Talk:Reform UK/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

UKIP

I think it would be a good idea to add the fact that the party split from UKIP in the infobox. Jax-PD (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and I believe the outcome was that Reform isn't technically a UKIP splinter, just a new party that Farage founded later. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Good point Jax-PD (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Lede cleanup

I thought I'd post the difference of my recent change to the lede for easier comparison:

WAS:

Founded in 2018 as the Brexit Party, advocating a no-deal Brexit, it won the most seats at the 2019 European Parliament election in the UK, but did not win any seats at the 2019 general election. The UK withdrew from the European Union (EU) in January 2020. In January 2021, the party was renamed Reform UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic it advocated against further lockdowns. Since 2022 it has campaigned on a broader platform, pledging to limit immigration, reduce taxation and opposing net-zero emissions.

Farage, who previously owned 60 per cent of Reform UK Party Ltd, had been the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a right-wing populist and Eurosceptic party, in the first half of the 2010s, and returned to frontline politics as the leader of the Brexit Party after the 2016 EU referendum, which had been called partly in response to UKIP's influence. The party won 29 seats at the May 2019 European Parliament election, the best result for any single party in the ninth European Parliament. The Brexit Party campaigned for a no-deal Brexit, and there were high-profile defections to it from the Conservative Party, including Ann Widdecombe and Annunziata Rees-Mogg. Following Boris Johnson's election as Leader of the Conservative Party, Farage offered him an electoral pact at the 2019 general election, which Johnson rejected. The Brexit Party decided unilaterally not to stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs.

By May 2020, with Brexit having taken place, the party rebranded itself. A name change from "Brexit Party" to "Reform Party" was proposed. The COVID-19 pandemic began in the UK in 2020, and the Conservative government imposed a series of national lockdowns. Farage rebranded it as Reform UK around the end of the year and focused on anti-lockdown campaigning. Farage stepped down as leader in 2021 and was succeeded by Tice. In 2024, Lee Anderson, who was elected in 2019 as a Conservative MP, defected to Reform UK, becoming its first MP. On 3 June 2024 Tice announced that Farage would become leader once more, with Tice continuing as chairman. It won five seats at the 2024 general election – the first time that Reform UK had MPs elected to the House of Commons.

BECAME:

Founded in 2018 as the Brexit Party, advocating a no-deal Brexit, it won the most seats at the 2019 European Parliament election in the UK, and there were high-profile defections to it from the Conservative Party, including Ann Widdecombe and Annunziata Rees-Mogg. Following Boris Johnson's election as Leader of the Conservative Party, Farage offered him an electoral pact at the 2019 general election, which Johnson rejected. The Brexit Party decided unilaterally not to stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs and did not win any seats at the 2019 general election.

The UK withdrew from the European Union (EU) in January 2020. In January 2021, the party was renamed Reform UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic it advocated against further lockdowns. Farage stepped down as leader in 2021 and was succeeded by Tice. Since 2022 it has campaigned on a broader platform, pledging to limit immigration, reduce taxation and opposing net-zero emissions. In 2024, Lee Anderson, who was elected in 2019 as a Conservative MP, defected to Reform UK, becoming its first MP. On 3 June 2024 Tice announced that Farage would become leader once more, with Tice continuing as chairman. It won five seats at the 2024 general election – the first time that Reform UK had MPs elected to the House of Commons.

Improvements:

• results from Brexit party 2019 EU elections are not references twice ("it won the most seats at " and " the best result for any single party")
• post Brexit party focus on Covid not referenced twice ("During the COVID-19 pandemic" and "and focused on anti-lockdown")
• less ambiguity about name change ("January 2021, the party was renamed" and "A name change from" implicitly in 2020)
• reference to Farage's career pre Brexit party removed from lede, not directly relevant
• content now in direct chronological order, not jumping between years

References

Jabbi (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding conservatism to infobox

I believe that conservatism should be added to the infobox as reform has many conservative traits I'd like to get your opinions on this. Thanks (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbsybaby123 (talk • contribs)

I would agree with this GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I notice they're included in the Conservatism in the United Kingdom sidebar so it's worth giving it some thought, but as always we need to be guided by what the sources are saying. Don't forget as well that Conservatism is a broad spectrum that encompasses One Nation Conservatism at one end and Libertarianism at the other. This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn0jpejqno

https://thenewconservative.co.uk/reform-uk-is-britain-poised-to-re-embrace-conservatism/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-025-00287-4?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I think that if Farage self described the party as conservative that is good enough Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why Reform aren't considered national conservatives, or at least have a faction of them among its base. Farage even spoke at the NationalConservatism conference before. Also I'm not sure why Reform isn't given the far right indicator, it has a lot in common with National Rally, Freedom Party of Austria, Fidesz, Vox or ANO. Really it has a lot in common with many of the parties in Patriots for Europe. This should be uncontroversial given the current trend in Europe at the moment, and Reform very much fit in the same mileu as these parties. But Wikipedia editors can't put 2 and 2 together I guess.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/national-conservatism-is-the-new-paradigm-of-conservative-politics-80766-2/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/17/natcon-conference-resume-brussels-court-overturns-closure-order

https://nationalconservatism.org/natcon-brussels-2/presenters/nigel-farage/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-gTdraU8Y

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politics-explained/national-conservatives-natcon-brussels-nigel-farage-b2530438.html

https://eu.boell.org/en/2025/04/30/friends-or-just-fellow-travellers-what-reform-has-common-other-populist-right-parties

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/mei/news-and-opinion/items/the-rise-of-the-far-right-in-britain.html

https://www.bestforbritain.org/far_right_renaissance (Brexit think tank even admits that Reform is in the mold of other far right parties like Fidesz and FPO). "In Britain, we have our own Gert Wilders in Nigel Farage, our own newly formed “party”/limited liability company in Reform UK and in the 2024 General Election their first taste of electoral blood on a national scale. Naivety surrounding Reform UK would be misplaced, a lesson from our European counterparts is that the rise of these new populist right parties can happen quickly boosted by the political adrenaline of that first step into the halls of power, that first taste of legitimacy."

"With the introduction of a more professional party structure, the installation of local parties and grassroots movements, Mr Farage will look to Austria, Germany, and Europe as a template for what the future may hold for him and his party. Labour and the Conservatives must look to Europe and learn from the mistakes of Europe’s now undermined political establishment." 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:B8F2:875C:DB5A:997B (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Besides Farage's economic views are very clearly in the vein of the Thatcherite wing of the Tory party (although he has moderated in some areas) as of recently

https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/06/19/reform-uks-curious-courtship

https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/08/nigel-farages-economic-plans-are-a-disaster

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nigel-farages-left-wing-turn-looks-like-a-triumph/

https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2025/07/10/farage-urged-to-rule-out-liz-truss-joining-reform-uk-after-allys-defection/

https://ifs.org.uk/news/response-mornings-reform-uk-policy-announcements

https://dorseteye.com/reform-uk-a-thatcherite-tribute-act-and-the-legacy-of-economic-decimation/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-reform-party-is-too-wedded-to-the-free-market/ 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:B8F2:875C:DB5A:997B (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Far right?? What are you talking about? Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Surely these are enough sources to put national conservatism into the infobox Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

right wing to far right would be an adequate compromise. As I have just said, Reform UK very much mirror parties like Fidesz, FPO and National Rally and many other parties in Patriots for Europe. Sanseito in Japan and Reform UK are very similiar too, despite being across the ocean. 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:FC1B:DA41:2958:1A9C (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

National conservatism was removed by someone called Helper201, this is disappointing. 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:FC1B:DA41:2958:1A9C (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's a shame, he seems to be very against this as you can see in his previous comments on this talk page although there is more than enough articles to source national conservatism adequately Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia tyranny strikes again... 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:B555:90A8:221A:99C2 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Change it back. 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:A920:C85C:3FAE:332B (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah alright Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

He just reverted it 🤦 Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The reason seemed to be because no article in the body called them that so maybe try adding a source that explicitly calls them National Conservatives to the ideology and platform section first before considering changing the infobox. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright I will in a bit Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes, because it's unsourced. — Czello ^(music) 16:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah alright I'll add sources Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Bubbsybaby123 you have my support 2A00:23CC:E80F:FF01:29ED:72F3:590E:7726 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose unless multiple reliable sources can be provided stating as such, of which I could fine none. Of the sources above the first is referring to the Conservative Party (hence the use of a capital "C"), plus it’s the opinion of Farage, not of a third-party source. In regards to the other two I see no direct statement with them calling Reform UK conservative, so they would both fail WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Surely them calling themselves conservative is good enough no? It's their party but yes I do understand that more sources are required but strongly oppose? Come on Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Third-party sourcing is much better than first party claims. We go by what reliable sources state, not people's opinions, whether that be people in the party or editors’ opinions. Helper201 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright then but surely it's their own ideology surely you aren't really making much sense Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also this article:

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe?

I really do not see your point that it is not a conservative party Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn0jpejqno

Was used on cite 183 to describe Reform as a new conservative movement Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That's the exact same article you've already listed. Helper201 (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly my point proving that that article is sufficient e ought for elsewhere on this page also what's your response to the yougov one? Stop being ridiculous reform are a conservative party. Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Article length

I feel like this article is too long. As you may now, the guidelines suggest considering dividing an article at >8k words. It is currently just under 9k. I feel like the Brexit Party should be given it's own article space and separated from this article, it is by now historical. I also think there is considerable tabular data in this article which really stretches it vertically, making it more challenging to the reader. What do others think? -- Jabbi (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The Brexit party is Reforms former name thats not something that warrants a a separate article and really does need to be mentioned in Reforms history at some length given thats how Reform started. A lot of the tables in this article are needed giving important information so they should kept too. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Claim in the lead paragraph

Here on 17 June 2025 User:Audenshirley added, without a citation, the following to the lead paragraph: "It is one of the two major Right Wing parties in the UK, alongside the Conservative Party." (S)he then changed "Right Wing" to "right wing".

Here on 3 July 2025 User:The Anome altered this sentence to "In spite of its low representation in Parliament, it is now one of the two major right wing parties in the UK, alongside the Conservative Party."

Is there a single reference on this article or a source elsewhere to support this claim? It seems to me like drive-by original research placed at the (most-read) top of the article, and that it ought to be deleted. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This does indeed look like WP:OR. While their position in the opinion polls is undeniable, it is a hefty claim to say they're a "major" party when they're on 4 seats. It smacks of WP:RECENTISM (especially given how opinion polls can change rapidly). — Czello ^(music) 15:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I’ve removed it. Keeper of Albion (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Change 'major' to 'main', then the claim is sourced by the guardian and ipsos. "The results have bolstered findings from national polls, which put Reform ahead of Labour and the Conservatives, with support increasingly atomised between the five main UK-wide parties," and "Although a large proportion of the public are not confident that any of the main political parties have a good plan for changing Britain, they are slightly more likely to be confident in Reform UK." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/reform-uk-is-main-opposition-party-nigel-farage-claims-after-election-wins https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/british-public-now-see-reform-main-opposition-over-conservatives-and-believe-farage-more-likely-be

Councillor numbers wrong

The reference links to an archive page, the actual number of councillors (which updates daily) can be found on the open council data home page at: https://opencouncildata.co.uk/ C R Munday (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit review

I'd encourage other editors to please review the edit made be this user. I've added back in multiple paragraphs they removed without reason from within this edit. Do other editors think the other changes they made are justified? Helper201 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201

In my personal opinion, no. Much of what I eliminated consists of surveys or trivia. Furthermore, I do not believe that a complete sub-heading on climate change is necessary, as the party's climate change agenda is already included in the bullet point list. This inclusion wastes space and contributes to a more cluttered appearance of the page. More significant sub-headings could be placed there. My recent modifications have reduced content that is simply unnecessary. Additionally, I refined some phrasing to eliminate superfluous words, allowing the text to convey its message more directly.

Check out other political parties: their history sub-headings get right to the point. They're broad yet balanced. We don't need surveys or going on about trivial stuff. Keep the history section about dates and major events of the party itself. Fourinmybarn (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation.

Well, I wouldn’t call any of it "trivia". What is "unnecessary" is entirely subjective. Just because you don't think something is necessary doesn't make it factually unnecessary. We go with what is cited using reliable sources, which you removed. Pointing to other pages is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Helper201 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

After looking at the pages of the other two main parties, Labour and Torys, I agree.Halbared (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Their climate change policy is a significant policy with lots of reliable sources covering it so I wouldn’t call it unnecessary. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Subsection on Climate change

I've added a subsection on climate change policy because it is a prominent policy to reject net zero and DeSmog has found out that the party has financial backing in the fossil fuel industry.

It is a bit tricky to organise content because it is chronological but this necessitates summarising by a theme. Can we discuss here if people don't like this approach? Rather than just reverting? -- Jabbi (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

After looking in perennial sources, desmog is deemed to be an advocacy opinion site. Seems I asked about his last year from looking at this pages archives, and Black Kite thought the information was laid out in a "misleading manner."

I would think this area needs to be looked at and re-written.Halbared (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"deemed to be an advocacy opinion site", by whom? Helper201 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Editors in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources archives on the subject of Desmog, if you look, the consensus is demsog is not reliable.Halbared (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no current consensus, otherwise it would be listed and it currently isn't. I'm sure if it was deemed unreliable it wouldn't have been removed from the list. Helper201 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm going off the consensus in the times it is brought up in the archives, arounf 4 or 5 times it is left at not reliable.Halbared (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide specific links. Helper201 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, in the search box, type desmog, it shows you the times it has been raised.Halbared (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The last one actually about DeSmog was from 2020 and there was no consensus there.Helper201 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"They have been discussed at RSN a couple times, and consensus appeared to be more non-reliable than reliable, and definitely not neutral (e.g. "PR blog and advocacy group").[12] [13]"Halbared (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

To summarize, DeSmog has been discussed in 2010, 2014, 2020 and 2024. In the discussion 2024 the consensus seems to be to be that, yes DeSmog is an advocacy organisation but is cited for instance by several RS, like The Nation, The Intercept and The Guardian. As I understand it, subjective claims should be critically viewed and attributed if relevant, but in terms of factual reporting, I don't see why it would be suspect. Halbared, you've removed a paragraph with a comment I can not understand: After re-reading BlackKite's comment, removing as "technically true, but written out of context." What is your reason for removing the paragraph? It makes a factual claim about how the party is funded. This is (presumably) public data. Do you contend that DeSmog is not a reliable source for the claim? (As a curious side note, there is a public statement by Christopher Harborne on being contacted by DeSmog) -- Jabbi (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

BlackKites comment is clear, I don't need to change/add to the meaning. "I would remove this as being technically true, but written out of context." It's weasel words, one unfair implication by presumption would be Reform policy is driven by the overused bogeyman Fossil Fuel Interests, when it's Tice and another investment company, which is like any other investment company. As an aside, that's in interesting read from the Fuel man.Halbared (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Righto. I wasn't switched on when replying, I was reading the reliable sources archives and not reading the past discussion on this talk page. The conclusion seems to me to be the correct one like you say; technically true but out of context. It appears though that The Guardian has published an article based on the same research referring to these donors as "climate sceptics". I'll add something along those lines. --Jabbi (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

DeSmog is not a blog anymore, nor has not been one for a good while. As previously stated, there is no current consensus deeming it as unreliable. If there were it would be listed as an unreliable source on WP:RSP, which it isn't. Helper201 (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

We reached consensus here that it should be removed , which it was, for the reasons given, and then you put it back saying it was agreed on the talk page, point out where it was agreed to be kept.Halbared (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I see no consensus to ever remove it. The general agreement here does not seem in your favour. You have also not demonstrated the unreliability of the source, as I've pointed out because there is no current consensus on it and the source has changed and is no longer a blog. As I just mentioned it would be listed in the link above if there was a consensus that it unreliable, which it isn't. Helper201 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Then re-read above. Halbared (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

What do editors feel about the inclusion of the lseblog and the opendemocracy advocacy site as sources?Halbared (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How to report Reform's membership

cc: @DeFacto, @Helper201, @Bondegezou @DontForgetJeff @The Anome
Hi all,
I thought we should probably discuss how to report Reform's membership. The (seemingly) current system (updating it when it is reported by the press) does seem to work as an interim, but it is no way perfect. The flaws include

• Potential for the press to rarely mention membership, as it is freely accessible and not newsworthy usually (often unlike for other parties)
• Having to rely on less reliable sources to report the membership
• It basically being just a recycling of Reform's official number themselves (they have of course been reviewed by news agencies, but it begs the question why not get it from the source)

Other options could include creating an automated link to the page number, regularly updating it based on the official number or redirecting to the membership section so they can read the recent changes as reported. Any other ideas or preferences?
Regards, Quinby (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on this is clear in WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. We trust reliable sources' reporting because we presume they are going through some sort of editorial process to make sure what they are saying is true. If a reliable source doesn't mention it, then we don't. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We should keep the current system. Per policy in Wikipedia:PRIMARY reliable secondary sources are prefered so if reliable secondary sources aren't reporting it we shoudn't either. The reviewing of the offical number by the news agencies is why we rely on them rather than going straight to the primary source. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep to reporting by reliable third-party sources. Helper201 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If we agree that the membership count needs to be included in the infobox of the article, and that we should only use a figure that is supported by a secondary source, then I think we need to follow, at least, the following two Wiki guidelines:

1. WP:INFOBOX, which says The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. That is, the figure should first be added to the article body along with a cite of the source being used to support it, and then added to the infobox without the need to repeat the cite. It should not exist only in the infobox, even with a reference there.
2. MOS:DATED (in both the prose and the infobox), which says to add the "as of" date to info which changes over time to ensure readers are aware of the vintage of the figure.

Also, if we stick with secondary sources, I think the increase/decrease icon should be omitted as they unduly emphasise a state that may have already been reversed, but which no-one has updated for whatever reason. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree we need to follow those guidlines I disagree we need to get rid of the increase decrease for membership. It's a useful thing to put to show if its increased or decreased from the last number listed on the page GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it's editorialising. Say what the number is. If a reliable secondary source believes it is notable that it has gone up or down, that can be cited in the text. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not editorialising it's just stating what was on the page before compared to now and if thats below or above what it is now. It is perfectly fine to say if its gone up or not(as is done on multiple political party pages.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It is implying that the comparison is meaningful and important, which is editorialising. Yes, other pages do it, and they shouldn't. Editors need to stop obsessing about pretty icons in infoboxes and read policy: Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s just stating what happened it isn’t editorialising. Also

I would note that the current source for membership specifically mentions that it dropped. I have not see anyone obsessing over it some just back keeping the decline or increase icon. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It is undue and misleading, and I agree with Bondegezou that it is editorialising. The red arrow draws attention to that field in the infobox as being particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion or explaining the context. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s not undue and how is it misleading when all it does is say if it’s down or above on the last membership number listed on the page and does that accurately? Plus the source itself now actually says Reform’s membership has decreased. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How is it not undue to focus the attention of the infobox onto that single field and its context-free number? The infobox doesn't say "it’s down or above on the last membership number listed on the page", so it is misleading when it is suggesting that the membership is up, or down, when it isn't. If the source says it's decreased then we could say that in the article body, supported by that source, but not unduly emphasise/editorialise that information in the infobox by adding weight to it with a special red or green icon so as to make it stand out from all the other data there. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t focus the attention of infobox anymore than the other information does it just provides the info(also I will note some of the other data in the inbox has colours as apart of it like the colour bars for seats and councillors.) I’m still not sure that it is going to mislead anyone into thinking something else than what I said but even if it did that info could be added too the infobox preventing any misleading instead of just removing the arrow. If the source says it has decreased we should use that source and keep the arrow out and I disagree it unduly emphasises anything. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Since Wiki sticks to secondary sources, the membership will always be lagging, the 'as of date' is needed, otherwise wiki would be inaccurate in this matter, likewise the up/down arrow isn't needed.Halbared (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that the up/down arrows don't really make sense in this field and should be omitted (and I would say the same for political parties in general, not just Reform). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Membership increases should absolutely be kept if they are stated by a reliable third-party source. Saying they are "unneeded" or "unnecessary" is only opinions of editors, what is "needed" or "necessary" is entirely subjective. Helper201 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201, I don't see either of your quoted words used previously in this subject, and you haven't indented - so can I ask which post this is a reply too please? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, it was in reference to Halbared regarding what is "needed". My mistake regarding "unnecessary". Helper201 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Members

Remove the membership number. The Reform Party does not have any members. 2A02:1406:270:FA75:91C3:AD99:61BA:3182 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Reform does have members multiple sources mention their membership numbers. https://leftfootforward.org/2025/07/reform-uks-membership-falls-by-almost-10000-in-a-month/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/exclusive/reform-party-membership-nigel-farage/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nigel-farage-reform-uk-conservative-party-boris-johnson-nhs-b2695001.html GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how Left Foot Forward is an impartial source. They have over 232,400 members as of today.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Left foot forward is the current source used for membership hence why I included it. Ok so we agree they have members. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Kieronoldham I've changed the source to a more neutral third-party source. Helper201 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Can we use the category "Climate change denial" on this page?

Can we use the category "Climate change denial" on this page? Helper201 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it has enough of a basis in cited content on the page, e.g. the climate change section, which states, "leading members have downplayed or denied climate science consensus". Helper201 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes Cited sources have stated that they have denied climate science It’s one source that says they deny climate science specially the other says they are doing out right climate scepticismGothicGolem29 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Which ones?Halbared (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I will ammend it’s one that uses that exact phrase This one https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/reform-uks-climate-denial-undermines-democracy/ but there is the Guardian article that says they are doing out right climate scepticism. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/31/factcheck-no-richard-tice-volcanoes-are-not-to-blame-for-climate-change GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, the Guardian is a perennial source and Tice is a major figure, but they don't call Reform deniers, they call them sceptics. The LSeblog do outright call Reform deniers. I cannot find lseblog in the perennial source archives, I have asked above for people's comment on whether this is a good source to use.Halbared (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If they are doing climate scepticism that seems to me to be evidence towards the category tho I get your point and the second one is more convincing. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No, scepticism isn't denial.Halbared (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s evidence towards it but again the more convincing one is the second source GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see enough evidence in the article to, effectively, say that in Wiki's voice, so I'd say we shouldn't add that category. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Obviously my opinion is known, I welcome input from others here.Halbared (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

More sources:

• Reform Council Bans All Mentions of Climate Change While Quietly Taking Green Funds From Government - quote - "And the councillor pointed to the figure at the millions Reform UK has taken from climate-change deniers and fossil fuel interests"
• ‘Arrogant’ Reform Wales branch chairman slammed over ‘ignorant’ climate change claims
• A Threat on the Right to Britain’s Conservatives, as Donors Fund a Populist Rival (archieved here - https://web.archive.org/web/20250617201347/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/world/europe/wealthy-conservatives-reform-uk.html) - quote - "Most of those bankrolling Reform in 2024 were multimillionaires, individuals and companies based in low-tax offshore countries, climate change sceptics, or those with investments in fossil fuels or other climate-polluting industries." [Note the prior category for climate change scepticism was merged into climate change denial].
• Who are the wealthy climate sceptics funding rightwing UK politics?
• Green Watch – Election Special (University of Sheffield) - quote - "The Reform UK Contract starts from a position of anthropogenic climate change denial."

Helper201 (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Byline times has some defenders in the source archives, but mostly seems to be considered unreliable by many.

nation.cymru don't mention denial.

From the NYimes. Our climate categorization includes those who have openly questioned climate change, or have investments in fossil fuel or other climate polluting industries. There is no suggestion that individuals or companies with investments in such polluting industries are climate change deniers.

The single use of denial in the guardian is attributed to Peter Geoghegan, from Democracy for Sale in reference to GWPF.

The Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures is an interesting one, that is an editorial interpretation of what hey see Reform's manifesto as, it's funded by Jeremy Grantham himself a competitor to fossil fuels being heavily invested in biofuels.Wikipedia:SOURCEMIS.Halbared (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Like DeSmog, there is no consensus that the Byline Times is unreliable. The NYT quote I added still makes a clear statement regarding the associate of climate change scepticism with the party, which if you follow the link climate change scepticism you'll see it goes to climate change denial as does the category *Category:Climate change skepticism* (remove the *s). Wikipedia treats climate change scepticism and denial as one and the same. There is nothing less meaningful about the quote coming from Peter Geoghegan. There is absolutely nothing indicating that the university piece is an editorial. Your other statements are your own original research.

It is also cited on the page from this source:

• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/01/at-least-30-reform-candidates-have-cast-doubt-on-human-induced-global-heating

Helper201 (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I stated "considered unreliable by many."

Reliable sources state there is a clear difference between scepticism and denial, thus it's rather amusing that an article you quote to ascribe denial, explicitly states, denial is not an accusation. The quote from Peter Geoghegan is about the GWPF. Nowt I've stated is OR.

You have misrepresented what the talk page said here on desmog, you misrepresent sources that you quote and you seem to think blogs are not to be used save for when it's lseblog. I am no sure if this is bludgeoning or perhaps English is not your first language. It feels like you want to insert your own thoughts/OR of what Reform are up to and desperately trying to find anything that remotely might resemble it, including partisan and activist opinions.Halbared (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. "Considered unreliable by many." is not a consensus. The NYT made that statement, not any of the other sources. The GWPF is the one funding Reform, so its obviously relevant to Reform UK if they are funding them. "The Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures is an interesting one, that is an editorial interpretation of what hey see Reform's manifesto as, it's funded by Jeremy Grantham himself a competitor to fossil fuels being heavily invested in biofuels." That as far as I can see is WP:OR. You've also given no mention to the most reason source from The Guardian I listed which outlines multiple times and in multiple ways the connections between climate denial and the party. I have also given no comment on what I think regarding lseblog. Helper201 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just read the no personal attack page, nowt there applies to our chat, my observation of your misrepresenting what was stated on this talk page and sources is what I have observed and laid out above, please don't bludgeon with wikilawyer links.

The fact that Jeremy Grantham fund the Grantham group is obviously not OR, when I searched to see who the Grantham group are (I've never heard of them), it's one of the first things that comes up. One of your reasons that it is OK to use desmog is because you stated that it's OK to use desmog now because it is "no longer a blog," lseblog is a blog. I've referenced the Guardian article, which is quoting someone else.Halbared (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

What you said definetly constituted a personal attack but whatever. "when I searched to see who the Grantham group are", please read WP:OR, that's exactly what that is. You've concluded the source not worthy via your interpretation via your own research and stated who they are in an unsourced way. Its the synthesis of interpreting one source via another. I don't know what you're on about regarding DeSmog vs Lseblog, Lse has nothing to do with this, I've never mentioned them. No, I'm talking about a different article from The Guardian above titled "At least 30 Reform candidates have cast doubt on human-induced global heating", which as I said covers the connections multiple times in that article between climate change denial and the party. Helper201 (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Finding out from sources that Grantham funds Grantham, is, clearly according to the sentence above, not OR.

The Guardian article has Tice and Anderson, two prominent figures of Reform, and the Guardian does not use it's editorial voice to call them deniers. Do you recognise the inconsistency in saying it's OK to use desmog because, "it's not a blog" and then using a blog (lseblog) as a source?Halbared (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." At no point does the source I added state what you said, you've implied a concluision via a second source.

The Guardian source states over two dozen of its candidates have denied human-induced warming; plus:

• "Party representatives have been criticised for climate science denialism throughout the election campaign"
• "However, the social media activity of many of the party’s candidates’ suggests they go beyond scepticism about the effectiveness of net zero and into overt denial about human-caused climate disruption."

This article is not an opinion piece. If these quotes and the myriad of other sourced connections don't grant the use of the category for climate change denial, I don't know what will. There is no requirement that the leader or deputy leader must be defined as deniers for the category to be placed on the page. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/01/at-least-30-reform-candidates-have-cast-doubt-on-human-induced-global-heating). Helper201 (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not used Lseblogs as a source. Helper201 (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you've mixed me up with GothicGolem29. Helper201 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Ha! I was wrong there, and you were right! (slaps wrist) I retract that earlier accusation/statement/whatever. I actually mixed you up with Jabbi who was the one who added it to the main article, Golem must have gotten it from that! Please accept my apologies. Took me a while to find it. :)Halbared (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Whether individual candidates "have denied human-induced warming" is not the point; to be able to say, in the article in Wiki's voice, that a party denies climate change (which is what we need to do in the article before it can be added to that category) requires that we can support from the consensus amongst reliable sources that that it is party policy. As we are nowhere near doing that, I think we should forget it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

"Categories are groups of articles on similar topics." Categorising the party under climate change denial does not necessarily mean it is saying the party denies climate change but that it is a topic within the page. The topic of climate change denial is quite a focal one given the high number of candidates and representatives that have made climate denying statements and sources connecting the party with it. Helper201 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CATDEF, categorising the party under 'climate change denial' means that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to climate change denial when describing the party. That clearly isn't the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

YouGov survey

DeFacto here to discuss this that you removed.

In a survey by YouGov in November 2024, 35% of Reform UK voters said that the climate is changing as a result of human activity, compared to 71% of the British general public. 41% of Reform UK voters said that climate change is NOT [sic] because of human activity, compared to 15% of the British general public.

Helper201 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201, that's one of numerous things that report said. Why did you choose to include just that one? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

DeFacto because its relevant to the subject matter of the page. Editors don't need to justify to each other why they selected what specific parts of a source. We can only select so much of a source to reword into an article to avoid copyright violations. Helper201 (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201, when it's not supported by a secondary source, you do need to explain how your selection isn't giving undue weight to that one fact you've picked from multiple facts related to the subject matter of this page in that primary source and how that selection isn't original research. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you don't. Its YouGov we're talking about here, a very well-respected, widely known and reputable international market research and data analytics firm, not any old random source. The fact that it comes from a reputable source in-of-itself demonstrates its not original research. If what you are saying were true the page Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (along with polling pages for all other elections) wouldn't be able to exist. Helper201 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201, we're talking about this page only. YouGov don't single-out that one item that you are talking about, they cover multiple questions, so we shouldn't single it out either. To single-out one from the many is giving it undue weight and fails WP:OR - you are distilling that report down to the one item that you want to use here and giving it undue prominence. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a clear demonstration that what you've put forward is not the case, not just from one or two other pages but from numerous pages across Wikipedia. Loads of sourced information is taking a small piece of information from a source and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Also, it's not one piece of information, its two. What would you propose; that we reword the whole source into this page? That would be ridiculous. Placing two sentences midway through this page as part of a bunch of other info is in no way whatsoever giving it "undue prominence". Helper201 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

A "small piece of information" about a specific subject from a secondary source is fine. But but to cherry-pick a small piece, or even just two small pieces, from a primary source which contains numerous pieces about the same subject (the reform UK party) is not - that is the job of secondary sources per WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please quote the specific part of OR that you are saying says that. Helper201 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

YouGov can be seen as a primary source here, so we should be careful about cherrypicking from what they say. It would be better, as DeFacto suggests, to find a secondary source talking about this. There is secondary source coverage on these matters that may serve, e.g. , , so I think the content could remain using those citations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree it can stay with those secondary sources as citations. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Concerns & overview

One big problem with this page is the number of opinion pieces and the sources and citations about individuals and their views, rather than concentrating on the official party policy.

The party has a complete manifesto released in the latest election, and I really think the agenda section should focus solely on this, similar to what you see on other parties' Wikipedia pages. For instance, the climate change section is completely one-sided. There’s no balancing perspective. It should highlight that the party opposes net zero emissions, which it does, but instead, it doesn't expand on what the party plans to do regarding the environment. The party has mentioned wanting to utilise new technology and expand clean nuclear power. Just because some members show climate change denial doesn’t mean it’s the party’s policy. We don’t do this on other party pages, so why is it okay here? Fourinmybarn (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation.

I agree. I don't spend much time on the tory or Labour pages but after a review, it's clear that when one looks at the three big parties of the UK, one if them seems to be being targeted by those who are loading opinion pieces in one heavily slanted view for their own reasons. This would colour Wikipedia’s impartial stance from the outside looking in and would keep this page from being improved as a place to find out about Reform and keep it as C-class, as well as helping wiki's reputation for being slanted. The tory page has a policies section, not a heavily one-sided view of a single policy.Halbared (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Views of some high level individuals on Reform like Richard Tice are worth including but we could also include their plans on nuclear power and technologies if reliable source report them(though it’s also important to include that as well as that they also want to grant new oil licenses.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. At risk of stating the obvious, climate change is the most serious existential risk facing humanity currently, just ask scientists. Recently, this consensus in UK politics has been broken. This is a controversial political position to take, as reliable sources attest. Should the Tories or Labour party take a similar controversial position on a policy matter, I dare say there would be coverage of it, here on Wikipedia (Badenoch has criticised net zero, but only the time frame, and nowhere near as pronounced as with Reform and hasn't attracted the same attention). In addition, your argument is pure WP:Whataboutism. The measure of what's noteworthy about an article subject is surely the amount of coverage that topic, or that topic in a certain context, generates in reliable sources. For the sake of argument, imagine that offical Labour party policy becomes pro-Putin, and Starmer issues statements saying the UK should buy more oil from Russia, that Zelensky is in fact a Nazi, Ukraine as an independent nation is a figment of collective imagination and that Putin's been ohh so embattlened by Nato expansion, Ukraine should be annexed. This would shatter European consensus (Orban discounted) and would most probably have a subsection in the Labour article. Finally, you have to take context into account, Reform is a young political party with little history whereas Labour goes back over a century, there are three big paragraphs about anti-semitism in Labour in the article. When practically every major member of Reform has made bold statements about climate change either sceptical or in outright denial, I think there is ample reason to record that and what scientists have to say about it. As for your comment on the coverage being imbalanced, if there is anything not supported by reliable sources it can be removed of course, likewise, if you have reliable sources talking about aspects of Reform's environmental policy, please add content. This should go without saying. --Jabbi (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Which opinion pieces? Cortador (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY sources are meant to take priority over a primary source (as the party's manifesto is). Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Why is the burden of proof on Wikipedia so low for Reform as a ‘right-wing’ party, but so high for anything else to the left or right of this position?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has been discussed a lot, but I think there is little solid evidence for Reform UK to be described as any particular political position in the info box. The only thing we can say for sure is that they are an anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker party - evident from their manifesto and various public statements.

So I simply ask - Why has the position of ‘right-wing’ been settled upon? Would it be better to remove this description, completely? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Because the sources describe it as right wing. As you say, this is discussed a lot. If you want to challenge this, don't try to debate it. Find WP:BESTSOURCES that challenge it, and we can discuss them. Otherwise there is nothing to see here. I'll hat this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2025

Line 1 of body: Change populist to popular. 150.228.9.121 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Populist is correct. — Czello ^(music) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2025 (2)

Please change “Reform UK is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom“ to “Reform UK, formerly the Brexit party, is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom” (or something to similar effect). Since people often only read the first paragraph containing key general information they may be misled to believe that reform and the brexit party are not related. I believe this would not be a controversial change and would only aid transparency and ease of understanding. 86.4.213.157 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead section. Day Creature (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Blog removal

DeFacto, you removed a short paragraph citing WP:BLOGS. However, the authors of the blog are clearly subject matter experts. The blog is a "multidisciplinary academic blog run by the London School of Economics and Political Science. Our central aim is to increase the public understanding of British politics and policy by providing accessible academic commentary and research." I would say this makes it a reliable source. --Jabbi (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I was also puzzled by citing BLOGS as a reason to remove that. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS also says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The paragraph removed was certainly about living people. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It is obviously not about living people, it's about policy. It's living people that articulate the policy. --Jabbi (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The sentence supported with that source is about living people. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I did request opinion on this above. I do think it should be removed, I have opened a request for chat at the reliable sources noticeboard.Halbared (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

That discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LSE_blogs/WP:BLOGS. Bondegezou (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This seems clear, if the two lse "experts" can fit the above, maybe use that stuff from those independent publications, from their self-written bios they are two PR people, I searched if Bob Ward had published anything independently, I couldn't find owt.Halbared (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

They are subject matter experts because they work for an institution, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment that specialises in climate change policy, and even misinformation on climate change. Sethis an "Policy Fellow (Climate Change Misinformation)", don't know how much more obviously you can be an expert on the subject. This is not a think tank - it's a university research institute - it would be a different thing if it were. This is part of an umbrella of respected universities, known as the Grantham Institute under Imperial College London, that want to "increase the public understanding of British politics and policy by providing accessible academic commentary and research." I've made a similar point in the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Jabbi (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia's verifiability policy clearly states that such sources should "never" be used as "third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", it does not matter whether they are subject matter experts, or not, when their blog content is only being used to support that they "accused Reform UK and its leaders Nigel Farage and Richard Tice of promoting misinformation about climate change." -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with that on two levels. For one thing, I think the LSE Blog isn't really a blog, even though it's called a blog. It's a semi formal publication by a leading university with an editor. I would therefore challenge the application of WP:Blogs to begin with. Secondly, the subject of the cited source is climate change policy, it is living people that state this policy. The LSE Blog is cited for the subject experts' evaluation of statements with regard to policy - nothing else. I think your position is based on a misreading of what "about living people" means - the statements aren't about Farage or Tice - they are about what Farage and Tice say about climate change. --Jabbi (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just restore the content without "and its leaders Nigel Farage and Richard Tice"? I would agree with DeFacto that this a SPS being used to comment on living people, but I also don't think it's needed and the source is obviously reliable for the rest of the removed material. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I mean that the source can be used to make statements about the Reform party, just not Farage or Tice. The Reform party wouldn't be a BLP matter, so the exclusion of SPS sources wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems like this is suitable for inclusion based on this discussion and the RSN discussion, especially since this is a BLP matter and the blog isn't one as defined here, even if it has "blog" in its name. Cortador (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there agreement then that the paragraph can be restored as the LSE blog is a RS? --Jabbi (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for that here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that the LSE blog is an actual self published blog? If so, what are your arguments apart from the word in the title? --Jabbi (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence here that it isn't, and WP:BLP is clear about the need for high-quality reliable sources for this type of content. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, this has been pointed out in the reliable sources noticeboard discussion. This particular blog has an editorial policy that includes three different editorial roles: a Managing Editor, a Assistant Blog Editor and a General editor. The managing editor has a cv with various writing and editing jobs and there is an advisory board . There are several examples of blogs that are considered reliable sources, such as SCOTUSblog --Jabbi (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

That other discussion hasn't been closed, and I don't see any current consensus there that the source in question here is adequate, particularly in relation to WP:BLOGS, to support the view of those two authors. Are both of its authors established subject-matter experts, whose work in the relevant field (climate change science) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? They would be a primary source anyway, and secondary sources are preferred to give due weight to such views about living people. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Per my comments in the discussion at WP:RSN § LSE blogs/WP:BLOGS, the article in question is not self-published because it passed a thorough editorial process. As a result, it is reliable for this use case. WP:BLOGS (which is just the name of a shortcut referring to the policy on self-published sources) and WP:BLPSPS do not apply. While it is a nice bonus that author Bob Ward's research in the field of climate science has been published in multiple reputable academic journals, that is not necessary for the article to be reliable. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If we agree that this blog it is a reliable source, then it is a primary source for those views. WP:BLPPRIMARY frowns on the use of those for such content. If those views are notable and worthy of inclusion they will surely be covered by secondary sources which may be ok to use. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Why does the blog being reliable make it primary? I would argue that page also suggests extreme caution rather than frowns on. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not being reliable that makes it a primary source, it's being the original source of its authors' views that makes it primary. WP:BLPSTYLE says "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves". That excludes 3rd party primary sources, such as the one being discussed here.

If the authors are such renowned subject-matter experts, we should wonder why their views haven't been published and analysed by any of the multitude of secondary sources that have covered the rise of the Reform UK party. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The subject is Reform, and since nobody involved with Reform has written that article, it's not a primary source. I'm afraid your understanding of what constitutes as a primary source is lacking. Cortador (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What would you say is the a primary source for that view then? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If this article was about the authors or their views, then this would be a primary source. Which it isn't - it's about Reform. Cortador (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If we use that article to support the views of its authors it is surely just as primary doing so in this article as in any other. Or are you saying that here it has somehow become a secondary source for their views? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It is a secondary source for information on Reform. It would be a primary source if it was by Reform. Cortador (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the information on Reform we are talking about here, it's the personal views of the source's authors on members of Reform that it is being used to support that is the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This article is called "Reform UK", not "Pallavi Sethi" or "Bob Ward". You are, quite literally, the only person here who claims that this is a "problem". Cortador (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In that discussion, nobody uninvolved agrees with you that the source is unsuitable as per WP:BLOGS. There's no need for unanimity to reach consensus, nor for a formal closure. Cortador (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What we need is an uninvolved close to decide that. You'll see though, that there are other reasons not to use that source to support that view of living people. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

No, we don't. This isn't a RfC, and most RLN never get a formal closure, nor is there a requirement for that.

You also haven't brought any other valid reason not to use that source. Cortador (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RLN? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the reliability of sports sources related to any of this? Cortador (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That's what I wondered when I looked it up after reading your "This isn't a RfC, and most RLN never get a formal closure..". I know what an RfC is, but had to look up RLN and that's what I found. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

RSN discussions.

So again: You also haven't brought any other valid reason not to use that source. Cortador (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In your personal opinion, maybe. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Name them then. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You'll find them in the discussion, we don't need to thrash around that loop again. Let's wait and see if other editors have any more comments and when it's gone quiet, ask for an uninvolved closure. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Name them. Cortador (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It's clear from the WP:RSN discussion that WP:BLOGS does not apply, which I think resolves the issues here. Bondegezou (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a reliable source. Are there any objections to reinserting the removed paragraph. If so, based on what arguments? --Jabbi (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if it is considered to be a reliable source, I am not convinced that it isn't the primary source of the views of its authors that it was used to support. If it is the primary source of those views, then WP:BLPPRIMARY comes into play. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a strange idea to me. If Sethi and Ward are noted experts in a reliable source, talking about climate change policy as articulated by Reform and specific members of Reform, how is that different from say Christian Schnee's article on Merkel's policies ? By the same token, is Schnee's article inadmissible because it's a primary source of a view? It doesn't make any sense to me. --Jabbi (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you questioning BLPPRIMARY, or are you arguing that it isn't the primary source of the views of its authors? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it is very obvious it's not a primary source and I would suggest your understanding of what constitutes a primary source is muddled. By your definition, all publications of scientist would be primary sources of their views. It just doesn't make any sense. --Jabbi (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

We usually rely on secondary sources to give personal views due weight. If this isn't primary, what is the primary source of their views? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are we talking about this in terms of primary and secondary sources? This isn't about the personal views of authors. This is about a reliable source of experts academic positions on a subject. In order for this to be a primary source on Reform UK's climate policy, the authors would have to be involved in making that policy or otherwise participate in Reform. The authors are far removed from Reform UK. I suggest you familiarise yourself better with what a primary source is and stop wasting time. --Jabbi (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Are Eric Hobsbawm's views on Invented tradition primary sources? Should the article cite a secondary source that has filtered through his work?--Jabbi (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

What has Eric Hobsbawm got to do with this? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It was an attempt to demonstrate how bizarre your suggestion that the source in question is a primary source is. Clearly failed. --Jabbi (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it the same scenario of a comment piece being used to support an opinion expressed in that comment piece in a Wiki article? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

We aren't questioning Reform's policy, or anything factual about Reform for which this is a secondary source. We are concerned that this is the primary source for the view of its authors that Reform, Farage and Tice are promoting misinformation about climate change. That is their subjective view and, unlike the details about Reform's policies, etc., is not taken from other sources. Personal views such as that need due weight from secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Who is we? It's very interesting that you want to portray yourself as representing a broader group. To answer your question, It is incorrect to frame this as a subjective personal opinion of the authors. The authors are experts in climate change and climate change policy. The source is not a subjective opinion piece. A primary source is a source on a particular subject that is close to the origin of its subject - for the sake a of simplicity, a receipt is a primary source on the purchase of an item. A transcript is a primary source of an interview. You seem to want to frame the authors' views as an artefact - that what Sethi and Ward have to say about Reform UK and it's climate change policy is not a secondary source (academics describing a subject they have primary sources on, e.g. policy documents, public statements) but a primary source in and of itself. This makes no sense. --Jabbi (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Nobody but DeFacto supports the assertion that this is a primary source, neither here nor in the RSN dicussion. Consensus doesn't need to be unanimous, and DeFacto has clearly failed to convince anyone else that this is a legitimate, policy-based reason to remove that content from the article. Cortador (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

In any case, WP:BLPPRIMARY just asks editors to use extreme caution. So we're all good? --Jabbi (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

DeFacto are you content it's a RS or not? --Jabbi (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

DeFacto, you have incorrectly removed content and have given two different reasons, suggesting: 1) the source is self published and 2) that it is a primary source of subjective opinions. Your view of this seems to be in the minority on both issues. Do you want a more formal outcome from this, if so, what is it? --Jabbi (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed content in good faith as I believed it contravened policy. As I said, the first issue became irrelevant when the second problem arose. The second issue is not that "it is a primary source of subjective opinions", it is that it is the primary source for the single opinion about Reform, Farage and Tice that it was used to support in the article. Consensus isn't about % support, it's based on policy based arguments. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with your complaint that the source is a primary source, neither here nor in the RSN discussion. Cortador (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Some Evidence for Describing Reform UK as Right-wing to Far-right

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/10/07/why-reform-uk-is-far-right/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/3/could-far-right-reform-really-in-a-uks-general-election-now

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/05/27/led-by-nigel-farage-uk-far-right-emerges-as-government-s-main-opponent_6741745_23.html#

https://www.dw.com/en/from-afd-to-reform-uk-the-far-right-and-european-politics/a-72570903

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/britain-reform-uk-farage/

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/the-anti-elite-elites-reform-far-right

From DW and Al Jazeera, to Le Monde and the Washington Post, among others, there are many sources describing Reform UK as "far-right." There are, of course, many other sources which would describe the party as right-wing. It would be proper, I think, to then describe it as right-wing to far-right.

-WriterofScrolls WriterOfScrolls (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you read the archives you’ll see why that has not happened.Halbared (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Per Halbared I think this would be rehashing a conversation we only just had without presenting anything new. It's best to leave this 6-12 months before we open it back up again. — Czello ^(music) 08:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Fair enough. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I support updating the description of Reform UK’s ideology to “right-wing to far-right”, based on both policy analysis and the international consensus from reliable sources.

Policy-wise, the party has increasingly aligned with far-right themes:

– Emphasis on mass deportations, opposition to multiculturalism, and explicit linking of immigration to crime

– Repeated attacks on diversity and inclusion frameworks, with local councils scrapping DEI programs

– Language around “lawless Britain,” “cultural threat,” and “restoring order”, consistent with European far-right populist rhetoric

In addition, major outlets such as DW, Le Monde, Al Jazeera, and The Washington Post now consistently refer to Reform UK as far-right or bordering on it. This meets Wikipedia’s criteria of due weight and reliable sourcing.

I agree with previous users that Wikipedia shouldn’t simply mirror media talking points. However, in this case, both primary policy documents and multiple independent global outlets now converge on this ideological classification.

Therefore, describing the party as “right-wing to far-right” is both factually justified and aligned with current consensus standards. 2A00:23C7:E01:D301:814D:CECE:76E2:5A45 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Zictor23 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This is well said. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Im the one who wrote the paragraph above

i just wanted to ask why is this taking so long to implement when there's now clear alignment between reform uk's policies and those of widely accepted far right parties across europe.

the policy evidence is strong with repeated attacks on multiculturalism, anti renewable messaging, cultural replacement rhetoric, mass deportations and alignment with law and order populism. multiple reliable sources now describe them as far right.

I understand the need for careful discussion, but at this point presently the right wing - far right label seems far more accurate and better reflects the current consensus. isnt it time to finally update this??

i'd like to also point out that even mainstream political science literature and outlets broadly agree the conservative party is positioned at centre right - right wing. given that, it makes little sense for reform uk which is clearly further to the right on nearly every major issue such as immigration, law and order, cultural identity, climate policy etc. to share the same ideological label.

to maintain wikipedia's standards of accuracy it would seem more appropriate and factually justified to reflect the growing consensus that reform uk is now described as right wing - far right.

this discussion seems to have been going on for quite a while. the archives show this issue has been raised repeatedly for over a year. hopefully this can be implemented soon to reflect the current policy direction and international consensus. thank you. Jtttttt (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

We very recently had an extensive RfC on this which already made many of these points. Overturning that unilaterally, particularly so soon after said discussion, wouldn't be right. It's best to leave it for a while before re opening the RfC. — Czello ^(music) 10:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be best. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that the RfC was closed via an admin supervote, not based on the arguments made. Cortador (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You argued this case at the time and it was concluded to be a reasonable close. — Czello ^(music) 20:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just read that thing. Seems it was a unanimous endorsement, a most interetsing read.Halbared (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Everyone simply stated that they liked the outcome, completely missing the point of the review. Cortador (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Cortador, by "everyone stated they like the outcome" you mean the most experienced and reputable admins on this site unanimously endorsed the close. You also seem to imply that they’re sympathetic to Reform UK/far-right politics. AFAIK you don’t have any experience closing discussions and determining consensus, I recommend you defer to those that do Kowal2701 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Read the statements. Everyone just stated that they agree with the outcome, which is not the point of the review.

I didn't call anyone pro-Reform. That's something you fabricated. Cortador (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Idk why you’d think you know what a close review is better than people who have been around here for over a decade and participated in 100s of them. People simply read the discussion, the close, and !vote regarding how they would have closed it. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

You are, likewise, failing to understand how a closure review works.

The first commenter even (initially) stated that they didn't care whether the RfC was closed via a supervote because it had their preferred outcome. Cortador (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Which commenter said it was their preferred outcome and they didn't care a supervote did it?Halbared (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The first one. Most of the others re-argued the RfC or stated that the outcome was their preferred outcome, which is not the point of the review. Cortador (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I just reread the first comment by @Liz:, I can't see how you infer they didn't care or that they thought the outcome was their preferred one.Halbared (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If they cared, they would have cast a vote specifically. Cortador (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Some nice OR/head cannon there, and how did they state it was their "preferred outcome?"Halbared (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

OR policies don't even apply outside of actual articles. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course, and how did they state it was their "preferred outcome?"Halbared (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

If you know that, why did you make that comparison?

Not bothering to overturn a what you consider a supervote is support. Why else would you ever think that a supervote is okay? Cortador (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

"not bothering" isn't automatically "support" and "support" isn't "preferred outcome". This is projecing and casting aspersions a great deal on other editors who do not comply to your wishes.Halbared (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

If you know that, why did you make that comparison?

Just read the comments. It's all about supporting the outcome, which is not what the review is about. Cortador (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

yes that sounds great i agree that its important to not rush but i also think it would be best not to leave it too long either. given how fast things are evolving, maybe aiming to revisit this in around 3-4 months would strike the right balance i think. that way we allow space while still keeping up with developments.

also I'd point out that theres already a considerable amount of evidence backing the right - far right classification both from reform uk's policy direction and from international media and academic sources. how much more evidence do we realistically need before a change becomes appropriate?? Jtttttt (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the archives and the numerous times this has been discussed. Nowt has changed.Halbared (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

just cant see why it has to be such a debate. Reform Uk and the AfD an openly far right party have extremely similar policies on immigration,culture,education and law enforcement calling the party just right wing is wrong, calling them openly far right is wrong so why cant we just meet in the middle. a right - far right position is perfect for the party but we have to sit on here debating about it for more than a year for the position to be displayed. there is enough evidence in policy direction and international consensus for a change in position. change it!! Jtttttt (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The short version is; the biggest, most reliable sources used on wiki are happy with simply, 'right wing', the long version is...well I'm sure we shall have that discussion at the end of the year. :D Halbared (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

No, they aren't. We have news sources describing Reform as "right-wing", whereas there's news sources and academic sources describing them as "far-right". Cortador (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK.Halbared (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be more productive if you had an argument to make here. Cortador (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

😆It would be more productive for you to Wikipedia:Let it go, the RFC was done, there's not going to be another one for some time, get over it, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, there'll no doubt be anotheroh rfc pushed by feet stampers in December..Halbared (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an argument to make? Cortador (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process.Halbared (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". Cortador (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

" ViktorJAVO (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building."

Yes, Halbared, don't falsely accuse Cortador of bludgeoning. In the way you do it is considered uncivil. P.S. Not sure why my first attempt trying to write this message shows a blank message. ViktorJAVO (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Halbared, you should stop minimodding people like this. People will mistake you to be an actual mod. When the only mod in these discussions has been SmartSE. ViktorJAVO (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Describing Reform UK as Right-wing to Far-right.

Approve: WritterOfScrolls, 2A00, Zictor23, Jtttttt, Cortador, ViktorJAVO (6 people, 66.7%).

Disaprove: Halbared, Czello, Kowal2701 (3 people, 33.3%).

The people have spoken! 6 people approve of the idea to describe Reform UK as a Right-wing to Far-right party, a super majority! Only 3 people disaprove.

Admin supervisors, if you stand up for democracy, then hear the voices of what most people want! ViktorJAVO (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate on votes, we operate on consensus building. We just had an RfC on this which found no consensus. — Czello ^(music) 09:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

😆God loves a trier. I'd forgotten about Jtttttt, another SPA who's first edit was to canvass Bsoyka to overturn consensus.Halbared (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Halbared, please be more respectful and leave His name out of this talk. Do not use His Name in vain. Yes, am I Christian, are you? If so, follow His Commandments.

Leaving that aside, I would prefer democratic voting, instead of any consensuses with un-recognisable accronyms sush as RfC. ViktorJAVO (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

😆, read the archives.Halbared (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Another un-recognisable accronym, now being SPA? Kids these days. Stop jesting, please. ViktorJAVO (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, ma'am. /stanleylaurel. Wikipedia:Keep beating the horse. Halbared (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

What does SPA and RfC stand for? Answer my question ViktorJAVO (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Qvestiones vich vill be ansered! Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Wikipedia:Requests for comment.Halbared (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for at least answering, but you better stop mocking other people for respectfully stating their case. Czello has an even better approach to this all, even if I disagree with him fundemtally in the end of the day. ViktorJAVO (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I suppose zet could theoretically happen if some were to respectfully read the notes, archives and chats instead of ignoring them all, it is a two-way street after all.Halbared (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I will read the archives when you stop with your bullying ViktorJAVO (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

These admins always say "read the archives", but never about where the archives is. ViktorJAVO (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@ViktorJAVO: See Talk:Reform_UK/Archive_3#RFC:_right-wing_to_far_right. Halbared and Czello are not admins. (I am, but please read about what that means.) SmartSE (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reform_UK/Archive_3

Ahh, I was beaten to it! Ta, SmartSE.🍻.Halbared (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Halbared, enough! I heard from SmartSE that you are not even an admin. But yes, I'm glad that they stepped in, an actual admin. We shouldn't put ourselves down. We should build eachother up. And to that, I apologise for losing my patience. I have other things to do now ViktorJAVO (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that Halbared ever claimed to be an admin; I'm not sure where this came from. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said that, but words speaks louder than words. That's why I was suspecting that Halbared were an admin, alongside you, Czello. The way Halbared behaved were as if they were an admin, while you Czello acted as if you were a more diplomatic admin. But what I supposed were wrong in the end of the day. ViktorJAVO (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Found some new scholarly sources:

• Despite both UKIP and Reform UK’s clear credentials as far-right parties,... (August 2025)
• Notably, there has also been an active and public effort by British far-right organisations—such as British National Party, EDL, Britain First or Reform UK—to engage on various levels with Polish politics, network with Polish far-right parties and even attempt to recruit Poles as members. (April 2025)
• who would later switch to the far-right Reform UK party

There's probably more. Obv it's too soon now, but if we're going to do it, can we please do it properly unlike the last one. Things like this gets attention from external media Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Was the last one not done "properly"? Halbared (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The premise of it misunderstood DUE, which is relative to all the available sources, not just ones in the article. It was also a complete mess (no survey and discussion sections), OR, confusions, aspersions, and to round it all off an IP at the end misrepresenting sources. Was comical Kowal2701 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That made me smile. But comical is what I tend to expect half of time when I see this topic raised by all the brand spanky, shining new accounts that pop up here. :DHalbared (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Older account doesn’t mean a wiser user apparently. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

List of councils

The list of councils has been removed with the message: "No other major UK party shows a list of the councillors it has and councils it controls. This is a ridiculous level of detail for a Wiki page and completely unnecessary.". I think this is not really a valid reason to remove the information completely. I think creating a List of councils Reform UK is represented in might make sense. What do people think? --Jabbi (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jabbi I added quite a few before the 2025 local elections. My view is that it made sense when most councillors were gained either through defections, by-elections, or due to local phenomena (Reform Derby), and the number was relatively small, but the 2025 locals cemented its position - at least for now - as a fairly major national player in local politics. While pages for parties such as the Workers Party can concisely list councils, I think for this page that can no longer be done. Alextheconservative (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The first part is not a valid reason(and indeed there has been times on this page where something has been changed in a way that is not in line with what other pages for major parties have done.) The second part seems valid for removing from this page. I would support such an article. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Removal of content about local press coverage

PortraitMaster1 you have repeatedly removed content (this is the third time) about the Reform UK leader of Nottingham county council banning/boycotting a local newspaper, your explanation is: "Reform have over 800 councillors, adding every issue, problem etc would leave this article cluttered. Stick to MPs and the leadership within the party." But this is not an every day issue, it is about a core principle of democracy, as such it deserves to be added. There is no slippery slope here of every contentious decision made in any council getting coverage here. The notability can be seen by the fact that both Farage and Tice have been approached about it. This is noteworthy in terms of Reform UK, not only with regards to Nottingham Council. Furthermore, there is no WP policy stating that UK political party content should "Stick to MPs and the leadership within the party." and you are contradicting yourself anyway, because in an earlier message you said: "What a local Councillor has done should not be included in this article. Reform have over 800 Councillors so adding one issue by one councillor isn't appropriate. By all means add stuff relating to MPs and those holding leadership positions.", Mick Barton is in a leadership position. What do others think? --Jabbi (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Obviously worthy of inclusion. Whether it's a councillor or not is irrelevant - the issue received coverage from multiple national news organisations and that is all that matters per WP:WEIGHT. (As you'll see I have already reverted). SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed the multiple coverage absolutely means it’s worthy of inclusion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Coverage by national news outlets by itself is a good indicator. Also, we don't cover issues based on the pay grade of the person involved (e.g. MP or councillor), but based on what RS cover. Cortador (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

RFC DeSmog

Can we include the following paragraph on the page?

"On 4 June 2024, it was reported by the website DeSmog that Reform UK had accepted "more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019"."

See the above discussion titled "Subsection on Climate change" for more information. Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be a very single-issue and partisan organisation. We should probably look whether the balance of more mainstream outlets are covering it that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how an international journalism organisation that focuses on topics related to climate change is "partisan", but here is another source with similar such coverage:

• A Threat on the Right to Britain’s Conservatives, as Donors Fund a Populist Rival (archieved here - https://web.archive.org/web/20250617201347/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/world/europe/wealthy-conservatives-reform-uk.html) - quote - "Most of those bankrolling Reform in 2024 were multimillionaires, individuals and companies based in low-tax offshore countries, climate change sceptics, or those with investments in fossil fuels or other climate-polluting industries." [Note the prior category for climate change scepticism was merged into climate change denial].

Helper201 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

From that article; Our climate categorization includes those who have openly questioned climate change, or have investments in fossil fuel or other climate polluting industries. There is no suggestion that individuals or companies with investments in such polluting industries are climate change deniers.Halbared (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The user wanted to know what other sources were covering it in the way of DeSmog, the NYT piece gives similar information regarding the party's funding, that end quote is not relevant to this discussion. Helper201 (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

By "partisan" I mean it seems to me that it is a single-issue publication and that it strongly promotes that issue and strongly attacks those who do not fully support its stance on it.

That NYT article is categorising those who wish to support Reform UK in a big way, and not singling out one specific group, so it would be undue synth for us to highlight just that one specific category as in your suggested sentence for the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Its two sources saying very much the same thing, which is what you seemed to be asking for when you said "We should probably look whether the balance of more mainstream outlets are covering it that way". This demonstrates that perfectly. This isn't about categories, that is a separate discussion, this is about whether we can include the DeSmog quote in the article, which is backed up by a similar claim from the NYT, as I've demonstrated. The New York Times is a very mainstream source and is also specifically listed as having consensus as a reliable source. Helper201 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The NYT article showed that DeSmog had cherry-picked which of the big donors they mentioned. Mirroring their POV in article would fail WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That's some nice original research. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

When the subject is climate change denial, it does not get "more mainstream" than DeSmog. From a scientific viewpoint, climate change deniers, like Reform UK, are far-out delusional conspiracy-theorist wackadoodle loons. Unfortunately, journalistic sources aren't always aware of that. False balance is still strong in that regard, and some still use the "climate sceptic" euphemism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that on balance it is not justified because I agree with the original statement that "the facts are undoubtedly correct, but they're presented in a misleading manner." --Jabbi (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable if attributed. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The "About Us" section of the Desmog website states: "Our DeSmog UK-based team has exposed industry influence in government, mapped the overlap between Brexit campaigners and climate deniers, and expanded the public's understanding of the radical neoliberal agenda which has undermined the public interest in favor of wealthy and corporate interests."

That does seem (in my view) to be a partisan source or at least a source which is keen to highlight what it views as an overlap between Brexit campaigners and climate deniers and to highlight what it views as an agenda which benefits "wealthy and corporate interests". Incidentally, I'm not a "climate denier" myself, but of course my views are not important and the important issue to consider is whether it's WP:DUE weight to include content from Desmog that Reform UK had accepted "more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019".

I'm not convinced myself that it's due weight based on the DeSmog website alone. If the content had been reported in multiple secondary sources such as BBC News Online and a broasheet UK national newspaper then I think it would carry more weight. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

We already have the NYT source. The Guardian has also reported on the issue, and uses the descriptor "denier" for at least one donor. Cortador (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Which donor?Halbared (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pertinent, so long as the source is identified in wikivoice. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Alternative proposal:

In March 2025, The New York Times reported: “Most of those bankrolling Reform in 2024 were multimillionaires, individuals and companies based in low-tax offshore countries, climate change sceptics, or those with investments in fossil fuels or other climate-polluting industries.”

Or we just state in Wikivoice that “many of Reform’s donors were associated with the fossil fuel industry” and cite both. I think giving Desmog the full quote is probably WP:UNDUE, but there’s clearly truth there about the state of their funding. — HTGS (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This feels like it's nudging towards UNDUE again. According to the Guardian this year the big three donors (over 100k) was Fiona Cottrell, a person from a rich family, then it was Richard Tice, Reform MP and gets his cash from property, then Nick Candy, Reform’s treasurer who also gets his dosh from property. Then it's a load of "little" donations (Bassim Haidar and Mohamed Amersi, gave £25,000 each).Halbared (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes - While I agree that we should avoid WP:UNDUE by not over-emphasizing one category of donor, the fact remains that both The New York Times and The Guardian (WP:RS) have reported on Reform’s funding from individuals linked to fossil fuel interests and climate scepticism. That means the general point is independently verifiable and not confined to a partisan framing.

Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, the best approach may be to summarize in wikivoice (e.g. "Several donors were associated with the fossil fuel industry or climate scepticism") and cite both sources, rather than quoting DeSmog at length. Dick Hammerbush (Secure Line ↗) 19:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, it has coverage in secondary sources (but we should rely on those rather than citing DeSmog directly, and still attribute it to DeSmog because the sources do.) See eg. . We can / should also cover other sources that have focused on it as appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  So one website with an "explicit strong bias" quotes another? After a perfunctory sweep of the RS archives the bylinetimes is not looked on favourably, or with reliability.Halbared (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Whom are you quoting when you say "explicit strong bias"? Cortador (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Far-right label

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all — this has come up many times, but over the past two years a substantial body of peer-reviewed scholarship has described Reform UK as a far-right party (or places it at the far-right end of the spectrum). Could we update the label to “right-wing to far-right”, reflecting the academic sources below? If there’s a policy reason to privilege general-interest outlets (e.g., Politico/BBC/AP) over specialist scholarship, it would help to understand why, given the weight of recent research. I’ve listed examples and can add more.

Cole, M. (2025) ‘Postscript: Election 2024 – Labour wins, far-right riots and the Tories elect a new leader’, in Racism and Austerity: Tory Ideology, Migrants, Muslims and the Working Class. Bristol: Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529239805

Garapich, M.P., Jochymek, A. and Soborski, R. (2024) ‘Immigrants in the transnational far right: integration through racisms and negotiating white supremacy in a migratory context’, International Migration Review, 58(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183241277541

Kippin, S. (2025) Public Policy and Democratic Backsliding in the UK: The Conservatives’ Illiberal Turn. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74646-8

Luger, J. (2025) ‘The City and the Far-Right grassroots? Reactionary Neighbourhoods, Beyond “Left Behind”’, Dialogues in Urban Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/27541258251356985

Newth, G.H., Brown, K. and Mondon, A. (2025) ‘Researching and understanding far-right politics in times of mainstreaming’, Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, FirstView, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2025.32

Schmidtke, O. (2025) ‘Transforming the centre right in Germany and the United Kingdom: the increasing prominence of identity politics and “culture wars” narratives’, Frontiers in Political Science, 7, Article 1562638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1562638

Turnbull-Dugarte, S.J. and López Ortega, A. (2025) ‘Far Right Normalization & Centrifugal Affect. Evidence from the Dating Market’, The Journal of Politics, advance online publication (16 May). https://doi.org/10.1086/736698

Got some media sources as well:

Mulhall, J. (2024) ‘Why Reform UK is far-right – and why using the right terminology matters’, Byline Times, 7 October.

Ducourtieux, C. (2025) ‘Led by Nigel Farage, UK far right emerges as government’s main opponent’, Le Monde (English edition), 27 May.

Kozul-Wright, A. (2025) ‘Could far-right Reform really win a UK general election now?’, Al Jazeera, 3 July.

Adams, R. and Walker, P. (2025) ‘Reform UK a “far-right and racist party”, says largest teaching union’, The Guardian, 15 April.

Bortun, V. (2024) ‘The far right are another arm of the establishment’, Tribune, 1 July.

Can someone responsibly just answer what is happening? 82.36.162.198 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

What size sample of sources did you read before you found these, or did you cherry-pick these by using "far-right" as a search term? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The publications listed above are the most widely cited on Nigel Farage and Reform UK over the past two years.

82.36.162.198 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The most widely cited where, and how do you know that? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar and Scopus. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Is that the top seven academic sources cited and the top five media sources cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the substantial body of recent scholarship (Cole 2025; Garapich 2024; kippin 2025; newth 2025; turnbull-dugarte 2025) and coverage from outlets like sky news and guardian, it seems entirely accurate to describe reform uk as right wing - far right. their recent immigration plans (mass deportations, leaving the ECHR, repealing the human rights act, disapplying refugee and torture conventions) mirror policies of other European far-right parties such as AfD and Vox. while some general interest outlets use 'right wing populist', WP:WEIGHT requires us to reflect the academic consensus, which increasingly identifies Reform Uk as far-right. A neutral compromise would be to update the Infobox to 'Right wing - Far Right'. Jtttttt (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree Right wing-Far right is the right approach given the ammount of sources saying right wing and the ammount calling them Far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Where does Sky and Guardian call Reform 'far-right?'Halbared (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

They won't simply because Reform Ltd. will send in its lawyers--same way they did with the BBC. The question is why is Wikipedia intimidated by those far-right thugs? 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt the reason the editors who oppose labelling them as far right(or even right wing-Far right) are doing so because they think Reform will send lawyers against Wikipedia. I highly doubt Wikipedia is being intimidated by Reform there’s no evidence of this whatsoever. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

How can the whole scholarly literature being ignored? Past RFCs did not take into account the amount of peer-reviewed publications. Is there a reason why? 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps most involved editors aren't convinced by the evidence they have seen that there is a match between what they know about the Reform UK party and what they understand "far-right" to mean in British politics. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not vibes—citations. Per WP:V and WP:RS, if sources say ‘far-right’, we attribute it. Got contrary RS? Otherwise it’s WP:OR. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If you reject Reform being described as far right because you personally don't think it matches the party, that's just original research. Cortador (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you say the same for accepting it for the same reason? Either way, WP:OR says "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What editors come up with doesn't matter in general, what sources do does, and we have a pretty good selection of high-quality sources here.

What that means is that you can post your original research on a talk page without it having to be removed. It doesn't mean that said original research then becomes acceptable to determine article content. Cortador (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The RFCs did mention scholarly literature as well as mentioning reliable news orgs. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

😆 Ta for that.Halbared (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY, peer-reviewed scholarship is generally high-quality. WP:DUE asks us to reflect the balance of sources. The list below includes more multiple independent peer-reviewed publications (2023–2025) that characterise Reform UK as far-right. Unless there are stronger sources pointing to a different characterisation, the article should reflect this view with attribution (e.g., “described by X as far-right”). If there are specific concerns about scope, reliability, or recency for any citation, please set them out so they can be addressed?

Ford, R. (2024) ‘Changing attitudes, changing coalitions: The politics of immigration before and after Brexit’, The Political Quarterly, 95(2), pp. 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13416

Jones, B. (2025) ‘Political ideas: Identities, environmentalism and political fringes’, in Jones, B., Norton, P. and Hertner, I. (eds) Politics UK. 11th edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003471349-9

Kippin, S. (2025) Public Policy and Democratic Backsliding in the UK: The Conservatives’ Illiberal Turn. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74646-8

Pates, H. (2025) ‘‘Re’-centring the past in postfascism’, St Antony’s International Review, 20(1), pp. 77–98.

Quinn, T. (2023) ‘What would the British party system look like under proportional representation?’, The Political Quarterly, 94(4), pp. 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13315

Shuttleworth, L., Brown, K. and Mondon, A. (2025) ‘The pretence of the cordon sanitaire: Non-collaboration as a distraction from discursive congruence’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Advance online publication (21 August). https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2025.2549800

van der Tol, M. (2025) ‘Christian nationalism and the far right: A transnational entanglement’, Political Insight. Online first (10 June). https://doi.org/10.1177/20419058251351499

White, J. (2024) ‘What makes climate change a populist issue?’, in Bernhard, M., Kreppel, A. and de la Torre, C. (eds) Still the Age of Populism? Re-examining Theories and Concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003453178-8

Thanks. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This seals it for me, there's no excuse to exclude "far-right" from the party's description. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

That 'seal's it? Had you changed your mind since the last time you raised an RFC to get far-right as a description? In June. In the Ideology and platform the descriptor 'far-right' is used, that term has not been excluded in any way.Halbared (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It seals for me that the notion of "far-right" being excluded from the infobox, lead, and short description being a matter of sourcing issues is unreasonable. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

When no major UK outlet uses that descriptor?Halbared (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

News outlets don't take precedent over reliable peer-reviewed publications written by qualified political scientists. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Independent sources accepted by the whole country kept in check by reality and the law don't take precedent over academic "scientists" who aren’t institutionally biased towards the left/far-left in their own bubble, right, gotcha!Halbared (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so we're just onto anti-academia arguments at this point. WP:RS is very unambiguous about scholarly sources versus news organisations, I'm not going to continue beyond this if you sincerely believe that news sources aren't just as, if not much more, likely to be politically biased than peer-reviewed journals. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

As opposed to ignoring all of the UK media? Right. News organisations have to be extremely careful and not say things which aren't true, which makes them reliable. One of the sources linked above even said the immigration stuff would have been extreme a few years ago, but not today, because things change, the window has changed. It made the point against the argument of the ip.Halbared (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Stating that a party shouldn't be described as having a certain political position because UK media specifically don't use it even if other sources do isn't Wikipedia policy. Cortador (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to find consensus among editors looking at sources. Not proving negatives.Halbared (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Why did you suggest then that Reform shouldn't be described as far-right based on UK news outlets not using that descriptor? Cortador (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A good chunk of the time it feels that responding to this is like responding to someone who uses google translate one way and then a mobile app t'oher. It can be fun to correct your faulty inferences, I'll let others do that, with your need to respond to everything. ;)Halbared (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an argument to make, or have you moved to personal insults? Cortador (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy per Wikipedia:RS does say that scholarly sources are considered more reliable than reliable news orgs so they do take precedence. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Which bit says "scholarly sources are considered more reliable?" and they "should take precedence?"Halbared (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

“When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

We have, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." So we have an area where we have alternative theories and a controversial area also.

We also have, 'Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context.'

No where does it say "more" or "takes precedent".

There is also, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact."Halbared (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Still, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Now you only have to show that this is an unusual case where they are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It says that usually scholarly sources are the most reliable which would mean they take precedence as they are more reliable than news orgs (unless like Hob Gadling says you can show this is an unusual case.) Yea reliable news orgs generally considered reliable but they are usually less reliable than scholarly sources. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

'Usually', not always and not 'more,' with the caveat, "competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field", therefore, no "precedence". And again, inserting the word 'usually' is incorrect. Halbared (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Usually is not always but you have not shown that this is unusual situation rather than the usual one. There is precedence as nothing suggests this is not the usual situation and the caveat does not mean there is no precedence. I am not sure what you mean by inserting it is incorrect as usually is in the policy. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The caveat shows that the academic sources do not cancel out other standard reliable sources, this is contested, this is controversial, even ignoring the constant politial debate over this in the real world, the very fact just you and I are discussing it shows that, bu then there is the larger real world debate, defacto. When one looks at the debate, such as the one being had in the political/media world and the academic world (Bale essay below among others) shows this.Halbared (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

That caveat does not say that at all. The caveat does not say that if a scholarly work is contested or controversial that scholarly work is not the most reliable all it mentions is that it may be "controversial within its field." GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The point is, academic sources do not trump other reliable sources, because it is contested/controversial.Halbared (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources are still preferred regardless of if it is controversial or contested per that policy(as it states they are more reliable and does not say at all that if it is controversial or reliable they are not more reliable.)GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No, they are not, and you've not supported your contentions via the RS post. This is circular, you believe what you believe, and I see nowt in the RS that supports what you contend. I'm sure when others chime in on the RFC at the end of the year they will decide for themselves.Halbared (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes they are and I have supported it with direct quotes from the RS policy. I am sure they will too. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect, various articles from The Guardian have described Reform UK, or their policies as ‘far-right’, and these have been mentioned in the past multiple times in discussions here. Here is a recent example:

“Reform UK leader cuts loose with far-right anti-immigration rhetoric, but still finds little pushback from Labour or Tories”.

Link:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/26/farage-aims-for-hardline-vibes-with-his-mass-deportation-plan 86.3.45.251 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, fellow contributor!

I need to ask you if you can provide direct quotes of these sources actually calling Reform UK far-right. So far I'm checking those and a lot of those just fall short of this.

For example you cited: White, J. (2024) ‘What makes climate change a populist issue?’, in Bernhard, M., Kreppel, A. and de la Torre, C. (eds) Still the Age of Populism? Re-examining Theories and Concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003453178-8

This book, and chapter indeed, mentions Reform UK once: Farage’s remarks were later echoed by Richard Tice, current head of Farage’s old party Reform UK (a.k.a. the Brexit Party), who complained that ‘voters didn’t have a choice’ at the last election regarding the adoption of net zero goals. Where is the far-right label?

Another one: van der Tol, M. (2025) ‘Christian nationalism and the far right: A transnational entanglement’, Political Insight. Online first (10 June). https://doi.org/10.1177/20419058251351499; this also mentions Reform UK just once: This differs from systems where the far right can form entirely new parties. In the UK, the Conservative Party is losing ground to Reform UK, now led by Nigel Farage. In the Netherlands, the fragmentation of the right is even more dramatic, enabled by a proportional electoral system. This is ambiguous and so would fall under WP:OR.

A lot of these also describe the party as "radical right" rather than far-right. This is an issue because at last WP:RfC, it was discussed how these fail to be the same, and indeed on this article we have a source by a political scientist Tim Bale who argues that Reform UK cannot be classified as far-right precisely because of that difference.

This does make it a bit shaky. Brat Forelli🦊 09:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi -- most of these articles refer to Reform UK as a far-right party. Do you want me to create a full list for you? 62.74.16.141 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Direct quotations / analysis

Van der Tol (2025, p.41): "This differs from systems where the far right can form entirely new parties. In the UK, the Conservative Party is losing ground to Reform UK."

Garapich et al. (2024, p. 2021): The whole analysis is focused on far-right entities and Reform UK is analysed as one alongside Britain First and EDL.

Ford (2024, p. 230): "The salience of immigration has begun to rise again, from a low of under 10 per cent in 2021 to over 20 per cent in recent polling. Support for the radical right Reform UK party has risen sharply, driven by strong support among the most anti-immigration voters."

Turnbull-Dugarte and López Ortega (2025, p.8): "The radical right parties we consider are VOX (Rama, Zanotti, Turnbull-Dugarte, and Santana, 2021; Mendes and Dennison, 2021) and Reform UK."

Schmidtke (2025, p.2): "However, both the British Conservative Party and the German Christian Democrats have had to contend with competition from the far-right (most prominently, the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, now Reform UK since 2021, and the Alternative für Deutschland, AfD)."

Newth et al. (2025, p.14): "Following Brexit, UKIP lost its main raison-d’être and Farage stepped down as leader, seeing its levels of support plummet. Other parties emerged in its place, notably the Brexit Party which later became Reform UK, but it was not until the general election in 2024 that the far right started to make headlines again. Claims of another ‘earthquake’ emerged when Reform UK gained representatives in parliament, despite the fact that the party performed similarly to UKIP in 2015 (8.4% of registered voters against 8.3%) and came second in fewer constituencies."

Luger (2025, p.1): "The far-right has its teeth sunk deep into neighbourhoods. As evidenced by the local success of ‘Vox’ in Spain, or ‘Reform UK’ in this year's local elections, or other trends across Europe – this is not limited to North America."

Shuttleworth et al. (2025, p.10): "Despite both UKIP and Reform UK’s clear credentials as far-right parties, they were and are often excluded from the category in academic and public discourse, whether on account of UKIP’s emergence as a single-issue ‘eurosceptic’ group (Tournier-Sol 2015, 134) or Reform UK’s protestations about the label, seeing the BBC apologise for referring to them as such (Naughtie 2024)."

Pates (2025): This article explores far-right and postfascist ideologies’ reliance on the strategic use of the past. Farage, Reform UK are analysed as such entities.

Meuth (2025, p.128): "Far-right currents and parties have become a visible part of the political landscapes in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK) in recent years. Particularly since the long summer of migration in 2015, with the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), and recently the Reform UK Party (Heath et al., 2025) in England, political forces with an alleged threat to (White) Christian Western European societies through (perceived Muslim) migration processes have mobilised and attained peaks of attention, institutionalisation, and influence."

Van Der Brug et al. (2025, p.7): "Moreover, recent elections in the US and the UK have also shown that younger voter are more supportive of the liberal-progressive parties – the Democrats and the Labour Party – than the conservative parties: the Republican Party3 in the US and Conservative Party and the far-right Reform UK party in Britain."

Soborski et al. (2025, p.5): "Notably, there has also been an active and public effort by British far-right organisations—such as British National Party, EDL, Britain First or Reform UK—to engage on various levels with Polish politics, network with Polish far-right parties and even attempt to recruit Poles as members."

I can carry on if you want all the quotations. Not sure how many more are required? 62.74.16.141 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is what I needed here - thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 11:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is more than enough for verification to me; definitely a change that should be made once there is a consensus for it. Brat Forelli🦊 11:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Should populist and radical also be added?

"Nigel Farage’s populist Right party, Reform UK." https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/gd/15/2-3/article-p126.xml

"Reform UK can be most sensibly classified as a populist radical right party." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-025-00287-4

"The Conservatives’ electoral decline has recently been compounded by the rise of Reform UK on the authoritarian populist Right." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-025-00277-6

"Coming to prominence in a period where the Conservatives were in power, these figures were forged less by the need to detoxify the brand than by the threat on the party's right from populist rivals such as UKIP, the Brexit Party and—most recently—Reform UK." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13482

"Is the European Parliament a Key to Success for (All) Right-Wing Populist Parties?" https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/is-the-european-parliament-a-key-to-success-for-all-rightwing-populist-parties-two-different-pathways-to-engaging-with-the-ep/D6DB891CF9B0DBC7CA26E7689AB81F26

"Modelling the dynamics of support for a right-wing populist party: the case of UKIP." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17457289.2016.1146286

"From UKIP to Brexit: The Right-Wing Populist Surge in the UK." https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-53889-7_1

"The UKIP is

a classic example of a populist party relying on a charismatic leader." http://20.198.91.3:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8035/3/Abstract%20Preetha%20Mitra.pdf

"Reform's membership is approaching that of the Conservative Party, which Farage wishes Reform to supplant as the main rightist party." https://www.emerald.com/expert-briefings/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/OXAN-DB291382/1220196/Conditions-are-advantageous-for-Reform-UK?redirectedFrom=fulltext

"Nigel Farage to contest the election as leader of the right-wing populist Reform UK." https://www.emerald.com/expert-briefings/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/OXAN-DB287557/1232574/UK-election-could-be-existential-for-ruling?redirectedFrom=fulltextHalbared (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article risks being misleading if it only calls Reform uk as "right wing populist". there is now a substantial body of peer-reviewed work and mainstream analysis describing Reform uk as Far right in addition the 2025 platform under Farage has introduced policies usually associated with the far right in Europe. mass deportations, withdrawal from the ECHR, repealing the human rights act, disapplying the refugee convention and UN torture convention, and automatic detention with no right of appeal. these go far beyond the standard "radical right wing populist" category and match far right policy defenitions in political science.

alongside this, I believe the article should also include national conservatism as one of Reform Uks ideological labels. this can be supported by;

- the parties strong emphasis on national sovereighty and opposition to international courts/treaties

- its defence of "traditional british culture and identity" in line with how national conservatism is defined in academic and policy literature

- A comparative analysis: scholars such as Schmidtke (2025) Highlight the overlap between Reform uk and European national conservative parties like Vox and Fidesz.

so i think its important that the label is now properly discussed and updated - whether to Right wing - Far right or just simply Far right, and that national conservatism is added to the ideology section. otherwise the article risks underrepresenting the weight of both academic and media consensus that have built up since 2024-25. Jtttttt (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Ii's misleading to cherry pick any of these labels and ignore the others, that is the point. There are now substantial body of peer-reviewed work and mainstream analysis describing Reform as populist, I got the above from google scholar, and it wasn't exhaustive.Halbared (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Show us? 92.40.201.17 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The party is already described as right-wing populist, and that's tangential to this discussion about the party's political position. The point of this discussion is to discuss the merits of adding the "far-right" label to the party, and sources describing the party as right-populist or radical right don't contradict that. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

All of this is quite misleading, full of distortions. Let's analyse those publications one by one:

1. Quotation from the first paper: "In Britain, the populist Right is mainly located on the radical/authoritarian wing of the Conservative Party, or beyond, most notably in explicitly anti-EU and anti-immigrant parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the Brexit Party and now Reform UK. For all of these, the EU was the external threat across the water, its policies constantly weakening Britain’s independence as a sovereign nation-state, and its ‘free movement of labour’ being responsible for the influx of migrant workers who moved to Britain from 2004."
2. Quotation from the second paper (which contradicts you directly): "political science terminology, Reform UK can be most sensibly classified as a populist radical right party. This places it outside of the mainstream right and as part of the far right, but distinguishes it from the extreme right elements of the far right (Bale 2024)."
3. Quotation from the third paper (where the author refers to the party as authoritarian right--which is outside the democratic spectrum): "The Conservatives’ electoral decline has recently been compounded by the rise of Reform UK on the authoritarian populist Right."
4. Does not describe it as right-wing, but right of the Conservative Party. Populism, FYI, is not an ideology.
5. Footnotes within the paper: "In November 2018, the long-time face of UKIP, Nigel Farage, established a new party, the Brexit Party, whose name was changed to Reform UK in November 2020. It is hard to consider Reform UK a party independent from UKIP, as Nigel Farage himself has said that there was ‘no difference between the Brexit Party and UKIP in terms of policy, in terms of personnel’, except that the latter has far-right components (Jacobson 2019). Also, the majority of UKIP MEPs who had been elected in 2014 (14 of 24) joined the new party."
6. 2015 article! Did Reform UK exist back in 2015?
7. No mention of Reform UK at all!
8. This is a PhD thesis. Shenanigans.
9. Not a peer-reviewed publication, but an expert briefing.
10. Same as above.

Nice try. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

IP 62.74.16.141, what size sample of sources did you read before you found these, or did you cherry-pick these by using "far-right" as a search term? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you should search for scholarly articles with different classifications and present them here if you can. We’ll take it from there if you find any, ok? 2A00:23C5:6692:A101:F130:7261:4C33:2365 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean you did cherry-pick these by using "far-right" as a search term? It's easy to find them described in many ways by tailoring your search terms. I've found many just "right wing", some "radical right", some "right wing populist", and have you seen any talking about some of Reform's policies as being left of Labour?

Either way, how many of those sources were largely discussing Reform UK, and how many mentioned it just once or twice in passing, and you took one of those mentions for the quote? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

There do seem to be some commenters here, that are working quite hard to resist any changes being made to this particular article - Not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. The term ‘Right-wing populism’ has already been used to describe the ideology of the party, in the info box. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Changes need to reflect the consensus of reliable sources, and we haven't seen any evidence yet that this change does that. This is why I asked you the above questions. Without those questions being answered, how can we evaluate your argument? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE! I am adding new direct quotations from recent peer-reviewed publications to expand the current list:

Shakir and Walton (2025, p.5): "The 2024 general election saw the entry of a cohort of MPs from the hard-right party, Reform UK, into the British Parliament for the first time. Nigel Farage, a wealthy former private school boy, has successfully mainstreamed Islamophobia and anti-migrant racism within political discourse."

Johnston et al. (2025, p.10): "Then there is also Nigel Farage's Reform Party, an insurgent hard-right movement party, which enjoyed a strong electoral showing in those elections too."

Morris and Perry (2026, p.42): "These developments paved the way for the far-right Reform UK party to secure a parliamentary group in the 2024 general election."

Baele and Brace (2025, p.15): "This network helps understand the ideological differences between key players in a contemporary British far-right online and offline ecosystem in constant reorganization since the implosion of the BNP and the arrival of new types of movements like the English Defence League (we see in the network Patriotic Alternative, the National Front, Britain First, the Reform Party, Nigel Farage, etc.)"

Stafford et al. (2025, p.16): "Reform becoming an outlier from the other parties in terms of its outcomes, is of particular importance. Reform is frequently seen as a ‘popularist’ party, and also often referred to in the media as a ‘far right’ party."

Richardson (2025, p. 13): "Twenty years later, Reform won 14.3 per cent of votes in the 2024 UK election, and five seats in parliament. Emerging from a Brexit-driven wave of hard right views on issues such as immigration, Reform aligns itself with nationalist, Islamophobic, far-right identity politics."

Hayton (2025): "Using political science terminology, Reform UK can be most sensibly classified as a populist radical right party. This places it outside of the mainstream right and as part of the far right..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.162.198 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

82.36.162.198 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

So the first two say 'hard' right, the next two say 'far' right, the fifth describes other parties as both "popularist" and "far." And the last also uses both 'hard' and 'far.' Are you saying that 'hard' should also be included or were they mistakes?Halbared (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You’ve got a 2015 article (before Reform even existed), a PhD thesis, and some briefing papers. I’ve got multiple peer-reviewed studies from 2025–26 calling Reform “hard,” “far,” “radical,” and “authoritarian” right. One of us is citing scholarship, the other is doing archaeology. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

They all came from google scholar. So "hard,” “far,” “radical,” and “authoritarian", a combination of many titles showing how badly academics can't agree. Do you wan them all in the infobox?Halbared (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Academics may quibble over “hard,” “radical,” or “authoritarian,” but they all land in the same place: Reform is on the far right. We don’t need a buffet of labels in the infobox — just the one that captures the consensus. Far right it is. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Then don't use links that use those terms for bulk. You posted links that quite clearly do not use the term 'far-right' illustrating how the academics do not align.Halbared (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Right-wing direct quotations / analysis

Some folks here tried hard to hijack and twist this discussion, so fine — I’ll play. In the past three years, exactly five peer-reviewed publications have labelled Reform UK as a right-wing party (the comparison you were so keen on). Here they are — receipts delivered:

Hayton, R. (2025) ‘To conserve or to reform? The reshaping of the right in British politics’, British Politics, published 5 June. doi:10.1057/s41293-025-00287-4.

Heath, O., Prosser, C., Southall, H. & Aucott, P. (2024) ‘The 2024 General Election and the Rise of Reform UK’, The Political Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13484.

Newton, M. (2025) ‘International refugee norm sabotage: An analysis of anti-migration groups in the UK’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, published 23 August. doi:10.1177/13691481251352325.

Prosser, C. (2024) ‘Fragmentation revisited: the UK general election of 2024’, West European Politics. Advance online publication, 2 December. doi:10.1080/01402382.2024.2430915.

Worth, O. (2023) ‘A traditional intellectual for the populist right?’, Capital & Class, 47(3), pp. 353–372. doi:10.1177/03098168231187251.

82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Final discussion

It’s clear that the wall of text above (and certain contributions from some editors) aims at distracting, or even burying the key argumentation, which is now based on a growing and very reliable set of sources published in journals with very high impact factors. It’s bait basically. I am not entirely sure what else is needed, but my proposal is that both right-wing and far-right can sit together in the info box. The party’s politics is described as such in the quotations provided and since the ones opposing the use of the label rely on arguments unrelated to the scholarly literature, unable to do the same work I did by providing direct quotations, it’s really important to ask what is preventing the community from making this much-needed change to the party’s political position? I know what will follow below, but I’m curious how many more sources alongside quotations must be brought before the community. I’m sure that baseless accusations of cherry picking will emerge again, but I brought 16 peer reviewed publications. Will anyone else do the same? At the moment the article appears to rely on a) three aged media articles, and b) gatekeeping and criticism without merit. Shall we proceed with a real vote this time, which takes the new evidence into account or will we be blocked from stating the obvious about a party that espouses fascist ideals and being normalised in society as a “right-wing” entity? 92.40.201.17 (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my !vote in favour of adding "far-right" to the lead, short description, and infobox at the bottom here, just to make sure it doesn't get buried, and I'd encourage the other editors in this discussion acting in good faith to do the same with their !votes as a way to establish consensus. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Per User:GlowstoneUnknown advice, I reiterate my !vote is to change the political position to Righ wing to Far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to state that I !vote in favour of changing the label to "Right wing - Far right".

Updating the label would ensure accuracy and reflect the current academic and media consensus! Jtttttt (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Halbared for what reason did you revert my edits? They were backed up by several reliable sources and supported (at least in principle) by consensus of multiple editors on this page. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Read the last RFC.Halbared (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm asking you in particular for the reasoning behind your reversions, please be specific. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I went back in good faith to get the link for the last RFC close, but in the archives I see that you ignored the last RFC back then too, so you are aware of it and when it closed. The English cannot be plainer than, 'you are ignoring the last RFC.'Halbared (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it, at the time, I noticed it didn't have the RfC template and I later retracted my bad rfc. I wasn't part of the RfC at the time of its closure, but nonetheless, I want to know your specific reasoning for reverting my edits, instead of being told to read an old RfC and have to guess what you're referring to. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:DUE, the balance of the best sources should drive how we summarise Reform UK. Over 2024–2025 a substantial body of independent, peer-reviewed scholarship either labels the party far right or locates it at the far-right end of the spectrum in comparative context. Recent studies and monographs—including Newth, Brown and Mondon (2025), Schmidtke (2025), Turnbull-Dugarte and López Ortega (2025), Garapich, Jochymek and Soborski (2024), Cole (2025), Kippin (2025), Luger (2025), Ford (2024), Shuttleworth, Brown and Mondon (2025), and others—explicitly treat Reform UK within the far-right/radical-right family or discuss it alongside parties such as AfD and Vox. Where some high-quality sources prefer “radical right” or “right-wing populist”, that variance is handled by attribution (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) rather than by discarding the many scholarly sources that use “far right”. MOS:LABEL permits contentious political labels when they are widely used by reliable sources, and MOS:INFOBOX expects the infobox to summarise the lead. A policy-compliant, neutral formulation is therefore to set the infobox position to “right-wing to far-right”, and in the lead attribute the far-right characterisation to the academic literature and other high-quality sources. This reflects the recent, secondary, independent scholarship that WP:RS says is usually most reliable, avoids editor WP:OR, and fairly represents the current state of the field. The hesitation of some major UK outlets to use “far right” should not override that literature. Domestic media have been notably cautious after legal complaints from the party—most visibly the BBC’s public apology in 2024 for using the label—which helps explain why some UK newsrooms avoid it. By contrast, international coverage and analysis have repeatedly described Reform UK as far right or hard right, and scholars map the party’s 2024–2025 platform—on mass deportations, withdrawal from the ECHR, repeal of the Human Rights Act, and disapplication of refugee and anti-torture norms—onto the far-right family in comparative politics. Wikipedia does not follow the most timid phrasing of a subset of domestic outlets; it follows the highest-quality, most representative sources with due weight. On that basis, adopting “right-wing to far-right” in the infobox, with clear attribution in the lead, is squarely consistent with all the above aspects of WP policy. That's all from me. 92.40.200.45 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like it should be right-wing to far-right; I am casting this vote reluctantly since previously I defended having the "right-wing" label only, but it is a fact that for better or for worse, recent political science journals show a clear consensus that the party is also "far-right". I was looking for some kind of a "sanity check" (comparison to other parties), since I recall Cas Mudde, a political scientist who believed the party was far-right, arguing that the British Conservatives too are far-right - a fringe position that suggests Mudde has a very skewed vision of the modern Overton window - on his now-deleted Twitter account. But I see sources like this:

Brug, Wouter van der; Hobolt, Sara B.; Popa, Sebastian Adrian (18 April 2025). "The Kids Are Alt Right? Age, Authoritarian Attitudes and Far-Right Support in Europe". Journal of European Public Policy. 32 (1). Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/13501763.2025.2488358. p. 7;20: Moreover, recent elections in the US and the UK have also shown that younger voters are more supportive of the liberal-progressive parties – the Democrats and the Labour Party – than the conservative parties: the Republican Party3 in the US and Conservative Party and the far-right Reform UK party in Britain (e.g., Deckman, 2024; Fisher, 2018; Jocker et al., 2024; Norris & Inglehart, 2019; Twenge, 2023). […] The Republican Party of the US is not a far-right party, but since the rise of the Tea Party movement and especially under the presidency of Donald Trump, the party has embraced the main characteristics of a populist right party (such as authoritarianism, nativism, populism, conspiracy theories involving ethnic minorities, etc.).

And if there are sources that argue that the US Republican Party is not far-right (and I would be in agreement) but that Reform UK is, then this makes sense to me. On Reform, we would have to now demonstrate that are a couple of reliable sources that explicitly argue Reform UK is not far-right, but so far I do not see any. I find Halbared's point about the British media avoiding the label pretty good, although this raises the question if British media have more WP:WEIGHT than political science journals. And for what it matters, a British newspaper, The Guardian, does call the party far-right, obsessively so even. Brat Forelli🦊 10:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about the sources I collected from google scholar about Reform being populist and not far-right?Halbared (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The party is already described as populist and that doesn't contradict a "far-right" label, as far-right parties are commonly populist. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Being populist does not mean they aren’t also far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they are. This is a highly contested descriptor, some academics and most media describe Reform as something other than 'far' right, (radical, populist, hard ec). These words are not chose arbitrarily by the different groups who talk about politics, they try to be specific..Halbared (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not the point. We go based on what reliable sources say, and over a dozen reliable sources were provided in this thread that evaluate the party as far-right, it would be completely undue weight to willfully exclude the label at this point. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

No but there are multiple other sources that explicitly call them far right. It’s a label that has significant backing from reliable sources. They could choose that label for a number of reasons it’s not explicitly calling them not far right when they call them populist or any of the other terms. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

And there are multiple sources that explicitly call them populist, they are not the same thing (Tim Bale essay). Sources from media and sources from google scholar use the term 'populist.'Halbared (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Calling them populist is not explicitly not calling them far right so it’s not a reason to not call them far right right wing to far right. A party can be populist and far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

And if that was the case, then there would be unilateral usage of it in the appropriate sources, when there isn't.Halbared (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

When you say appropriate sources do you mean the ones calling them populist? Because if so that’s not enough there needs to be more than just not mentioning far right.GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

What else? We have sources that say 'far/radical/hard/populist' (not extreme though), why are you selecting one of the over the others?Halbared (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Populism is already in the ideology box and I support it remaining there while if we change the political position. Not sure if those other two actually conflict with the right wing -far right label. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, different terms, may overlap or not, some don't, and they are used by different sources differently, we have the IP posting all different names (hard amongst others) and just marking it under 'far-right.' I did post an essay/article earlier today as to why the terminology is problematic. I've lost track of it on this busy page.Halbared (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s part of the problem with including all those other ones it’s not if we just include right wing to far right(as it hasn’t with the current right wing label.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It is since it is not agreed upon in media or academic circles. Even the IP posts links which state 'hard' or 'radical' and states they are 'far-right. The one category that cannot and has not been disputed is 'right-wing.'Halbared (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Enough media and academic sources describe them as far right to include right wing to far right not every source needs too. Many of the ips links explicitly call them far right. Calling them just right wing however is dispute many sources would describe them as far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

When there is enough ambiguity and disagreement on what the term means, and how a party should be labelled, then obviously 'far-right' is the most disputed term, 'right-wing' cannot be disputed as Reform are not centre o left, that's why 'rightwing' is undisputable, it is the baseline inclusive term. We've had different terms be misrepresented as 'far-right', in some of the sources by an editor who wants 'far-right.'Halbared (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

By your own admission, 13 sources provided describe the party as far-right, which is beyond sufficient. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Not only is there no consensus amongst the sources that Reform is far-right, there is no consensus for what 'far-right' even means. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

There is more than enough consensus that "far-right" as a descriptor can be used to describe Reform UK, the most suggested solution on this whole page is to list both "right-wing" and "far-right" on the page. And I have no idea where you're getting the suggestion that the definition of "far-right" has no consensus. The IP user may indeed have inflated the count to 20 by using sources that say "hard right" instead of "far-right" (or an acceptable synonym), but everyone else in this thread bar yourself and Halbared agrees that there is sufficient sourcing to add "far-right" to the article. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the 'consensus' on this page we are talking about though, it is the consensus amongst the sources. When there is no consensus amongst the sources for how to classify Reform, it fails WP:NPOV to portray it as though there was. Clearly too, as some sources characterise them as far-right, and other sources as something else, there is no consensus amongst the sources as to what the term 'far-right' actually means. In many ways it seems like the term is being used as an insult rather than to describe a political ideology. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If that were true, the term ‘far-right’ wouldn’t be used in any Wikipedia articles, for fear of it being ‘biased’. And yet, it’s there on UKIP’s page (for example). 86.3.45.251 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

What happens in other articles is, of course, irrelevant. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The term itself, is clearly not irrelevant.

‘Far-right’ is not an insult, it describes a reality in British politics, including in UKIP, the BNP, and past movements such as the EDL. Many smaller cells / exist as well. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it's not an insult when it's use is uncontested. Here though, we are not trying to use it to describe a party that's rooted in fascism or neo-Nazism, but for a legitimate British party that's got no apparent plans to abolish democracy if elected. That is when its use presents as an insult, and as though it is being used in a disingenuous manner to deliberately try to smear and mislead. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hahaha. So after days of meaningless insults, attacks, distortions, bald men, and car crashes, you’re now claiming to be a prophet—someone who can decide who is democratic, who isn’t, and what would happen to the UK if Reform governed—all just to argue that the term “far-right” is an insult. You don’t even seem to realise that being far-right does not automatically mean being anti-democratic. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behaviour that lacks evidence, such as you've, just written above, is against Wikipedia policy per WP:NPA, which says serious accusations such as these require serious evidence. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly, far-right parties in countries other than the UK, have been elected and national elections have still gone forward, subsequently.

Anyway, lets take a look at how many modern citations were deemed necessary to deem UKIP to be a far-right party, as shown in the infobox:

UK Independence Party

There are currently 6, which date back to 2019.

Prior to this, UKIP was considered to be a ‘right-wing’ to ‘far-right’ party. In says in the second paragraph of this article, that Reform UK is ‘widely considered to be UKIP's successor’. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

There isn't enough ambiguity or diagreement many reliable sources explictly call them far right that is neither ambiguous or enough disagreement. The dispute is weather Reform are just right wing and many sources do dispute that and say they are more than just right wing. Even if some of those sources don't describe them as far right, you yourself said 13 do and that is enough for right wing-far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the Far Right label but the Right wing - Far right label is definitely accurate and should be added especially with the most recent announcements made by the party. this morning Nigel farage has confirmed that he would like to deport women and children which he recently insisted he wouldnt do this is likely due to the extreme political pressure facing the party and i also think that there is enough reliable sources calling the party far right and hard right populist for the label to be changed now. Jtttttt (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

He said he would deport Women today he said children he would have to think about https://news.sky.com/story/farage-confirms-he-wants-to-deport-women-back-to-taliban-in-afghanistan-13425996 GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And the party is already called populist in the article, this is a point that has been brought up multiple times, and it's not an argument to exclude the far-right descriptor. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the two concepts / terms can certainly co-exist. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Are there any sources that explicitly state that Reform isn't far-right because they are populist? Otherwise those don't sources don't matter for the question at hand. A party being populist simply means that they have populist policies. It doesn't define their position beyond that. Cortador (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The Tim Bale essay referenced several times. I also just read this which mentions Bale and highlights the issues with terminology."Bale argues that journalists and broadcasters use euphemisms like 'hard right' out of fear of losing access to sources, or of legal threats, as in the BBC-Reform UK case. But it’s also worth asking whether the widespread use of 'far right' serves another purpose in some contexts: to delegitimise everything that sits outside the centre-right. In that sense, 'far right' becomes less a scientific term and more a polemical weapon."

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/hard-right-far-right-or-just-wrong-why-terminology-matters/ Halbared (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Bale is just one researcher, and his piece is a blog post, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It doesn't override all other sources that describe the party as far right, since Bale isn't the sole authority on this topic. Cortador (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind on blog.lse then? "Seems like this is suitable for inclusion based on this discussion and the RSN discussion, especially since this is a BLP matter and the blog isn't one as defined here, even if it has "blog" in its name. Cortador (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC).Halbared (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

How many peer-reviewed publications do we have that state something that differs from what the Sethi/Ward post states? Cortador (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Nice swerve, very selective.Halbared (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to answer my question? Cortador (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

That source you've provided is a WP:BLOG source, and one that doesn't explicitly evaluate that the party isn't far-right "because it's populist instead", and doesn't even make a definitive judgement on the party's position. The Bale essay as well is a blogpost and not a peer-reviewed study, meaning it would be completely undue weight to use said sources to counter the 10+ reliable sources that describe the party as far-right. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yep. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Alas, I am forced to echo every word that Brat Forelli has said here. I am personally against the far-right label for reasons Brat and DeFacto said, however there does appear to have been a lot of new academic sourcing presented which supports this label, and a consensus seems to be forming. — Czello ^(music) 10:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean have another RFC?Halbared (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure another is necessary at this point — Czello ^(music) 11:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I would think allowing the 12 (I know you were one, who then disagreed with the descriptor) who participated in the last RFC to discuss why the title is not correct, should be allowed to have a say in any prospective new one.Halbared (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I support the descriptor "far right" for the party - the sourcing is pretty clear, and nobody opposed to it has brought forward a good argument against it. Cortador (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be strong consensus here and we need to initiate a vote. The arguments against the use of the far-right are weak and irrelevant to the scholarly literature. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't do votes (see WP:CONSENSUS), but what we do need to do is to wait until the discussion has gone quiet and then request an uninvolved close. That way we'll get a considered opinion recorded and something to refer back to in any future disputes. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I don't even think a vote (or, indeed, a !vote) is necessary, there's a very clear consensus amongst both editors and reliable peer reviewed sources that a label of far-right is certainly a suitable descriptor for Reform UK, and thus should be included in the article proper (instead of being relegated to a WP:WEASEL sentence fragment in the body, i.e. [...] while others have described it as far-right, [...]) . – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yep. In the meantime, I added even more direct quotations from new publications to back the use of the label. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Surely we need the answers to the questions asked above about the presented 'sources' before we can arrive at that conclusion. The questons being:

1. What size sample of sources were read before those cited here were found, or were these cherry-picked by using "far-right" as a search term?
2. Cherry-picking myself, I've found sources saying just "right wing", some just "radical right" and some simply "right wing populist", should we list all of those sources too?
3. How many of those presented sources were largely discussing Reform UK, and how many mentioned it just once or twice in passing?

Also, doesn't the definition and manifestation of the "far-right" differ by locality, including variations by country, region, and specific social and political contexts. The rhetoric and historical legacies that define a far-right movement are surely locally shaped.

Don't we need to discuss the context in which each of the presented sources place Reform UK so that we can judge what locality, etc. they are comparing it with. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Going through those one by one:

1. I don't consider that to be a relevant or useful line of inquiry, due to a combination of the sheer amount of sources provided and the quality of said sources. Also, Wikipedia's policy on WP:CHERRYPICKING refers to cherrypicking WITHIN a source (i.e. leaving out the word "sometimes" in the quote "It's healthy to eat sugar sometimes"), not searching for sources to back up a claim.

2. All three of those labels are already present in the article, with the exception of "radical right", which is currently consigned to a sentence fragment with an "others have described it as [...]" qualifier.

3. All the sources I've looked at so far are, generally speaking, about the far-right or otherwise the diversity of views on the right ranging from moderate to extreme, and pass the WP:V threshold of directly supporting a far-right label for Reform UK. I don't see a need for the sources to be more specific in their subject matter as long as they're both reliable and directly support the claim.

Also, doesn't the definition and manifestation of the "far-right" differ by locality [...] Don't we need to discuss the context in which each of the presented sources place Reform UK so that we can judge what locality, etc. they are comparing it with

If editors were to make judgements about whether each of the sources is using the "far-right" label in the appropriate "context" for the party, I would classify that as a case of WP:OR, to borrow a phrase used in an RfC I'm participating in on another page, Wikipedia articles are not and should not sway to a particular country's viewpoint; there's a reason there's a maintenance tag for that. A variety of sources from different nations and regions is actually preferable to sourcing exclusively from one location. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

1. If we don't know how those sources were selected, then that selection is worthless. If I said that all road crashes were caused by bald-headed men, and I produced 20 reliable sources, each of which described a crash involving a bold-headed man, would you accept my assertion as being true. That's what I mean by cherry-picking sources - picking only the sources that support a particular case.

2. So there is no consensus amongst the sources then, so we should not try to assert that there is.

3. How did you select those sources? That sounds like classic WP:OR to me. Context is important - we might be able to say things like "German sources say xxx", or "US sources say yyy" and "but UK mainstream sources say zzz". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The bald-men analogy is quite cute, but it collapses the moment you remember that car crashes aren’t peer-reviewed, while political science is. Twenty independent, peer-reviewed studies converging on Reform UK being far right isn’t “cherry-picking,” it’s called consensus. If most of the scholarship lands on the same conclusion, of course a representative list will look one-sided — that’s what consensus is. Dismissing that as “worthless” because it doesn’t flatter three newspaper clippings and a vibes-based defence of Reform isn’t an argument, it’s denial. And just to put numbers on it: I’ve run the comparison above, and there are only about five peer-reviewed publications that describe Reform as merely “right-wing,” versus twenty that call it far right. That’s not a mixed bag — that’s a ratio. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Each of my 20 sources could have been peer-reviewed - why not? It's cherry picking if you ignore the peer-reviewed sources that arrive at a different conclusion. There's only a consensus if all known sources agree. If we don't know how the 20 sources were selected from the 100s of sources that refer to "Reform UK", the selection is worthless. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

“Each could have been peer-reviewed” is about as convincing as saying each pub anecdote could have been a PhD thesis. They weren’t. And pretending that consensus means every single source ever written must agree is like claiming climate change isn’t real because a couple of bloggers disagree. The reality is simple: around twenty peer-reviewed studies describe Reform as far-right, against (maybe) 5 that don’t. That’s not worthless — but insisting otherwise makes your argument exactly that. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether they were peer-reviewed, or not, is irrelevant, this is about how they were selected. We had no reason to believe that you had not simply selected sources that labelled Reform UK as far-right and asserted that therefore there was a consensus that Reform UK was far-right. My analogy was to select crash reports where the driver was bald - and assert that therefore all crashes involved a bald man. That is very straightforward.

Are you now saying that there are only 20 peer-reviewed papers in existence that mention Reform UK, and that you have read them all, and 16 of them label them as far-right? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The bald-driver analogy keeps missing the point: crash reports aren’t peer-reviewed scholarship, while political science is. This isn’t about cherry-picking anecdotes — it’s about what the academic literature actually says. I’ve looked across the peer-reviewed material that references Reform UK. Out of the set I’ve found, roughly 20 describe the party as far-right, and about 5 describe it as merely right-wing. That’s not me inventing numbers, it’s the balance of the scholarship. If you think there are more peer-reviewed papers out there contradicting that ratio, then produce them — otherwise, the only cherry-picking happening here is in your analogies. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, the analogy doesn't rely on whether anything is peer-reviewed. How many papers total were in "the set [you] found"? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean your 1 example is different as those sources aren’t saying all crashes are caused by bold headed men. Reliable sources aren’t directly calling Reform far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Your bald men analogy is completely irrelevant, this isn't a case of an "all X are Y" statement, it's a dozen reliable sources stating "this specific Y is Z". The only analogue would potentially be if your 20 fictional sources stated "all car crashes involve bald men" which would be a WP:FRINGE theory, which this is not. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

What @GlowstoneUnknown said. There is a constant distortion of logic in this talk page. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Next steps

As predicted, the wall of text has mostly generated noise — attacks, digs, and even some spam. Meanwhile, there are now around 20 peer-reviewed publications supporting the far-right label. That’s more than enough to establish academic consensus. Ignoring that in favour of a handful of media articles and some vibes-based commentary isn’t defensible. Can we wrap this up and update the infobox accordingly? A vote isn’t needed here — the scholarship speaks for itself. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of those you have posted support other labels.Halbared (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, the vast majority explicitly support "far-right", please stop splitting hairs, consensus has been reached. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. Can someone add the far-right label in the infobox? 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

should probably wait for it to get closed first. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how often you shout that at us, the discussion here is still open, and there is no consensus here that there is anything other than a mixed bag of opinions on this amongst the body of reliable sources. Listing a carefully filtered selection of those sources that just support your favoured outcome here does not help to settle this at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If 20+ peer-reviewed studies all saying far-right is a “mixed bag,” then I suppose three newspaper clippings and some personal vibes must count as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Consensus isn’t hiding from you — you’re just refusing to read it. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Like my 20 sources above that show that all road crashes are caused by bald-headed men? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The bald-men line was flimsy the first time and it doesn’t get stronger in the rerun. Car crashes aren’t peer-reviewed fields of study; political science is. Twenty academic papers independently placing Reform on the far right isn’t an anecdote — it’s a pattern. If you’ve only got five pointing the other way, that’s not a “mixed bag,” it’s just you holding the short straw.

82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This is about ignoring sources that don't support your argument, regardless of field. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Cope 82.36.162.198 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The numbers speak for themselves: about 20 peer-reviewed publications describe Reform UK as far-right, while only 5 call it simply right-wing. That isn’t “cherry-picking,” it’s what happens when most of the scholarship lands on one side. Per WP:RS and WP:DUE, we are obliged to reflect the weight of reliable sources — not create artificial balance between a strong majority view and a much weaker minority. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, but rather following where the most credible sources lead. On that basis, the neutral and policy-compliant option is to label Reform UK as far-right in the lead and infobox, with appropriate citations from the academic literature. Giving equal or greater prominence to the “right-wing” description would breach WP:UNDUE, since it elevates a minority position above its actual weight in the scholarship. To meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS, the article should reflect the prevailing academic characterisation — and that overwhelmingly points to far-right. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

How did you establish those 20/5 numbers? Have you read all peer-reviewed sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Twenty peer-reviewed studies place Reform on the far-right, and about five describe it more mildly as right-wing. If you think that balance is wrong, then by all means: show your own tally of peer-reviewed publications that contradict it. Until then, the numbers stand. The challenge is on you to prove otherwise, not to wave it away with insults. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Of that 20 number you have placed on this page, 13 state Reform UK is "far-right." Two say 'radical right', 3 say 'hard right', one doesn't mention any, and one acknowledges that media uses the term. So, 13.Halbared (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

16 + four more publications I provided in the original list. Twenty in total. There is consensus. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

13 which state what you claim. Others state 'hard' or 'radical' or do not back up your assertion.Halbared (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you bring your sources for non far right labels? I see here only evidence for far right and not for right wing. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Reform UK#Right-wing direct quotations / analysis 82.36.162.198 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: There has been sustained resistance on this talk page for years from 3–4 users who deliberately try to draw out long exchanges in an attempt to bury the discussion. That will not work. The key point is that this discussion has demonstrated a strong scholarly consensus that Reform UK should be classified as a far-right party. If anyone can demonstrate that this analysis is flawed and provide credible scholarly sources that dispute this classification, then by all means do so. In the meantime, stop insulting and attacking others who are not part of your right-wing circles. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Those are unfounded accusations and they are frowned upon by WP:NPA. We have a duty to assume good faith. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The substance is unchanged: about 20 peer-reviewed publications classify Reform UK as far-right (or equivalent), compared to around 5 that don’t. Per WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:CONSENSUS, that represents a strong scholarly consensus. Unless more peer-reviewed sources are produced that shift that balance, the neutral and policy-compliant outcome is to reflect the far-right label in the article. Drawing the discussion out indefinitely (which is what you are trying to achieve here), doesn’t change the weight of the evidence — and per WP:NOTFORUM, our job is to follow the sources, not spin the debate. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Of those 20 you have posted here, only 13 state 'far-right.' Some contradict you. You have misrepresented at least 7 sources.Halbared (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Lying and distorting the evidence is not going to help your case. I've done research that no one has produced in this talk page for years now -- the label can be backed and that is probably going against the ideology of certain users in here. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: POSSIBLE SOCKPUPPET SITUATION - I should have connected the dots sooner, but this is not the first time I am slow on that, but I have to say that the user 82.36.162.198 pushing so aggressively for the "far-right" label has caught my attention. I remember that back in 2024 when a very similar IP was pushing for the same thing, I was informed on my talk page that the IP behind this can be a sockpuppet of a banned user - User talk:Brat Forelli#See here. The IP back from 2024 was 89.242.87.239. As we can see, this IP editor only edited some Greece-related topics AND pushed for Reform UK to be labelled far-right. Now let's look at the current IP user, 82.36.162.198 - this is the EXACT SAME THING - Greece-related topics and Reform UK, literally nothing else. @Halbared, @DeFacto and others, please make sure to take it a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations before this can continue, since the IP editor might be a sockpuppet of Michalis1994, which is WP:BE. Brat Forelli🦊 20:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Halbared, you were investigating this before, no? Brat Forelli🦊 20:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I did. I remember that there was an issue over 'Greece-related' edits and sockery. That's some nice recollection there!Halbared (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I stopped dragging my feet and made Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michalis1994. My bad for ignoring it year ago, but we can see what the truth is now. Brat Forelli🦊 21:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the truth here? That you are prepared to do anything to shut down discussion by launching a witch hunt? First came the distortion of what the literature actually says, then the constant gatekeeping over how Reform UK can be labelled — with four or five users imposing their own political ideology. And now, after the multiple attempts to bury the discussion, insults and personal attacks, the “nuclear option”: accusing me of being a sockpuppet. I am genuinely shocked, though perhaps I should have expected it. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

In the above analysis, it has been demonstrated that 20 peer-reviewed publications in reputable journals use the term far-right, while only 5 recent articles use the term right-wing. The counter-argument presented is not only weak but relies on dismissing a well-established political science term as an “insult” in order to justify avoiding its use—apparently on the grounds that Reform UK is a democratic party. That, however, is a red herring. The relevant question is clear: do we follow the existing reliable sources and scientific consensus, or do we ignore them and prolong an unproductive debate contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:UNDUE? 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You misrepresent the discussion and the arguments of certain contributors, and that is considered to be unacceptable behaviour per WP:TPNO. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure. The issue isn’t only with your arguments, but with your conduct. Repeatedly accusing others of “cherry-picking” or presenting “worthless” material is dismissive and breaches WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Editors have provided direct quotations from peer-reviewed sources; responding with bald-driver analogies instead of counter-sources comes across as bad-faith stonewalling (WP:TPNO).

Calling “far-right” an “insult” is another way of questioning motives rather than engaging with the literature. That’s WP:SOAP and borders on WP:FORUM. It implies other editors are trying to smear, when in fact they’re following WP:RS. Disputing terminology by attacking intent is not acceptable here.

Content decisions come from the weight of reliable sources, not from belittling contributors or moving the goalposts. If you disagree with the balance, the constructive path is to provide equally strong counter-sources (which you have not), not to undermine others’ efforts or derail the discussion. Anything else risks slipping into WP:TE. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: It's only about 3 months since an RFC was closed as no consensus for the change to "right-wing to far-right". Editors such as Kowal2701, Girth Summit, Spy-cicle and TWM03 made valid points against the proposed change in the previous discussion a few months ago and may wish to contribute to this latest discussion. The BBC has apologised for describing Reform UK as "far-right". The BBC removed a sentence from a news report and said the "far-right" description did not adhere to its editorial standards. If there is going to be a change to the Reform UK article then in my view it should also be stated in the article that mainstream UK news sources such as the BBC do not refer to the party as being "far-right". Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian has done so, frequently. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian is the most left wing of Britain's major newspapers by a notable amount. ClaudeFrollo1831 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, The Guardian is WP:GENREL, so it's hardly relevant how left-wing it is in the British media landscape. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Intimidation and legal threats towards British media by Reform Ltd. are not valid reasons to block scholarly consensus. Simple as WP:RS. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” That means when determining matters of classification or ideology — such as whether a party is “far-right” — political science scholarship carries more weight than day-to-day media reporting. High-quality news outlets remain useful for facts, events, and mainstream coverage, but Wikipedia gives precedence to scholarly consensus when it exists (WP:SECONDARY, WP:DUE). In other words, if multiple independent peer-reviewed studies describe Reform UK as far-right, that should be reflected in the article with due attribution, even if some newspapers avoid the term. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned by yourself, we have already had an RFC and subsequent consensus on the issue. While consensus can change, I do not feel it is productive to continue this discussion so soon without a significant shift in RS coverage on the issue.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been shown that the previous RFC failed to include any scholarly literature. This discussion presents the most accurate and up-to-date academic research on Reform UK. It is concerning that the community continues to reject the academic consensus and instead relies on reporting which is the direct result of legal intimidation to silence British media. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

if there is proof that Reform UK intimidates the media into not calling them far right, by all means provide it. It seems to stretch credulity that given Farage has been accused of being racist on a daily basis for more than a decade by the media, that the same media would let themselves be browbeaten if they didn't think Reform merited the far right label. ClaudeFrollo1831 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

lol https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/19/bbc-apologises-for-calling-reform-uk-far-right 82.36.162.198 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That confirms the label was unwarranted, yes. The BBC agreed too, or they wouldn't have edited their article. Thanks for reminding us about that - it was covered in The Telegraph too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That confirms that a political organisation is using legal threats against media organisations. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've just read the article in the above link in The Guardian. The word "intimidates" or "intimidation" was not in the article. The Guardian states that Richard Tice said that "his lawyers had also been in touch with other organisations". The exact nature of being "in touch" with organisations is not specified. It may have been polite and courteous requests sent via letters by lawyers. We don't know. The reference doesn't state precisely what the communication was and to state it was "intimidation" seems to be WP:OR. Regards Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, totally WP:OR: https://bylinetimes.com/2024/10/07/why-reform-uk-is-far-right/ 82.36.162.198 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you read that? Did you spot the fallacies (including hasty generalisation and straw man, ad hominem and slippery slope) in the 'Key reasons include' list? Did you see who wrote it? Let's face it, you are scraping the barrel there. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

the byline times is also far from impartial, it's like me citing GB News as my source for Keir Starmer being a "woke socialist" ClaudeFrollo1831 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Byline Times is not an impartial source, but I did not see the word "intimidates" or "intimidation" included in the Byline Times article. I haven't yet seen a reliable source that has explicitly stated Reform UK have been guilty of "intimidation" towards journalists. The political scientist and author Tim Bale has said: "The use of the term far-right to describe political parties such as Reform UK is unhelpful." In the article below, Bale argues for a distinction between the "extreme right" and the "populist radical right".

It's a mistake to call Reform UK "far-right"

Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That blog from Bale has already been ruled out as an opinion piece without any peer review. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Ok, not much to add here as this conversation has gone completely wrong and we have lost track of the topic. There is no point in arguing any further here. This will be my final post on this thread. I have demonstrated that the party’s far-right label is justified. Despite previous RFCs, none of them actually considered the reliable secondary sources and academic consensus available. At present, around 20 peer-reviewed publications describe Reform UK as far-right, while five describe it as right-wing. I was asked to provide direct quotations, which I did. Nobody else has matched these numbers, and based on this literature review, it is very obvious why: there is clear scholarly consensus that the party is far-right. What followed in response was a wall of text, repeated challenges to previous RFCs, and personal accusations (see WP:NPA). One user even accused me of sockpuppetry, which is a serious allegation and an easy way to try to discredit an editor rather than engage with the evidence. Some editors have dismissed peer-reviewed political science research as “insults,” which directly undermines the use of reliable sources and veers into WP:OR. This persistence in rejecting the academic consensus suggests that a handful of gatekeepers are controlling this subject, as they also do on related conservative/ultraconservative topics. I hope that an admin will uphold policy, recognise the weight of evidence, and ensure the article reflects what the WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT scholarly sources say about Reform political position. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts - The evidence to describe for Reform UK as ‘right-wing’ increasingly looks weak / insufficient.

More time and effort has gone into showing that they are further to the right than simply ‘right-wing’, but no changes have occurred. The sources have been argued about largely, rather than acknowledged. Accusations of cherry picking have been known around, an unhelpful and unproductive suggestion, and nothing seems to be moving forward.

What else is necessary? What steps should come next? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Correction - Thrown around*. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you please give verbatim quotes of all the occasions where you think that "Accusations of cherry picking have been [thrown] around". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s you, pal. Your little digs, your constant gatekeeping, and your habit of dressing up personal attacks as ‘policy’. You really don’t see it? Pretty sure the rest of us do: 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking of the other IP, the one who made the initial accusation. But I'm glad to see you didn't mean it though, when in your previous post you said This will be my final post on this thread.

As for your diffs, there are no allegations amongst them. Let me paste my comments from them here (sorted into chronological order) and analyse them:

• #3 (8 August) From a different discussion (an RfC in fact) on a totally different subject, I was pointing out that The NYT article showed that DeSmog had cherry-picked which of the big donors they mentioned. Mirroring their POV in article would fail WP:NPOV. - There's no allegation there, it's a statement of fact about the source being discussed.
• #2 (31 August) I asked What size sample of sources did you read before you found these, or did you cherry-pick these by using "far-right" as a search term?. - There's no allegation there, it's a straight question asking how the presented sources were selected. That's one of the first things we needed to know when evaluating them.
• #1 (2 September) Having had no answer the first time, I asked again: IP, what size sample of sources did you read before you found these, or did you cherry-pick these by using "far-right" as a search term? - The same straight question as before.

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

All of these questions have been answered. At this stage, you're just lying without any shame. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The questions hadn't been answered when they were asked. Thanks for acknowledging that they were questions, so not allegations then.

Here we go again with the PAs, are you really here to help build the encyclopaedia? Please supply the diffs that substantiate that "lying" allegation. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Stop it, please just stop. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If you accuse someone of lying you need to provide evidence or retract the accusation, you decide. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Dude, just give it a break. It is more than clear you are ideologically aligned with the subject, just stop with the text. You made your points, you insulted others, just stop now. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

More unfounded and inflammatory allegations. My only concern here is that the content complies with Wiki's policies and guidelines. Can you say the same about yourself? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't comply and that is also evident in your block history. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

More: a causal fallacy, a red herring and an appeal to hypocrisy. Also, please concentrate on just the article content, talk pages are for improving the encyclopaedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You haven't responded when you had the chance, and now, you are doing what you did before to deflect. You keep framing other editors’ contributions as “fallacies” or “red herrings”, but that is not how consensus is built on Wikipedia. Let's teach you a few things. Talk pages are not academic debating chambers; they are for evaluating sources under policy. Per WP:TPNO and WP:CIVIL, dismissing others’ contributions with rhetorical labels instead of engaging with the reliability and weight of sources is disruptive. The issue here is straightforward: WP:RS states that “academic and peer-reviewed publications … are usually the most reliable sources”. Over a dozen such publications (2023–2026) explicitly describe Reform UK as far-right. Only a small handful do otherwise. Under WP:DUE, we summarise the balance of sources, not the personal views of editors, and certainly not by trying to discredit sources through claims of “fallacies”. You’ve also suggested that “far-right” is used as an insult. That argument is irrelevant to content decisions: MOS:LABEL allows contentious political labels if they are widely used in reliable sources, which is the case here. To reject them because you think they are “insults” is original research (WP:OR). If you believe there are equally strong counter-sources, please provide them with direct quotations. Otherwise, continuing to cast aspersions on the motives of editors or on the scholarly literature risks breaching WP:NPA and WP:TE. The proper way forward is to follow what the sources actually say. Dude, give it a rest. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This branch of the discussion is nothing to do with the original subject of the idealology of Reform, as you well know. We're beyond discussing the sources for that here. Since 86.3.45.251 said "Accusations of cherry picking have been [thrown] around", in the second post of this branch of the subject, and you said to me "it's you pal", I've been asking you to substantiate your allegations about me and you've (I wasn't referring to anyone else or the previous part of the discussion) employed several fallacial arguments to swerve that question and failed to give any evidence to support those allegations.

Now you've avoided that question again, by misrepresenting my attempts to get you to withdraw those false allegations as if they were related to the discussion about the ideology of Reform and no-one should be fooled. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I apologise if I’ve only made matters worse.

But I am curious - What happens next, what should be the next steps in discussing the political position of Reform UK?

Or, is that the end of the discussion? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This dude will never stop. He just wants to flood the conversation (evidently aligned with the subject of the article), to distort events, attack others, and ultimately end the discussion. That's what he's been doing on WP for years now anyway. Don't bother. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone before suggested an uninvolved close to gauge the consensus from this discussion once the discussion is over. I think that is the best course of action next. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

As actual discussion has stagnated, I've suggested a WP:SNOWCLOSE over at WP:RFCL already. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Great that is a good idea. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Climate Change

The segment on climate change is now getting even longer than the manifesto segment itself. It's way too opinionated, in my personal view. It needs to be cut back a bit and perhaps focus on the party's official statements, not what their MPs or council workers think. 2A0A:EF40:F3B:C601:B1AD:F1A5:5F8B:2E4D (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This IP appears to be User:Lam312321321 evading a block. They were edit warring to remove and downplay climate positions last month as sock account User:Fourinmybarn (, , ), and those edits were questioned at Talk:Reform UK/Archive 4#Edit review. Belbury (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Reform’s shifting (further) to the right on immigration and asylum seeker policies, since the July 2024 election

Sky News reports the following recent policy changes: ”Mass deportations. Prison camps. Quitting the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention on Torture”. Article Link here: https://news.sky.com/story/reform-uks-new-immigration-plans-wouldve-been-extreme-just-a-few-years-ago-13416752

These are all areas where there are clear differences between Reform UK and the Conservatives, and these could be highlighted in the article.

There are comparisons made to US President Donald Trump’s politics, which itself has been described as ‘right-wing to far-right’ by this Wikipedia article: Trumpism 86.3.45.251 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Reform Uk should definitely be described as right wing - far right for accuracy. its latest shift on immigration, asylum and deportation policies which will be announced on tuesday and will include leaving the ECHR and human rights act to replace it with a new british bill of rights before leaving the refugee convention, the UN covention against torture and the council of europes anti-trafficking convention. this is a major shift with proposals of mass deportations of hundereds of thousands, former military bases used as detention facilities and the withdrawal from international agreements. this is very likely only the beginning of a broader reposition further and further to the right before the 2029 general election. Jtttttt (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Reform UK’s plan to deport certain migrants (Known as ‘Operation Restoring Justice), includes commitments to:

1. Leave the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights).

2. Repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (replace with a new law).

3. Disapply the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention (ECAT).

4. Create Detention Power (without Hardial Singh Constraints).

Full details of the plan can be found on Reform UK’s website, at this address:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1756202533/REFORM_Immigration_Enforcement.pdf?1756202533

In summary, substantial changes to UK law are sought by Reform UK. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I find it strange that Reform UK’s recent policies, aren’t playing more of a role in how the party is described in the Wikipedia article. I don’t think they’ve even been mentioned yet. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason it isn't playing more of a role is that wiki doesn't go off what policies a party has in describing political positions it goes off what reliable sources say the party's political position is GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Does it make sense to mention any of these proposed legal changes in the main Wiki. page?

I think most would consider these to be very substantive policies. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The ECHR is already mentioned as to the others if they are backed by reliable sources I would support them being added if reliable sources mention them. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

They are mentioned by Reform UK on their own website.

Surely, that’s a reliable source? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

,Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources over primary ones and their website is a primary source so we would need a reliable secondary source not just the website(probably should have stated secondary sources before my bad.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is a primary source, which mentions all of these points:

1. Leave the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights).

2. Repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (replace with a new law).

3. Disapply the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention (ECAT).

4. Create Detention Power (without Hardial Singh Constraints).

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/reform-uk-migration-policy-legally-feasible

Dated 27th of August, 2025. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Correction - It's actually a secondary source. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok well I wouldn't oppose those being added then(bar the first one as that is already in there.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I’d like to formally request that these changes are made to the article. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There's another major legal change that has been proposed by Nigel Farage / Reform Uk, as of the 22nd of September 2025.

They want to scrap settled status, and rescind indefinite leave to remain for anyone who has it, meaning that these people would have to apply for a work visa, with salary threshold requirements, or they would be deported.

Full details here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/22/farage-vows-to-scrap-settled-status-placing-thousands-at-risk-of-deportation 86.3.45.251 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

10th Jan councillors incident

I note that we have a paragraph detailing in great length the resignation of 10 "councillors" in January 2025. Just one issue – these were town councillors, who are not "real" councillors and not included in the 18,000+ official councillors listing we use in the infoboxes for all UK political parties on Wikipedia. Town and parish councillors are not notable individuals to any real extent given their extremely limited remit. Does it even merit a mention in the article? Jkaharper (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)