Talk:UK Independence Party

It's activity since 2020 has largely been as an activist group and not really as a political party. Charliephere (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That is original research. Helper201 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No it isnt? Its not my original research Charliephere (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Then you need to provide reliable sources that explicitly call UKIP an activist group. Helper201 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

UKIP was at one time a party that occupied the same position on the British political spectrum that Reform UK holds now; that is to say, on the right of British politics without being far-right. However, with its loss of political power, it has shifted significantly further to the right: see, for example, this, and this. Based on WP:RS, would it now be reasonable to use the term "far-right" in the lede? — The Anome (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@The Anome I would support this. I think it would be best to do the following

• Put far-right in the page lead
• Change the infobox to 'far-right', Historical: 'right-wing to far-right'

I believe that some further sources help to create overwhelming evidence it is solely far-right rather than rw-fr (on top of the existing sources): The Week (2018), FT (2018), Independent (2019), HNH (2025)

Historical sources on UKIP being right-wing: BBC (2014), Tournier-Sol (writing about 2010-16), Economist (2014), Thrasher et al (2013), Flamini (2013)

Historical sources on UKIP being far-right: Vox, Washington Post (2015), FT (2015)

Quinby (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Support based on the sources provided there is there is enough to call them far-right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the right-wing to far-right label was already sufficient. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This might be informative: "Mr Tenconi told the Mirror: 'For the past 13 months I have been using a unique salute which nobody, nor the left nor the right has ownership of. Its origins [sic] is in the Roman victory salute and is amalgamated into the power fist symbol.'" You can take a look yourselves and draw your own conclusions as to what it looks like, and what he might be intending for others to read into the gesture. — The Anome (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If the political position is to be updated then it would be helpful to update the ideologies too. If there's been a move to the far-right then it’s likely its ideologies have also changed. Helper201 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Should the political Ideology of UKIP now include Falangism or Clerical Fascism based on their recent Conference in 2025? It does appear that they hold some far-right beleifs and have also appeared to have thrown off the label of populist. Most notably, there recent Conference (October 2025) included many natural Far right beliefs including but not limited to:

• Great Replacement Theory
• The idea that current society is decadent
• The launch of a "9th Crusade".
• Anti-Immigrant and Anti-Left.
• Constant veneration and push for Christianity and Christianization.

These do seem to provide sufficient evidence that UKIP overlaps into Falagnism or Clerical Fascism depending on how you perceive their belief that the church has been corrupted. However, I believe it is best to talk about this before changing it. ThatN0vaBird (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This would be WP:OR - we need extensive sources that use these terms. — Czello ^(music) 09:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Czello Ok, I will see if I can find anything on it. ThatN0vaBird (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Per the above, what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk)

Falangist? In comparison to other far-right traditions, Falangism combines elements of Catholic traditionalism, anti-capitalism, and anti-communism. "Primo de Rivera denounced capitalism for being an individualist economy at the hands of the bourgeoisie that turned workers "into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production," and denounced state socialist economies for "enslaving the individual by handing control of production to the state."^[1]" What is the UKIP's economic ideology?Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Based on the conference, they denounce the idea of the Industrialisation and instead want to focus on a grassroots economy made up of smaller industries. They also despise the idea of globalization and wish to focus on National industries (Most likely featuring elements of Nationalisation). In reality, however, the conference was not completely clear on economic policies rather focusing on the Social Policies. My main focus, therefore, was on the Catholic Traditionalism Anti-immigration, and Anti-communism as stated with the idea of a "9th Crusade" and the phrase "I will deploy the army into Britian to round up and deport the Islamists, Illegals and the Communists." which can be seen in the video filmed by the party on YouTube.

Also, can you quickly explain what you mean by "RS"? I'm new to wikipedia so I dont have lots of knowledge on what that means. ThatN0vaBird (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources, as per wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Thanks for the information on the "RS". I will keep that in mind. ThatN0vaBird (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

UKIP has just submitted a new logo to the Electoral Commission. The imagery is really quite startling, including what appears to be Templar cross and a spear, which it's not entirely clear what it represents, but would be interesting to see what WP:RS make of it: primary sourcesecondary source — The Anome (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-registration-and-regulation/political-party-registration/current-applications-update-party-registrations

can confirm this is true Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

They've not changed there Logo on their site or their Twitter(X) yet and the link you provided states "We publish names, descriptions and emblems which we are currently considering", "currently considering" implies it's not been approved yet.

I would wait until it's used by them or has went through the approval process. Mystikalman (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The mention in the article is purely about its registration and sources reacting to its registration with a certain amount of incredulity; there's no evidence that UKIP have actually used the logo anywhere yet. — The Anome (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be taking on a life of its own now. UKIP have used the logo on their X (formerly Twitter) account, complaining about how other people are characterizing it and stating their take that it is explicitly Christian in nature, perhaps signalling a hard turn in the direction of Christian nationalism. It's certainly passed the notability threshold for inclusion (in text) within the article. — The Anome (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

"UKIP have used the logo on their X (formerly Twitter) account" But not in their Banner or Profile Picture, or indeed on their Website, so I would refrain from updating their logo on the article until it's went through the approval process.

"It's certainly passed the notability threshold for inclusion (in text) within the article" Agreed, certainly in terms of Press reaction and their own I would say it deserves recognition in the article. It could go in the Lead to better communicate what is happening with the Logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section states that "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", but the Lead is already quite lengthy, so open to suggestions. But once they do change their logo (or don't) you could put it in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Media_and_academia section, you could place it in their just now, but given the current high profile controversy it could go in the lead, again open to suggestion Mystikalman (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Their Twitter now uses the logo. I think it's time to add it.

Does anyone have experience with uploading fair use images to Wikipedia? Amberkitten (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Difficult to say if it should be changed, as although they are using it on Twitter/X (although notably their website still doesn't use it) it was rejected by the Electoral Commission: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-registration-and-regulation/political-party-registration/party-registration-decisions as it was deemed "Offensive / Likely to mislead voters as the words spelt out in the emblem are unable to be read". So I would be against using it as the Lead image, it could be placed in the article but it is not the current logo legally representing them, just one they have decided to use.

I don't have much experience with Copyright protections/public domain law, but it has to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

The relevant Wikipedia policies are Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain

This might also prove helpful for formatting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Labour_Party_(UK)_logo.svg Mystikalman (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the update in the section below is mine.

The logo can't be uploaded on the Commons as it's copyrighted, so if we are to use it in the article, it should be uploaded to Wikipedia itself with a fair use rationale.

I was about to do this, then I saw that it did indeed get rejected. So its status as a "current logo" becomes questionable and it should probably not be included in the infobox for now, at least UKIP makes it clear what are they doing next.

Now it'd probably benefit the article if we included it in the body - to help the reader understand just why was the logo so controversial. I'll need to look into how to do this because I think it's slightly different for lead section logos vs body logos. Amberkitten (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The_Anome (tagged them if they want to give advice on this) added a section on the new logo here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Tenconi's_leadership_(2024%E2%80%93present) , I would definitely add the fact the Electoral Commission rejected it due to it being deemed "Offensive / Likely to mislead voters as the words spelt out in the emblem are unable to be read" with the source.

As for the picture difficult to say, I would be in favour of adding it in that section, as it describes "Tenconi's leadership" and therefore change in the party, so I think it is relevant.

It's also the description of the logo and making it unbiased but also truthful due to how they are using it, do we mention that it was rejected by the Electoral Commission?, do we describe it as controversial?, do we mention it is only currently being used by their X account?. Open to opinions on this.

As for using it in the body, it was difficult to find a Party logo that was used in the body of an article but did find this, so that might be of use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ecology_Party_logo.gif it is used in the body of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(UK) Mystikalman (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If (and when) they adopt it, we can change the page image. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you feel there should be inclusion of the controversy given it's notability?, if so where?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section states "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", however the Lead is already quite lengthy.

I've suggested "But once they do change their logo (or don't) you could put it in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Media_and_academia section".

thoughts? Mystikalman (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A line in the body, not in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the logo is significant in terms of the party's self-declaration of it symbolic message, specifically the swing to (at the very least) Christian nationalism; and I find the the Electoral Commission's rejection of it significant as well - on their webpage here, it's just marked as "Offensive". I think there's a fair use case for including it in the article, as it will actually be the subject of discussion within that subsection. — The Anome (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as the new logo has been rejected how should it be described if at all?, I suppose we want to explain that it is officially being used by them, however the rejection by the Electoral Commission means we could be giving it WP:UNDUE, and it might difficult to explain that without seeming biased.

Perhaps describe it as "The Applicant logo that attracted controversy" with a note explaining how it has been rejected by the Electoral Commission however UKIP is currently using it on X? Mystikalman (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not just "UKIP submitted a new logo to the electoral commission who rejected it as offensive"? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)