not a shred. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rover, I really appreciate that you may be well intentioned here and that you want to see UKIP presented in a manner that you think is fair and balanced. But please, please pay attention to the likes of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and WP:Righting Great Wrongs. I can see that you really think that UKIP — the party that you support — are British patriots and that the term "British nationalism" doesn't do them justice. But please take a step back and remember that Wikipedia exists to summarise what the reliable sources (and in this case the academic sources) say: and that is that UKIP are nationalists. Indeed, UKIP openly describe themselves as civic nationalists, so I am not sure why you want to evade this terminology. Wikipedia doesn't exist to tell the truth about UKIP; rather it exists to fairly and neutrally convey what the academic and other reliable sources say about UKIP. This distinction is crucial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with the description of "Civic Nationalist". But not "British Nationalism". "British Nationalism" implies a degree of nativism, whilst Civic Nationalism, otherwise known as "liberal nationalism", is identified as a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. I would advocate this term being added as opposed to "British Nationalism". User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (GMT)

Okay, I'll add "Civic Nationalism" to the infobox, with the two citations to support it. Further debate can of course continue but at least this is a good start. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that call them "civic nationalists." TFD (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The infobox should say "British nationalism". One editor cannot overrule consensus backed by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is what the reliable sources that we have say on the matter:

"Whereas the BNP subscribe to an 'ethnic' conception of nationalism, defining Britishness on the basis of race and ancestry, UKIP present themselves as a non-racist and non-sectarian party who are 'civic' nationalists, arguing that their party is 'inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background. We reject the "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism of extremist parties"." - Ford and Goodwin, p. 7.

"But whilst UKIP's conception of British civic nationalism purports to be ‘inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain’, the party identifies a number of ‘threats to Britishness’ that compromise this stated position." - Mycock and Hayton, p. 264.

Clearly, these sources note that UKIP portray themselves as civic nationalists, but there is still a question mark hovering over whether this is actually the case given their somewhat antagonistic approach to multiculturalism and British Islam in particular. At present, the prose in the main body of the article reflects these sources appropriately, but we still need to decide what to do about that infobox. Perhaps just specifying "nationalism" is the best bet, although Mycock and Hayton's source clearly also permits us to use "British nationalism" too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not repeating what I have previously said. The description of "Nationalism" is vague and inaccurate, whilst the description of "Civic Nationalist" is more accurate and precise.

With regard to attitudes toward integration, and British Islam. You are once again leaking an agenda. UKIP believe cultures should integrate. Pretty much every party believes this same line, and when it comes to living in a multi-cultural country or not, UKIP have no policies on this matter. When you use words like "antagonistic", defined as; "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something." You really should recuse yourself from editing this page. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2016 (GMT)

The definition of "civic nationalist" provided by Wikipedia is pretty difficult to apply to a party whose nationalism is defined largely in terms of Euroscepticism and promoting stronger borders and which attacks the notion of multiculturalism in its manifesto. To the extent that it is accurate and precise, it is accurately and precisely wrong. Clearly the most appropriate and specific term is "British nationalism" (more so than "Nationalism" in general, since the "British nationalism" could and should be expanded to encompass the well-documented relationship between British nationalism, Euroscepticism [and unionism] and references less irrelevant subject matter such as "anti-colonial nationalism" and "religious nationalism") Dtellett (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The only examples of incontestably civic nationalism in that article are countries like Canada that are ex-colonial and multicultural. Their civic nationalism opposes foreign political and economic domination and does not see the dominant religion, language or ethnicity as under threat. The Respect Party would be a better example of civic nationalists. And note they joined with UKIP in the "Out" campaign. TFD (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So using that logic, should Civic Nationalism be removed from the SNP page? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2016 (GMT)

It doesn't matter about the supposed "logic" of the situation. We follow the reliable sources. Verifiability, not truth. If the reliable sources unequivocally describe the SNP as civic nationalists, then we would describe them as such on that article. If the reliable sources unequivocally described UKIP as civic nationalists then this article would do so too; but the reliable sources don't state that. They note that UKIP describe themselves as civic nationalists, but at least one such source casts doubt on the analytic validity of that description because of UKIP's own stated opposition to multiculturalism and the "Islamification" of Britain and its self-professed "unashamedly unicultural" position (UKIP's words, not mine). Moreover it is frankly bemusing why yourself — a self-professed UKIP supporter — feels able to edit the page according to your own personal (and idiosyncratic) beliefs and views on the party (regardless of the fact that no reliable sources support them), while claiming that because I (allegedly) have some anti-UKIP bias I should "recuse [myself] from editing this page". There's a very clear case of double standards going on here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That is something for discussion on the SNP page. TFD (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No. It is a perfectly legit comparison. If SNP are Civic Nationalists, then so are UKIP. If UKIP are Nationalists then so are the SNP. I compromised on Civic Nationalism which for me still lacks proper clarity with UKIP ideology and now people are pushing it due to their own agendas. Either add Civic Nationalism to UKIP or add nothing. UKIP are NOT Nationalist. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2016 (GMT)

The SNP and UKIP are very different parties. Ideologically, they are quite distinct, but more than that their policies are also quite distinct. One is pro-EU, the other are hard Eurosceptics; one is social-democratic, the other is economically liberal; one if fairly socially liberal, the other fairly socially conservative; one embraces multi-culturalism, the other explicitly rejects it. It makes little sense to argue that they must be categorised in exactly the same manner. However, this is all beside the point. We are not here to talk about the SNP or how they should be presented at Wikipedia. We are here to discuss UKIP and how to present it at Wikipedia. Comparisons of this nature serve absolutely no purpose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, none of the differences between the SNP and UKIP make UKIP Nationalist as opposed to Civic Nationalist. Secondly Scotland embrace the idea of being Scottish, that doesn't make them bog-standard Nationalist. Whilst wanting sustainable immigration levels on a non-racial standpoint doesn't take a party out of the Civic Nationalist bracket either. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2016 (GMT)

As said above, this is not the place to play compare and contrast with the SNP and UKIP. We follow the reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying they are civic nationalists implies that Britishness and immigration are not issues for UKIP, when in fact they are central to their desire for political independence from Europe. TFD (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Point 1. Being patriotic and in favour of sustainable immigration doesn't necessarily make you nationalist. Point 2. UKIP didn't fight for political Independence from Europe. They fought for political Independence from a Political Union of the EU. Saying that the EU is Europe is like saying the Americas is the Commonwealth. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2016 (GMT)

Certainly being patriotic and in favour of sustainable immigration does not make one nationalistic, but it precludes one from being a civic nationalist, because they would see these policies as chauvinism and xenophobia. That is not to say that the civic nationalists are right, just that they hold a different view from the ethnic/cultural nationalists. Both groups seek independence from Europe, but ethnic/cultural nationalists see ethnic British and British culture as under threat, while civic nationalists think that the people who happen to live in the UK, which is not heterogeneous, have a right to self-government. Immigration benefits the UK, according to them, by increasing multiculturalism. The UK should have more Muslims and blacks, more people speaking different languages. I don't know why you are presenting semantic arguments about Europe. Surely you do not think that UKIP advocates political dependence on Europe. Is your concern that UKIP says it wants to be part of Europe, just independent from the EU Commission? TFD (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Being patriotic, and favouring controlled immigration does not preclude a party from being Civic Nationalist unless you are implying that Patriotism and favouring controlled immigration is xenophobic, and goes against values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. All of those things exist under Civic Nationalism. I don't like your implying that UKIP policy is to prejudice against people based on ethnic or cultural backgrounds. If people who quite obviously hate UKIP took the time to a) look at UKIP's immigration policy and b) took the time to look at UKIP's charter they would see that UKIP advocate a balanced global immigration system based on skills, and not based on nationality of birth as the pro-EU immigration system backed by the mainstream parties employs. UKIP also advocates a closer economic and migratory immigration system with the Commonwealth, even going as far as to moot a policy where by people would be able to easily pass between Commonwealth countries for non economic migratory reasons, for family gatherings etc. My concern is that people on this page who are trying to post the inaccurate "Nationalist" edit, are doing so to present the picture of tribalism and xenophobia. It doesn't portray UKIP accurately and should NOT be allowed. UKIP advocate political Independence from the EU, not Europe. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2016 (GMT)

Dealing with the edit warring and disruptive editing

Rover is still edit warring to ensure that their own personal opinions are reflected in the article while showing no regard for the reliable sources (here - "If UKIP are Nationalist. Then so are the SNP. I am bored of this now. Pick nothing, or Civic Nationalist"). Any thoughts on how to deal with this? I'm pretty sure that we're in disruptive editing territory now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of references and fair argument showing that the description of "nationalist" is inaccurate to describe UKIP. It implies a form of nativism. I believe you and at least two others attempting to push through this nasty edit are not impartial. You and others have leaked hostility toward UKIP. Be it claiming that UKIP are "anti immigration", which they are not and being "anti Europe", which they also are not. I compramised on Civic Nationalism. Which by definition means "Civic nationalism, also known as liberal nationalism, is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights." (Wikipedia's own definition". These are all things that clearly apply to UKIP. However you are trying to push through "Nationalism" because it has a more negative association, than the non-xenophphobic form. I stand by the Wikipedia definition of Civic Nationalism, and against individuals trying to push the more negative sounding one. As per the Wikipedia definition of Civic Nationalism and it being added to UKIP's page, the only argument that has been given above is a) attitude toward immigration (which is non-xenophobic and about sustainability), b) patriotic attitude which isn't against the definition of Civic Nationalism, c) "attitude toward Muslims"... Not even sure what that meant considering UKIP were the first party to get a Muslim elected to Tendring Council. Nobody has even cited a policy? d) Concerns about people integrating into a British Society, which is something most parties have and finally e) Concerns about the divisions that can be caused by encouraging people to live segregated in terms of a multi-cultural society. Recent polling has shown that most people either think the concept of a multi-cultural society has failed. Or believe that more needs to be done to help people integrate. None of these things are against the principles of Civic Nationalism. They certainly are not "Xenophobic", which seems to be the main difference between bog-standard "Nationalism", and "Civic Nationalism". So I again suggest, in fairness, that unless anyone can give a strong argument against UKIP being a Civic Nationalist Party instead of a Nationalist Party, the term Civic Nationalist should be added. [6] (second from last paragraph lists UKIP as Civic Nationalist - Matthew Goodwin is a British academic. Goodwin is currently Professor of Politics in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent, and Associate Fellow at Chatham House.) and [7] (Britain’s Nationalist Moment: The Claims-Making of the SNP and UKIP by Daniel T. Dye from American University, School of International Service) are two further examples of academy data citing UKIP as a "Civic Nationalist Party". User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2016 (GMT)

I think that you're missing the point Rover. We're not here to present our own arguments as to what we as individuals think UKIP should be classified as; I for instance would categorise UKIP as "socially conservative", but the reliable sources don't clearly echo that, so it isn't going in the article. (For what it's worth I have never, as far as I can recall, referred to UKIP as "anti-immigrationist" or "anti-Europe"). What we are here to do is to fairly and neutrally report on what the reliable sources say - and the best kind of reliable sources are academic articles written by political scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals. As has been demonstrated, these sources attest that UKIP describes itself as civic nationalist but do not endorse this as an analytically valid description; indeed one of these sources (Mycock and Hayton) actively suggests that there is little that is civic about their nationalism. (You cite a Guardian article written by Ford and Goodwin as supporting the claim that UKIP are civic nationalists, but if you actually look at the article, that is not what they are saying. They put the word civic in quotes, thus indicating a degree of scepticism over the way in which UKIP describe themselves).

You are the only editor arguing against the use of "British nationalism" and/or "nationalism" in the lede, and moreover you are edit warring to force your view into the article (i.e. promoting "British patriotism" and "civic nationalism") rather than trying to change the established consensus. There are now four editors who have argued against your contentious edits. I have suggested that we go for an RfC and you have just ignored me. This is textbook disruptive editing. Are you willing to abide by the consensus or do you want to go to RfC or another form of dispute resolution to get more opinions on this issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that RoverTheBendInSussex should post this[8] since it uses the word "civic" only twice, both in relation to the SNP and not UKIP, and describes UKIP as "actually a better fit with Gellner’s ideal type of nationalism than the SNP because it rejects the latter’s ‘post-sovereign’ understanding of independence". As a source for defining UKIP as British nationalist or even just nationalist it's excellent. As a source for defining UKIP's form of nationalism as predominatly "civic" in character it's actively damaging to the claim.

Similarly, it doesn't really matter whether UKIP's opposition to multiculturalism is in line with recent polling, it's evidence they believe there is a significant cultural component to national identity which isn't really consistent with the idea of jus soil civic nationalism. Dtellett (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So Rover has actually fundamentally misrepresented all five of the sources that they have brought with them into this argument? I wonder if they actually read them in the first place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So now you are openly mocking me to push your agenda. You are not impartial. Desist from editing this page. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2016 (GMT)

You might want to redact that comment Rover ----Snowded ^TALK 01:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No. We need to come up with a better term to define UKIP. I am not going to sit here and watch UKIP being labeled negatively as "Nationalist" when that term does not properly define UKIP. How can it be acceptable that the SNP have the ideology of "Civic Nationalist" when there have been clear examples from their own MP's of anglophobia. The term "Nationalist" is perceived as a negative through the National media at present. As I have previously said, I am quite happy to have Civic Nationalist. Liberal nationalism would also be an appropriate term to describe UKIP with its definition on Wikipedia being; "Liberal nationalism is a kind of nationalism defended recently by political philosophers who believe that there can be a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. Ernest Renan, author of "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?" and John Stuart Mill are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly." User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2016 (GMT)

Stop refusing to get the point. You've been told again and again that your personal opinion of UKIP and what you think they are doesn't matter. What matters are the reliable sources. They describe UKIP as "nationalist". Thus this article describes UKIP as "Nationalist". If subsequent reliable sources change their description, then so will Wikipedia. This disruptive editing has been going on for far too long now; I've taken this issue to the administrators' noticeboard (here) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I must have missed JS Mill's condemnation of free trade blocs and lengthy treatises on the importance of controls on immigration and an Australian-style point system.

But seriously, the SNP is described as "Scottish nationalist" because it promotes a form of nationalism based around an independent Scottish state. UKIP is described as "British nationalist" because it promotes a form of nationalism based around the Union. The SNP is described as "civic nationalist" because it promotes a vision of an independent Scotland which is multicultural and welcoming to immigrants. UKIP is not described as "civic nationalist" because it promotes a vision of Britain based around a more defined view of British cultural identity and emphasises restrictions upon who it lets in. "Nationalist" is not a "negative label" per se and doesn't magically become "positive" or "neutral" by inserting the word "civic" or "liberal" in front of it. This really isn't very difficult for anyone with more than a passing interest in politics to grasp. Dtellett (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "Civic nationalism" (also known as liberal nationalism); is "a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights." Nowhere does that form of Nationalism does it suggest it would be voided by a controlled form of immigration which two thirds of the World population have. Unless you are intimating that UKIP are "xenophobic" in ideology, the description is wrong. The United Kingdom itself employ a points based immigration system to those from outside the EU. That system was run by the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives after them. Do we define them as British Nationalist as well? UKIP don't oppose people coming to the UK, Globally, and in measured numbers. In fact UKIP have been the party saying EU migrants and those from the rest of the world should be treated completely equally. That isn't "my opinion", that is fact. [9] Not allowing in criminals, people of poor health and people who aren't skilled is exactly the format of immigration used in Canada. The Prime Minister of the ruling party of Canada Justin Trudeau is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Do we label them Nationalist as well because his party maintained the system of immigration in Canada? The same could be said of Australian Prime Minister of Malcolm Turnbull who is leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. Do we also label them Nationalist for the points based immigration system they employ? If you don't think the term "Nationalist" is being employed as a negative in the British Press, I am confused, because it is pretty much accepted negatively in UK politics. [10] [11] Hell, even Wikipedia associates it with violence! [12] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:03, 01 October 2016 (GMT)

"As a source for defining UKIP as British nationalist or even just nationalist it's excellent" someone wrote. Maybe they should take that excellent source and first use it to improve British nationalism. It is ludicrous to go around claiming a party represents something when that something is seemingly so ill-defined and unimportant that it merits little more than a stub article. And it is ludicrously defined too - I'm sure UKIP's manifesto is filled with references to "ancient Britons" ... not! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is disputing that the British nationalism page is in a bit of a worry state and needs work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is actually on my to do list; plan was to rescue some of the soon-to-be-deleted British Independence page material and build around it. Other editors are of course welcome to wade in before me Dtellett (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau's party did not "put immigration at the centre of their campaign", did not have a "5 year moratium on unskilled immigration" in its manifesto, and his main priority with his national border has been to loosen controls over it and let in 25,000 refugees, whilst his party champions the idea of state-supported multiculturalism and has historically championed greater immigration. Hence no intellectually honest and politically aware person would suggest that the political ideologies of UKIP and the Liberal Party of Canada were similar. If you actually had any sources elaborating on why UKIP's form of nationalism should be considered a "civic" form primarily concerned with promoting pluralism and social liberalism rather than a distinctly "British" form of promoting Euroscepticism, the Union and particularly the decidedly non-"civic" primary political objective of fewer immigrants and values of less multiculturalism, presumably you'd have posted them by now... The fact some newspapers have used "nationalism" in a critical way is totally irrelevant. Some newspapers have used "conservative" as a negative term; but that doesn't mean Wikipedia redefines the political ideology of the Conservative Party as "compassionate conservative" to appease their more sensitive supporters. Dtellett (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You could say is "civic" because it is not based on advocating or retaining or protecting a concept of a race but that of a culture. However, all these sourced labels are opinions, not facts, and should be given only slightly more authority than similar sourced claims of the party itself or of its immediate political opponents. Meaning, I think they should not be used in the first sentence of the lede (I winced at seeing the jargon word "Eurosceptic" there). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the impression I was talking about about how Nationalism is presented in politics. [13] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 16:13, 06 October 2016 (GMT)

Sure, some liberals and leftists use the term "nationalism" in a solely negative and pejorative manner. Equally some people use "fascist" as an insult for any politician that they don't like. Others insist that Tony Blair and Barack Obama are "communists". That doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to tiptoe around how particular words might be interpreted by those individuals who use words in a manner completely detached from their actual meanings. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it follows the WP:Reliable Sources, in particular those produced by academics and published in peer-reviewed outlets. Reliable sources produced by academics state that UKIP are nationalist. No reliable sources produced by academics reject the claim that UKIP are nationalist. Hence Wikipedia refers to UKIP as nationalist. It is that simple, and that should be the end of it. If the academics begin to change the way that they describe UKIP's ideology, then Wikipedia will too. Until then, it must stay as it is. For good or for ill, that's how Wikipedia works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

UKIP are also described as Classically Liberal. This is a complete conflict with Nationalism. Again, it really doesn't make sense. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 20:26, 06 October 2016 (GMT)

Not exactly. UKIP are described in the reliable sources as having an economic policy that is influenced by classical liberal and Thatcherite thought. There aren't any reliable sources (which I am aware of, at least) that actually go further than that and describe UKIP as "classically liberal". There is nothing intrinsically implausible about a party having a nationalist ideology and a liberal economic policy; the two are not in conflict and it makes perfect sense that such parties would exist. (Indeed, most national conservative parties would fit such a description). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic article

Very impressed reading this, a lot of academic sources, reads very well. Most Wikipedia articles are a hotchpotch of one-line sections with references from news sources everytime the subject is in the news. And I haven't even mentioned how it describes the most polarising party in Britain without a whiff of an axe to grind in either direction. Whoever has contributed the most to this article should nominate it for a good or featured status. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Anarcho-authoritarian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Polls

Some Uneducated person is getting rid of my post saying Since the referendum the polls have seen a Big decline in UKIP standing in the polls even some say the LibDems have retaking their 3rd place spot. its a well Know Fact that since the referendum its support have tanked and that's coming from a UKIP voter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

If I post the comment again I'm thinking I may need to put a Need Citation tag. Torygreen84 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A, do not call other users Uneducated, it is a PA and against the rules, please strike it.

B, If it is well known you can cite it from an RS, if not do not include it. If you cannot find a source you do not get around it by using a Need Citation tag. If you cannot find a source you should not include this "fact".Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look around for sources, and the first one that comes to light is this piece about the Sleaford by-election, which gives an opinion that in a constituency with a strong "leave" result in the EU referendum, merely coming second to the Tories is not good enough for UKIP. That in no way implies that UKIP are in decline, and to suggest so from that source is original research and should not be added. Meanwhile, this YouGov poll from a few weeks back puts UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the 'uneducated' or rather 'Uneducated'. Torygreen84 you need to strike that please and do repeat that sort of comment ----Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the internet andi found this this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/it-doesnt-matter-who-replaces-nigel-farage-without-him-theresa-m/ it talks about the Decline of Ukip. So can I now post it. Torygreen84 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't support your original edit, it might support something about questions being raised about UKIP with a change of leader but I am not sure that is relevant - smacks of recentism. You haven't struck the personal attack yet by the way - that sort of thing is taken seriously in wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

[14] "What the polls show is UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives" Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Anglocentric?

In the 'Nationalism and British Unionism' section, is it really entirely accurate to say that UKIP's support base is centred largely in England and mobilises English nationalism above all else? With Scotland, you have a point seeing that UKIP support is so low there, but (other than Douglas Carswell) the only place where UKIP have any elected officials at the moment is in the Welsh Assembly, so on that basis it seems outdated to describe them as an English-only party. I realise that complete objectivity is difficult, but to me the section focusses too much on one man (Richard Hayton) and his perception of UKIP as Anglocentric, ignoring the stark reality of Welsh Euroscepticism and strong UKIP support in the Southern valleys. 86.174.140.40 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources in question were written at a time when UKIP's support base was largely restricted to England; its spread into Wales is a more recent phenomenon. For this reason I think that you raise a very fair and valid point. However, I would be hesitant to start removing this material from the main text of the article because it is well-referenced, being based on the ideas of someone with clear expertise in this area. Hopefully future academic studies will be published that discuss UKIP's relationship with Welsh voters and that information can then be incorporated into this section in order to provide a more rounded picture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Only two-thirds of people in Wales consider themselves Welsh.[15] 14% consider themselves English. Do you know whether UKIP did well among people who consider themselves Welsh? TFD (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Addition of election outcome to results

Please edit the article to add the "election outcome" column to the page.

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 06:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

House of Commons

During the 2010–15 Parliament, two Conservative MPs defected to UKIP and were re-elected in subsequent by-elections. At the 2015 general election, UKIP retained one of these seats (Clacton) and received over 30% of the vote in Boston & Skegness, South Thanet, Heywood & Middleton and Rochester and Strood.

Election year	# of total votes	% of overall vote	# of seats won	Outcome
1997	105,722	0.3%	0 / 650	No seats
2001	390,563	1.5%	0 / 650	No seats
2005	603,298	2.2%	0 / 646	No seats
2010	919,546	3.1%	0 / 650	No seats
2015	3,881,099	12.6%	1 / 650	Opposition

European Parliament

Election year	# of total votes	% of overall vote	# of seats won	Rank
1994	155,487	1%	0 / 87	8
1999	696,057	6.7%	3 / 87	4
2004	2,650,768	16.1%	12 / 78	3
2009	2,498,226	16.6%	13 / 72	2
2014	4,376,635	27.5%	24 / 73	1

National Assembly for Wales elections

Year	Percentage of vote (constituency)	Percentage of vote (regional)	Seats won (constituency)	Seats won (regional)	Seats won (total)	Outcome
1999	0.0% (N/A)	0.0% (N/A)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2003	2.3% (19,795)	3.5% (29,427)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2007	1.8% (18,047)	4.0% (38,490)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2011	0.0% (N/A)	4.6% (43,756)	0 / 40	0 / 20	0 / 60	No seats
2016	12.5% (127,0385)	13.0% (132,138)	0 / 40	7 / 20	7 / 60	Opposition

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Carswell has quit UKIP. They now have 0 MPs in the commons. 82.1.22.116 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done using BBC News source.  Seagull123  Φ  12:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Voter Base - educational attainment

The Voter Base section says, quoting a study by Ford and Goodwin, that "55% of UKIP supporters had left school aged 16 or under, with only 24% having attended university, making it clear that the party primarily appealed to the least educated in society." This conclusion ought to be noted as disputed. Analysis of the 2011 census shows that only 27% of the population aged 16-74 had a degree, implying that the figure of 24% of UKIP supporters having attended university is not far off the national average. See this link: Any difference is likely to be explained by the age balance of UKIP supporters, since university participation rates have been rising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.231.29.20 (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:Reliable source specifically stating that that Ford and Goodwin's conclusions have been disputed? Remember that Wikipedia cannot utilise WP:Original research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia 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)

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21614073
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/feb/06/otherparties.politicalcolumnists
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/684384.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/ukip-conservatives
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225024448/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/express-newspapers-owner-richard-desmond-donates-300000-to-ukip-9922663.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/express-newspapers-owner-richard-desmond-donates-300000-to-ukip-9922663.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601103137/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukips-meps-after-months-of-gaffes-and-controversies-meet-the-people-who-will-represent-britain-in-the-european-parliament-9435149.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukips-meps-after-months-of-gaffes-and-controversies-meet-the-people-who-will-represent-britain-in-the-european-parliament-9435149.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/euro_uk/html/front.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-shows-voters-believe-ukip-is-to-the-left-of-the-tories-9923416.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/20/voters-think-media-more-biased-against-UKIP/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints-ukip-election-coverage-bias

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 [WP:NPOV] 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 [16], [17], [18], [19]. 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)

I am not smearing anyone, I am engaging in a discussion and have been very open to others opinions...--TF92 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent news, most commendable. Perhaps you will give weight to your interpretation by promptly placing your suggestion to classify the Labour Party as the disgusting anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying, Nazi-loving **** it evidently is, on the grounds that so many of their MPs (including front-benchers) have made public comments showing this? Please supply the link indicating you've done this. Not that "Far Left" gives the right flavour for Labour - "Nazi" does better. I'll support you in the discussion there. Thanks so much. Note WP:NPOV WP:Stupid 23:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Lay of the PA's and discus content only.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The user in question has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and legal threats. As for this discussion, I accept the consensus of editors that it is premature to shift the political position on the basis of AMW yet. Also to clarify any misunderstandings, I grasp that UKIP as a whole is not a "far-right" party and many factions exist within it, nevertheless, should AMW be elected as leader I do believe it may be worth re-opening this discussion on the grounds that a far-right group or faction has emerged in the party- --TF92 (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well she has not won twice now and it seems as if there has been a concerted effort to register new members in what some in the party are calling a far right take over bid. Moreover there have already been resignations over just her standing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't won twice now? She hasn't stood before yet. Absolutely, UKIP's core ideology is more based on a brand of Conservatism than far-right leaning nationalism, but nevertheless I am convinced there has been an emergence of such--TF92 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If AMW wins, then, sure, we should look at the situation again. I imagine that, if she wins, there will be plenty of editing to be done. But that's all an if. Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops My mistake, it was Etheridge (who has said he would resign if she wins).Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

today's leader

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41447568 100.15.117.207 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Former logo

I updated the logo. The former logo is public domain so won't be deleted in a hurry. It has obvious relevence to the party as it was used for so long, so I ask where should it be placed in the article? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging regular editor Midnightblueowl, please ping other regular editors you know of Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well done Anarcho-authoritarian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, the party used in its first years a red, blue and yellow palette, and a logo with the British flag stylised like an eight-point compass. [20] [21] While colours and logos are hardly the most written-about aspect of any political party, there could be room in the article for a brief summary of such. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

We'd need Reliable Sources, preferably those written by academics and published in peer-reviewed sources, that discuss the changes in iconography. Hopefully such things will be produced in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The current logo is very grainy, no transparent background, and displays very poorly on all displays other than smart devices. Anyone with a better image? (There was one earlier today that has an excellent image but it appears to have been removed or deleted.)

Dear unsigned, I uploaded the image pretty much as a placeholder because of the breaking news. As time goes on there will undoubtedly be better versions or another user could sharpen it with technology that I don't understand Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Anarcho-authoritarian. Apologies for the 'unsigned'. Didn't quite understand how the talk page worked yet. DoulosBen (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

Update councillor number to 269: http://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/ 92.232.242.16 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated to 262, which is the figure from the link provided at the time I accessedDtellett (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Commentary?

@Sport and politics: How is Similarly, UKIP's 2017 manifesto pledged to declare 23 June British Independence Day and observe it annually as a national holiday. commentary? It's a statement of fact. It appears to be continuation of previous statements about other holidays they want to declare and doesn't appear undue. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 07:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Has this been fixed?Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted. This user has made similar edits on a range of articles. Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2018

Update Councillor number to 248. 2A00:23C4:4B34:5A00:E881:6CD6:31BF:522D (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a citation on which this is based? Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's given by the existing source in the infobox. Mélencron (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Done by Slatersteven. Stickee (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2018

UKIP AM Mandy Jones will not sit with Assembly Group. Change Assembly Group number to 5. 2A00:23C4:4B34:5A00:E881:6CD6:31BF:522D (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mandy Jones and her Assembly Group does not appear to be in the article anywhere. Its not clear what you want changed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Change Welsh Assembly number to 5. Mandy Jones has been expelled from the Assembly Group. 94.173.179.46 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Per this source Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

Change MEP number from 20 to 19. Jonathan Arnott has resigned. 94.173.179.46 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would argue too soon, he may well rejoin if a certain person resigns.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Closed as Not done: per above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why only "right-wing"?

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why isn't UKIP described as a "far right" party, like Britain First? (86.133.84.196 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)) Because it's not. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Agree, it is not in the same place in the political spectrum as Britain First. In fact, people who have ever belong to Britain First are barred from joining.[22] TFD (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on the premise that we only include material previously appearing in WP:Reliable Sources, with academic material being the best kind of source. As far as I know, no academic operating in the field of political science refers to UKIP as "far right"; rather, they favour terms like "right-wing populism". When you compare UKIP's actual policies with those of unequivocally far-right groups like the National Front (UK) and British National Party you can see the difference. UKIP for instance oppose state support for multiculturalism and 'Islamification' but are not actually calling for Muslims and ethnic minorities to leave the country, merely to culturally assimilate with the white British (or perhaps white English) population to a greater degree. Conversely, far-right groups like the NF and BNP don't want assimilation at all; they want said minorities and Muslims to be removed from the country altogether. UKIP call for immigration to be limited, but not stopped; the NF and BNP want a total ban on non-white migration specifically. On economic policy too they are miles apart; UKIP are Thatcherite-style free marketers, whereas the NF and BNP are committed to a form of economic protectionism devoted to serving the 'nation'. There's a significant different in the two world-views. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) @Midnightblueowl - That's a good response and I agree with it all except for where you said "assimilate with the white British". There's a 5 letter word in there shouldn't be, IMHO - despite what the media say, and correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard UKIP make any distinction between "British" people in terms of race... :) LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC) @LoveEverybodyUnconditionally: It is true that UKIP are not a racialist party and in their understanding anyone can be, or become, "British", through a process of civic and cultural assimilation. As you point out, they do not explicitly refer to the "white" British as the group which migrants (and their UK-born descendants) should emulate. But nevertheless, the implication is there. UKIP reject the premise of multiculturalism and are proudly "monocultural". That means that they believe that there is a single cultural identity to which everyone in Britain should subscribe. It is quite obvious that for them, that single cultural identity is not British Afro-Caribbean identity, nor British Pakistani, nor British Polish; when they say "British", they implicitly mean "White British" (and, many Welsh and Scots have argued, "White English"). In the UKIP worldview, it is the White British (and specifically the White English) who set the benchmark for what is, and what isn't, "British" identity and culture. This is probably based on the fact that the only ethnic group in Britain which makes any form of claim to long-term 'indigeneity' is the White British (even though they are of course a patchwork assembled from a wide range of older ethno-cultural and national groups). It is this attitude, I believe, that has prevented UKIP from gaining much support from any minority ethnic community or from the Scots; their support base is almost entirely among the White English (barring a few White Welsh too). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC) @Midnightblueowl: I see where you're coming from but I think there's a fair amount of reading between non-existent lines going on there. I can think of may examples of non-white things that are now fully part of British culture (e.g. Notting Hill Carnival, Mo Farah, curry...) I obviously missed the UKIP manifesto that called for these things to be "sent back to wherever they came from"! LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Yep, if RS do not call them it neither do we, no matter how obvious it is (to any given editor).Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC) @Slatersteven: How exactly is it 'obvious' UKIP are far right? You've already said that reliable sources don't give them that tag, so where are you getting your information from that they are 'obviously' far right? The pub? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) It was rhetorical.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) I've briefly looked through Google Books, and found no descriptions of UKIP as 'far right'; there are plenty that describe it as 'radical right'; or the populist right; some 'nationalist'; but most just 'right wing' as is the status quo on this page. Ralbegen (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Update Councillor number from 206 to 200. 2001:630:E4:4220:214B:1982:C06:6F2C (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Where's your source? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mélencron (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

HS2

Mention that, like the Green Party, UKIP is opposed to HS2, on the ground that it is a pernicious project supported by bogus arguments. Seadowns (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this something mentioned by WP:Reliable sources? If so, a brief mention might certainly be warranted at the appropriate juncture of the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of councillors

Are we sure they have 183 councillors? In March the figure was 198, and according to this they've just lost 123 in the local elections? Surely the figures need updating. This is Paul (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The source used for other parties' councillor figures says it's updated for May 2018 elections, and it says that Ukip have 211 councillors. I'm not sure why open council data has such a different figure. Ralbegen (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bit confusing. BTW, someone's now changed it to 126, which can't be correct either, as assuming 198 was right then the figure should now be 75. If 211 is correct then ignore my previous ramblings. This is Paul (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

They won 176 seats in 2015, 58 in 2016, 1 seat in 2017 and 3 in 2018. Meaning they've won 238 seats over the four year local election cycle. Their total councillors might be lower than that now as a result of lost by-elections and defections, but I can't see how it could have gone as low as 126, as stated at the moment. 92.236.40.249 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The number on the site used by other political party pages now says 116, which I've updated the figure to here. Ralbegen (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gywdir.demon is a Liberal Democrat reference site, and is updated manually, so I don't think it constitutes a reliable source on its own. Open Council data is updated by an algorithm that crawls all the council websites on a rota, so when it finishes updating (in maybe a couple of weeks time) we should have a more accurate picture of UKIP councillors. It's likely to be around 100. I've already spotted several mistakes in the Gwydir.demon total. It's not a simple case of subtracting 126 (as I've now discovered) because some of those are notional losses in which the UKIP councillor elected in 2014 had already left the party or resigned their seat. It's also not as simple as adding up their wins across 4 years, as many of those councils had all-up elections which cut their terms short. Dozens of UKIP councillors have also left the party since. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think gywdir.demon is maintained by Keith Edkins, who appears to be a Liberal Democrat. But it's treated as a reliable source by various other sources to the extent that I think it's fair to consider it a reliable source, and hence suitable for use. Happy to use Open Council Data too, but it might be worth getting consensus on which source to use at Wikiproject level so that there's consistency across the various articles that refer to local or national council composition. Ralbegen (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018

Change number of MEPs from 19 to 17. MassiveNewOrderFan (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Change the number of MEPs from 18 to 17. (Jonathan Arnott and James Carver have resigned in recent months). MassiveNewOrderFan (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The number is actually 18 — Agnew, Aker, Batten, Bullock, Bours, Coburn, Collins, Dartmouth, Etheridge, Farage, Finch, Gill, Hookem, Nuttall, O'Flynn, Parker, Reid and Seymour. Ralbegen (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

logo

UKIP has seemingly abandoned it's new logo in favour of the old Pound one, incl on their official Facebook, Twitter accounts, website too I think. Should wikipedia reflect that? 86.133.239.192 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Best to wait for an official announcement indicating that the party has officially reverted its logo. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Here Batten talks about the logo change and how it was the first "executive decision" he took as Interim Leader 2A02:C7D:16D3:E700:7471:3DE8:1516:C0F3 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

https://web.archive.org/web/20180619073614/https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1008965204296765440 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.171.41 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)