Talk:Reform UK/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2026

i think its unfair to call reform UK far right in terms of its populism i think its only right wing and it needs to be distinguished between other partyies George black cat mitcaw 650 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)  Not done No specific changes proposed. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Is Reform Centre Right?

I appreciate the irony of this being discussed alongside changing the ideology of Reform UK to "far right" but I noticed farage explicitly claiming Kemi Badenock has "realigned the centre-right of British politics, which is much needed against a dreadful labour government", source: https://x.com/i/status/2011841199187857781 . I've noticed an intentioned shift to the centre by Reform UK in the past year particularly on economic issues but even on social issues with the exception of immigration. I find it misleading that Wikipedia continues to refer to Reform UK as simply a right-wing party where as a student of politics and an observer of the European populist far right, Reform UK simply don't fit that labelling. I think a Centre-Right to Right Wing labelling would be more accurate. OliverR7 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources do not support them being centre right most sources either call them right wing far right radical right etc etc GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources on the Wikipedia page for ideology are all from before the last general election. In fact, a recent source on the Wikipedia page argues a shift in ideology https://spectator.com/article/reform-is-now-a-left-wing-party/ . I don't think it can be reputably argued that Reform UK is far right, I remember the BBC withdrawing that label due to it being inaccurate and going against their editorial standards. OliverR7 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Spectator, being opinion pieces, is not reliable. — Czello ^(music) 17:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The specattor is an opinon piece and so not reliable and there are numerous reliable sources that call Reform far right some listed in the above discussion so it can be argued they are Far right(and the BBC doing that after a Reform complaint from Reform is not enough to say they aren't when other reliable sources say they are far right.) But that is beaides the point of this discussion which is that they are not centre right as most sources say they are something else weather far right right wing or radical right GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a WP:RSN thread about The Spectator few years ago and anons have agreed that it publishes mostly opinion pieces. Furthermore, because of their bias, they have a vested interest in not calling Reform "far right". The article you posted is titled Reform is now a left wing party. There have been many academic sources posted in the RfC above, I suggest you take a look at them. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Is that not an opinion piece given that Clark is an Opinion Writer for the Spectator and not something from James Heale or Isabel Hardman etc hat would be considered more objective in its purpose? ~2026-30325-3 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The Spectator would consider any party not led by someone named Lord Tweedledee, 19th Baron of Featherstonewick left-wing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

With the slew of coverage now stating this, it is a reasonable argument to put forth. "But it was also a clear signal of the new strategic direction Nigel Farage’s party is taking. Reform no longer wishes to surpass or defeat the Conservatives. Instead, its ambition is now to destroy the Tories utterly, and replace them as the dominant party of the centre Right." Halbared (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:TELEGRAPH: Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. The article is published in the "Opinion" section of the website, as well: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2026/01/15/battle-for-future-of-centre-right-has-begun/ TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s the official editorial position of the paper (“Telegraph View”) not an op ed. Telegraph is biased - just as eg Guardian is.

It’s a data point in support of “right-wing” and against “far right”, but it needs to be triangulated against all the academic sources that say far right BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There have been multiple arguments about where to place numerous parties and they never result in broad agreement. The problem is that using a relative scale (left-right) is subjective and where a party lies depends on who you ask. For example, in Canada, the social democratic New Democratic Party refers to the Liberals and Conservatives as right-wing, while the Conservatives refer to the Liberals and New Democrats as far left.

Why not just describe them as right-wing populist and allow readers to decide for themselves whether right-wing populism is far right, right-wing, center-right etc.? What additional information does the article provide to readers if we explain where Wikipedia editors place them in the spectrum? TFD (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think a party’s policies should be what determines their political position, rather than based upon subjective opinion. Reform UK’s immigration and asylum policies are similar to far-right parties in Europe. They go beyond what most right wing parties advocate on immigration, calling for an end to all non essential immigration and scrapping the Human Rights Act (1998). They say that any immigrant in the UK who commits any criminal act, should be deported. Some of the rhetoric used by party officials about male immigrants has been quite unpleasant, describing them as an invasion, and as men of military age (implying possible violent intent). The party has a strong focus on protecting British identity, which has an overlap with far-right nationalism. A Reform MP has complained TV adverts being "full of black people, full of Asian people" also:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7rg7wjvgvo

There seems to be quite a bit of tolerance for discriminatory comments within the party, as long as they do not offend people with British born people with white skin.

Also, I think it’s possible for a party to have attributes of both a right wing and far-right party, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Sources can support a description of both positions. ~2026-25658-8 (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Right-wing populism "combines right-wing politics with populist rhetoric and themes. Its rhetoric employs anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the Establishment, and speaking to or for the common people. Recurring themes of right-wing populists include neo-nationalism, social conservatism, economic nationalism, and fiscal conservatism. Frequently they aim to defend a national culture, identity, and economy against perceived attacks by outsiders.

"Right-wing populism has associations with authoritarianism, while some far-right populists draw comparisons to fascism.

"In Europe the term is often used to describe groups, politicians and political parties generally known for their opposition to immigration, and for Euroscepticism."

If the article says their ideology is right-wing populism, what additional information does mapping their position on the political spectrum add? TFD (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• No - Keep top as-is, otherwise fails WP:V and just another WP:OR - much the same reasons I gave about “far-right” - partly just a preference for continuation of existing content, and partly for showing restraint about declaring a judgement in wikivoice when there are sources differing. It seems failing V and VOICE, and wanders into WP:OR. I don’t think the diversity of label is prominent enough a topic for Reform UK to deserve even body coverage, but if so then NPOV means it should show *all* significant viewpoints in DUE WEIGHT. For the lead and/or infobox, keep it to simpler and broad generic “right-wing”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This is another example of why these qualifier terms are always subjective. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Nah, they are not. You can distort them as much as you want - political theory is real, sport. ~2026-95697-6 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Blocked sock. Halbared (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)—  Suspected sockpuppet of NikolaosFanaris, see investigation.

Far-right? Really?

this is turning into WP:FORUMing by IP editors. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Reform UK is hardly far-right. right-wing sure, but they are not a far-right party. Remove that ~2026-13403-89 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The way the first two sentences have been worded is also crap. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done, there was a hundred-page discussion of this that closed a few days ago, on this talk page, which concluded that there was ample grounds to include the term "far-right" in the lead and infobox alongside existing terminology.

See Talk:Reform UK#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? if it's been collapsed on mobile. Belbury (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The whole debate has been summarised as – GlowstoneUnknown provided evidence.

There doesn't appear to be any reference to tis particular contributor being a Far-Left advocate and so it is in their interests to categorise ReformUK as Far-Right to scare voters. The user is also Australian by their own admission and so is not English, or British, and so their comments and perceptions are limited to the media that is portrayed in their country.

To designate a Topic as closed because someone who has a differing political viewpoint has badgered on with referencing other Far-Left writers and media sources is ridiculous.

The political spectrum is very clear. Reform is Centre-Right. Restore Britain, Advance UK and UKIP are Right Wing parties. Britain First and other Nationalist parties are Far Right.

To label ReformUK in with Britain First is comical and only someone on the Far LeFt of the political spectrum would attempt to railroad such a thing into Wikipedia. Primarily for their own political gain. ~2026-11072-22 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

We do not use an editor's nationality as a way to dismiss the substance of their arguments. I say this as someone who was against the far-right label. — Czello ^(music) 15:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia needs to exclude, or amend, this particular field in the table? It could go to a Centre, Left or Right option only? The damage that can be done by this subject becoming political and not based on fact could influence peoples decision to use Wikipedia as a trusted source.

Wikipedia needs to stay about facts not "perceptions" or "political idealogy". ~2026-11072-22 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdUv9W-DevA - Labour's 'LOST MORAL COMPASS' drives TWO defections to Reform from 'SINKING' Labour

Which makes it again, laughable, that 2 Labour elected representatives would ever join a "Far-Right" political party. Let alone at a Press Conference. ~2026-11072-22 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Just because it’s on Wikipedia doesn’t mean it’s correct. Consensus doesn’t mean the information on here is necessarily right. And remember articles on here are always evolving so the wording as it is now will not be the same as it will next.year. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2026

Reform is not far right. They are centre right to right wing. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the discussion literally at the top of the page. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

it clearly says on the wiki

Right wing - ar right

please do not gaslight me Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

far* Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Separate article for the Brexit Party

Should there be a separate article for the Brexit Party as a party in the past tense. They may have a direct institutional link to Reform UK, but they were set up for a specific purpose, with a narrower focus and have their own story arc. JASpencer (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling it a direct institutional link seems to minimise the connection to me. It is the same party, just with a name change! Lots of other political parties have name changes and long histories during which they have focused on different things, but we include them in one article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

But it was a very different stage and different environment. Brexit was a hard Eurosceptic party first and the populism came afterwards. Reform it's about populism with Euroscepticism hardly getting a look in, with the no longer as hot exception of the ECHR. JASpencer (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The Greens are pro-Europe now, but used to favour leaving the EU, but we don't split their article into two. The Conservative Party has very different views today compared to 1834, but we haven't split their article.

It's the same party. If their views have shifted, we can describe that in the article. That said, the claim that the populism came afterwards would need a citation. As far as I can see, they were always populist. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It would have made sense to have a separate entry for the Ecology Party, or the Labour Representation Comittee. JASpencer (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: there was an RfC on what to do with the original Brixit Party article. One note in that RfC is that it might make sense to create a new Brexit party article at some point. I'm not sure if we're at that point or not, but I think it may end up being a reasonable way forward at some point. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  The Reform party is the Brexit party, is it not? The party is registered with the Electoral Commission under the unique ID “PP7931”.. same for Brexit & Reform. Not that my opinion matters but I don’t see the need a separate article.. unless there’s precedent here on wiki for another party that has changed its name and has two separate articles, but I’m not aware of? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. They're not two separate parties, they simply renamed. — Czello ^(music) 22:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2026

The second sentence should probably move to the 'Ideology and platform' section. There is already a mention of the party's political positioning in the first sentence.

I'd also suggest changing the sentence, there are recent sources labelling them 'center-right' including their leader, which would make 'It is placed on the right-wing to far-right on the political spectrum' an debatable. https://www.facebook.com/www.JOE.co.uk/posts/nigel-farage-has-claimed-that-reform-uk-are-centre-right-in-response-to-rupert-l/936961458864471/ Caitpj (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: What our article says about Reform's position on the political spectrum is based on what independent, reliable sources say, not on the party's own claims. Day Creature (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. What about the primary request? Caitpj (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This was discussed previously and the consensus was to include the term "far-right" in the lead section. See Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6. Day Creature (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Then it would make more sense to add the term to the first sentence. I.e. "Reform UK, often known simply as Reform,[8] is a far-right/right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom." The primary reason for the request is that "It is placed on the right-wing to far-right on the political spectrum, and has been described as part of the populist radical right in Europe." seems too detailed to be in the lead section. Note no major news outlet currently describes Reform as far-right, including The Guardian, the most prominent left leaning newspaper. It is possible they have have shifted in the political spectrum recently. Caitpj (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that sentence is too detailed for the lead section. A political party's ideology is about the most important information there is, so it seems relevant to include it here.

The linked RFC is from January of this year, so it seems unlikely much has changed since then. If you want to make a change like this, you'll need to read through that discussion, come up with sources and an argument against the current consensus, and make a new RFC to gain consensus about this change. Then you can make an edit request. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 22:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2026

Still disgusting and bias how you guys still have reform as right wing to far right?!? especially when restore exists and u guys list them as the exact same thing. Even tho restore wants re migration and reform doesnt

Stop being Bias and remove the far right tag!!! Oldfoxy33 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. — Czello ^(music) 10:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is done. Im looking at the Reform UK wiki right now and it says

"Political position

Right-wing to far-right

So idk why you are lying Oldfoxy33 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You have misread what I said. I'm saying you need to get a consensus for your change. — Czello ^(music) 19:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree referring to Reform UK as “right wing to far right” is incorrect.. but a consensus has to be agreed on here, even if that consensus is wrong and biased. Now the “far right” label is in the lead I’m afraid that’s probably how it’s going to stay. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

So, you think that just because a new political party called Restore Britain has been established, that Wikipedia needs to reassess Reform's political position?

Surely, both can occupy the same political space? Notably, Restore Britain's leader - Rupert Lowe, was previously an MP in Reform UK, but was suspended by the party in March 2025.

There does seem to be quite a lot of academic authors recently describing Reform UK as a 'Far-right' party, so I think Hitchens's Razor applies, when it comes to claims that they are a more moderate political party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor A744774 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you even know the Definition of far right?

A lot of academic authors and political commentaries have been describing reform as right wing (not far right) or even centre right.

Tim Bale https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/its-a-mistake-to-call-reform-uk-far-right/#:~:text=Tim%20Bale%20argues%20for%20a,of%20right%2Dwing%20political%20parties.

Ross Clark (The Spectator) : https://spectator.com/article/reform-is-now-a-left-wing-party/ (even though it says reform is left wing. Its just highlighting theres many opionons out there which is not far right)

And many torys like Jeremy Hunt who have a lot to gain if reform is classified as far right. As not far right but culturally defensive radicalism.

Like even wikipedia calls restore right wing - far right. And there are many difference between both partys with immigration and other stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Britain Oldfoxy33 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2026

Change the Political Position from Right-wing to far-right to just Right-wing, because the party itself condemns extremism in the UK and within their own party. Nigel Farage supports immigration as long as it's legal, and shows off the diversity in their party candidates and membership. ~2026-21720-84 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this talk page. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 21:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

CREF for political position?

I notice some protesting is still popping up on this talk page about the new-ish decision to describe Reform UK as "right-wing to far-right". I participated briefly in this RfC and I think the explanation given for this change in the consensus is pretty reasonable.

Anyway, I was on the page for La France Insoumise just earlier and I noticed that they have a CREF alongside their description of LFI as "left-wing to far-left", with various summaries later expanded on in the 'Ideology and political programme' section that briefly outlines the description, the party's official stance, the way the terms are used by the media and other political figures, and the stance of political scientists. Notably, I thought it was interesting that the clarification included "Political scientists prefer the label 'radical left' [for LFI].", which overlapped with quite a large part of the RfC - as well as scholars already listed on the Reform page, such as Tim Bale - and was nodded to in the eventual consensus, which stated that "The only sensible alternative [to describing Reform as 'far-right'] is 'radical right'."

Thus I wonder if it would be helpful to use the LFI example and integrate a CREF explaining the nuances of this characterisation in a few short lines, which should hopefully ward off future edit wars and/or talk page protestations. If this has already been discussed as part of the very long RfC then I apologise for missing it, but I'm curious what you all think of this! Howtomedia72 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that "radical right", that as we've seen is the most used label among scholars (especially counting only the papers specifically about Reform's political position, see Talk:Reform_UK/Source_review#Synthesis), should absolutely find a place in the infobox. At least in a footnote (we would need a tertiary source that talks about the consensus among scholars on this matter though, I think I found one as I was researching but I don't remember anymore which it was), but I think that we could also write something as "right / radical right / far-right". I know that "right to far-right" is the standard here on en.wiki for this kind of parties, but I think that it's slightly misleading, since it could be read as if the party has both right-wing and far-right tendencies, whereas the different labels derive only from disagreements among RS. At the very least I'd add the most important sources for each label to the infobox in order to make it clear that it's a classification derived from sources and not made up by us. --Friniate ✉ 14:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree the current en.wiki framework of "x to y" doesn't quite tell the full story, thus a footnote (which I unhelpfully referred to as a CREF for some reason rather than just a footnote, haha) seems best to not to disrupt the efforts of the RfC to achieve the "right-wing to far-right" consensus while also furthering helpful information to explain that classification, adding the political science element and potentially other nuance.

As for a source, I've done a quick scan of the synthesis table and the closest match that I think I've found is that of Turnbull-Dugarte et al. (2025), which states that their characterisation of Reform as radical right was "congruent" with consensuses already noted from both Rooduijn et al. (2024), and the Chapel Hill Expert Survey cited in Hooghe et al. (2024), with each of these four projects having a great handful of political scientist authors to their name. As Turnbull-Dugarte's citation was based on these existing databases, themselves based on existing evidence and research, I think this could be an example - albeit an unconventional one - of tertiary referencing. Also, Hayton (2025) - which is specifically about Reform's position - states that radical right is the "most sensibl[e] classifi[cation]" for Reform when writers are concerned with "using political science terminology"; this is in agreement with sources such as Bale (2024) who reflect that it's usually the media rather than political scientists who get caught up in the "boo-word"-ism of the term 'far-right' as well as the limitations of simply just 'right-wing'.

No clue how to smush any combination of those sources together or none, but leading from the LFI example perhaps a hypothetical footnote could read something like: The party has been described as right-wing as well as far-right.[source: Bale] Political scientists prefer the term "radical right" as a democratic subset of the far-right movement.[sources: Turnbull-Dugarte et al, Hayton]. That not only removes the nuance of what a "right-wing to far-right" movement actually means in Reform's case - as you pointed out, Friniate - but expands on the RfC by including information on the emerging 'radical right' definition as per scholarly material and leading from similar examples elsewhere on Wikipedia. Howtomedia72 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the RfC was only about adding "far-right", the "radical right issue" was only mentioned during the discussion and only at the end of it it became clear that "radical right" is the most used label among scholars. I for example was in favour to the initial proposal, since I thought that "right-wing" alone was clearly wrong and the adding of far-right was warranted in light of the sources, but I don't think that the RfC prevents us from discussing wether to add "radical right", it's simply a different issue.

I remember where I found a kind of tertiary source. here (min. 3:50) Tim Bale says: [answering to the question "would Nigel Farage call himself far-right, because I think he's tried to distance himself from far-right"] yes absolutely, they don't like that label [...] but I think most political scientists would say actually that's where they are if you accept that as the umbrella term and then say they're populist radical right.

The problem with using Turnbill is first of all that Rodujin et al. use "far-right" and not "radical right". As for the Chapel Hill Expert Survey, I had left them out because it turned out from their codebook that among the sources used by them there's Wikipedia, bringing obvious problems of citogenesis. --Friniate ✉ 10:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Good spot on both ends, thanks. I still think it would be somewhat unconventional to bring "radical right" into the main alignment, especially considering that by most accounts it is indeed a subset of "far-right" - which is accounted for - but we can use the discussions in the RfC (as you say, though they weren't the focus) to suggest that "radical right" is a more accepted term amongst political scientists, a la the LFI article.

Thanks also for finding the LSE iQ Podcast (which I've also found mirrored here on LSE's website with a transcript). This seems to be a good tertiary source on the issue, especially given the reliability of being published by a leading British university and perhaps the leading scholar in this very specific microissue (i.e., what to classify Reform as). Would of course welcome others' views as well to achieve some sort of consensus, but I would still support using a source such as this to add a footnote to the existing alignment text to clarify this nuance. Howtomedia72 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd support it too... It could be something like: According to the political scientist Tim Bale, most political scientist classify Reform as a radical right party, within the more generic far-right family.[source] The party has been labelled as "right-wing" by some scholars [Zulianello as source] and by many British media outlets, among which the BBC [source]. --Friniate ✉ 11:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

So can we name the green party as right wing - far left for the same reason

A lot of political scientist classify The green Party as a radical left wing party within the more generic far-left family.

Luke March

Herbert Kitschelt

Cas Mudde

Just to name a few Oldfoxy33 (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33

1. In this thread we're only discussing about the inclusion of the term "radical right" in the infobox. I wouldn't be against having "radical right" alone, instead of "right to far-right", but we'd need another RfC.
2. There's a relevant minority of academical sources that associate Reform directly with the far-right
3. Here we're talking about Reform, not about the Green Party. Having said that, the foundational definition for the radical left was laid out by Mudde and March in 2005 with this article. I don't see a classification of the radical left family within the far-left, which is a term that Mudde and March don't use at all.

--Friniate ✉ 10:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Support radical right to infobox, per realisation in previous RfC from extensive sourcing. Admittedly the RfC was only to clean up inaccuracy/NPOV vio of being solely labelled as a "right-wing populist" party, whereas naturally the overview of sourcing paints a different picture. I was thinking adding to political ideology could be relatively uncontroversial (there didn't appear to be much opposition against the term), but I also didn't want to risking another month-long RfC, which would likely relitigate the previous one etc.

Now that enough time has passed, maybe it's worth a shot and see if other editors will agree or not. I don't think anyone has tried to make that edit yet, but given the MOS:OPEN, I fail to see how it could be controversial at this point, as well as per the source review table. CNC (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I dont know much about wikipedia's editorial processes

Im a politics with IR student at the UOY

In my eyes (and the eyes of many others) see far right as a political extreme reserved for NSDAP, KKK, BNP. those types of partys.

Saying reform is Right wing - far right. Just seems more of a political stunt by wikipedia than backed by evidence and logic

Yes theres a few political commentary or political scientists who would say reform is 'far right'

but most people both in the political mainstream and political commentary/political scientists in the UK will say they are not. They are just right wing populism. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I been looking around at partys on the left on wikipedia

Die linke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Linke) the german far left party, is just left wing on Wikipedia

Japanese communist party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Communist_Party) is a far left party, But its only left wing to far left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(France) the french far left party is only left wing to far left.

Like all 3 are way more radical on the left, then reform is on the right. But according to wikipedia. it is not

this is proof there is a left wing bias on wikipedia for right wing populist partys. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oldfoxy33, did you see the many sources listed on Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6, including academic ones and peer reviewed academic sources for far-right? In regards to the other parties, they all have a plethora of sources supporting left-wing. The Japanese Communist Party is especially a long way from being a far-left party, I'd argue anyone that tries to argue its simply far-left has very little, if any, actual knowledge of the party, its history or stances. Try reading the "Ideology and policies" section of the Japanese Communist Party's page and you'll see it’s not extreme. Also, try watching this from 4:30 onwards. Parties are about more than just their names. Take the Social Democratic Party (Portugal) for instance, which isn't ideologically a social democratic party. Helper201 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There is countless of othersources which says reform isnt far right?

What are you trying to prove?

i can provide evidence right now for the Die linke being far left

Luke March - calls Die Linke A radical left wing party (hmm if reform is a radical right wing party which you guys consider as in the far right group) Do u think radical left wing party is considered in the far left group as well?

Cas Mudde - Uses the term Far left to describe Die Linke

Dan Hough and Jonathan Olsen - also uses the term radical left wing

and so on?

So its you know pretty unfair to say radical right wing is far right. and radical left wing is not far left? Oldfoxy33 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean given the weight of sources we have for far-right (plenty, including academic) you're going to need to provide a similar number of sources, including academic ones that specifically say Reform UK is not far-right, given there is an established consensus after a huge discussion and large number of sources for the change that was made. I'm not trying to prove anything; I'm trying to explain the workings of Wikipedia to you and why the things are the way they are. The far-left label for Die Linke is in its "Ideology and platform" section. There was likely a consensus regarding why it was not placed in the infobox, you'll need to check the article's talk page. To say radical right = far-right and radical left = far-left is WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 most people both in the political mainstream and political commentary/political scientists in the UK will say they are not. Well, Tim Bale doesn't seem to agree with you... He says in fact the opposite, that most political scientists would classify Reform as a radical right party within the family of far-right. Anyway, as I said, I'm open to the idea of including only "radical right" in the infobox, but here it's off topic, we're only discussing about the inclusion of radical right. I'm going to collapse any other off topic comment per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, please open a new thread if you want to remove far-right. --Friniate ✉ 11:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This is classic Confirmation Bias. Just because Tim Bale calls reform far right. Doesnt mean 'MOST' say it is

I can give you countless of other political sciences saying the opposite of you

Cas Mudde refers to reform as populist Radical Right. (Not far right and doesnt want it to be describe as far right)

this is not offtopic this is a debate. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It's Tim Bale that says that most political scientists say it. You probably know better than Tim Bale, but unfortunately for Wikipedia you are not a reliable source and he is.

By the way, also Cas Mudde includes Reform among the far-right parties. --Friniate ✉ 09:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m not saying Tim Bale or Cas Mudde aren't reliable sources. Nor am i saying i know more than Tim Bale. So please stop being passive agressive or i will report you

Even if you use Muddes definition of Far-Right as an umbrella, he explicitly says the radical right is fundamentally different from the extreme right because they accept democracy. By just using the label Far right in the intro, we are grouping them with extremists which ignores that huge distinction Mudde makes. Its like saying Dogs and Humans are simular and should be classified the same cause we are both Mammal

Furthermore as for Tim Bale, in 2024 he literally called the far right label unhelpful. Even if he said in 2025 that scientists use the umbrella term, he still says they are the populist radical right strain.

Also, we can't ignore that the BBC apologised for using far right because it didn't meet editorial standards. Since the BBC is the biggest and most neutral news outlet in the UK and is actively avoiding the term far right to describe reform. Why should Wikipedia be any different? Oldfoxy33 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 I answered to your initial claim, that was most people both in the political mainstream and political commentary/political scientists in the UK will say they are not [far-right]. That's simply false, as I demostrated bringing a tertiary source (beside tons of secondary sources that you can find in the source review). If you now agree with me on that, we can move on. I agree with you that we should use the most specific terminology, and from the source review we see in fact that most scientific analysis dealing in detail with both Reform and its political position use "radical right" (it's 7 against 2 using only "far-right"). That being said, there are still more academical source using "far-right" than "right-wing", so if "far-right" goes, even "right" has to go. --Friniate ✉ 13:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

"I answered to your initial claim, that was most people both in the political mainstream and political commentary/political scientists in the UK will say they are not [far-right]. That's simply false," that is simply not true and i disproved you.

Most news outlets like BBC Sky ITV have avoided using the term far right. And even activily punishes people in their own ranks describing reform as far right

Political partys like the conseratives Lib Dem and Labour. Dont use the term far right on reform UK, Only a minority of supporters/member do. Only for the sole fact to say "reform is far right! do not vote for them"

the only significant voice in britain saying reform is far right, is the radicle progressive left wing movement under the greens and Your party. Who i would say is just as left wing as reform is right. If note more left wing. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 Again, that's your opinion against Tim Bale's. You are not a RS, he is. Your assertion is true only if we take into account only British media, but there's no reason for Wikipedia to do that. I suggest you to take a look to the previous RfC, the claim that we should only take into account British media was the big argument used by the editors against the inclusion of "far-right" and they lost that discussion badly since that entire argument was clearly not in line with Wikipedia policies. You have used far better arguments arguing that we should differentiate between radical right and extreme right, my suggestion to you is to stick with them. --Friniate ✉ 13:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Im sticking with the argument because its the most solid.

If we agree to differentiate between radical right and extreme right like Mudde and Bale do, then we have to admit that using the far right'umbrella in the reform UK wikipedia page is misleading. Its not just my opinion its the opionon of the experts you cited. If Reform is a democratic radical right party, then calling them far right without that distinction is like calling a house cat a feline on a page about pets. its technically true but it makes people reading the page compare cats to tigers and lions.

You say my media argument only works for British media, but the BBC and Sky News are some of the most respected Reliable Sources (RS) on Wikipedia globally 9with there own political scientists working for these newsoutlets to make sure what they are saying is correct). If the biggest news outlets in the party's own country are literally apologising for using the term far right that is a massive signal that the term violates WP:NPOV.

Even if you want to use Tim Bale as the ultimate source, his 2024 writing literally says calling Reform 'far-right' is a 'mistake' and 'unhelpful.' Why would Wikipedia keep a label that the 'Reliable Source' himself calls a mistake?

Idk why Wikipedia thinks classification party political ideologies is objective and subjective (yes its easy to say the Nazi party is far right or Lenin party is far left But for partys like reform. Theres no justification for saying "oh Tim bale this famous political scientist think reform is far right (even tho its much complicated then that which he also started and u have explained like 3 times now) time to classify reform as far right on wikipedia and if anyone who uses any other political scientist or the general consensus in the political community in the UK is wrong cause we have Tim bale and Tim bale opionons ins an outright fact and not another opionon. (countless of other political scientists say otherwise to Tim bale). its legit violating Wikipedias WP:NPOV. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I repeat, I was just answering your initial claim that most political scientists wouldn't call Reform far-right. That simply isn't true, as demostrated both by Tim Bale and by the fact that among the academic sources in the source review that deal in detail with both Reform and its political position, 7 out of 10 label it "far-right" or "radical right" but using a definition of "radical right" that considers that label a subgroup of the far right. So how on earth can you say that most political scientists wouldn't call it far-right? Then of course we can argue that "far-right" can be misleading and so on, I think that you have definitely have a point there, and in fact you can check the RfC and you'll see that I repeatedly proposed using "radical right", I'm not your opponent here. I simply saw an objectively wrong argument and I answered to it, stop.

As for Bale, I think that you are missing the important difference that there's between a secondary and a tertiary source. I used Tim Bale because in that part he's a tertiary source. He's not just analyzing Reform's position but he's telling us what's the consensus among scholars. Such sources are very scarce and usually extremely valuable, because they can confirm that our analysis about scholar consensus, etc, are correct (or not..). So, yes, it's important what Bale thinks, along with what other political scientists do, but it's far more important that he's telling us what's the consensus among scholars. I hope that now is clearer why I kept citing Bale.

Finally, there are many policy-based reasons why we should not give too much weight to what the British media do:

1. Per WP:SOURCETYPES: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
2. We're a global encyclopedia, not a British one. So, what the BBC or Sky do is relevant, but so it's also what other reputable media outlets around the world do, and many of them used far-right, radical right, etc. as you can see from the source review.
3. From the source review you can also see that all the uses of "right-wing" by the media are passing comments. Here becomes relevant another policy, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable.

--Friniate ✉ 00:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A footnote does seem like a good idea, and having a tertiary source as you say that covers the discussion is about the best we could hope for. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Howtomedia72, CommunityNotesContributor, Helper201, and Oldfoxy33: I've added radical right in a note with Tim Bale as a tertiary source, since it seems to me that from this thread a minimal consensus has emerged for this solution. I'd still support including the "radical right" label directly in the infobox (or even using it as the only label, since it's being used by the vast majority of the academic source on the topic), but that'd probably warrant a new RfC.--Friniate ✉ 12:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@DeFacto Since the discussion is ongoing since 20 days, it'd have been nice to say something here instead of reverting as a consensus had already been formed. By the way, adding sources directly in the infobox is a standard practice for contentious topics, you can see for example Democratic Party (United States). --Friniate ✉ 15:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't need sources if it simply summarises facts documented in the article. The problem here is that we are boiling varied opinions down into "facts" and that should be done openly in the body, and not by introducing undue commentary via cites in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, MOS:LEADCITE clearly says that there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. Local consensus can decide that the citation is redundant, but here it's just you, against four other editors who instead think that a citation for the political position is necessary. The claim that that citation is "undue" is frankly not understandble, that's the only tertiary source on the subject and "radical right" is by far the most used label among academic sources, there's no ground to exclude it from the infobox... --Friniate ✉ 16:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You weren't just adding a cite though, you were hiding your personal commentary in the cite. Such commentary does not belong in cites, whether in the lead, or not. The infobox should merely summarise the key facts from the article body and not provide supplementary commentary. If the facts aren't clear, then make them clear in the body. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

What would it be my personal commentary???? --Friniate ✉ 19:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question there is. My point though was that it was unnecessary commentary that you personally placed inside a cite's ref tags. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Except that I added Tim Bale's commentary, obviously not mine! --Friniate ✉ 19:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose commentary it was, or who chose to put it there; it is out of place. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, that's just your opinion against other 4 users' opinion. Tim Bale is a source and you couldn't cite any policy that bans adding sources to the lead. --Friniate ✉ 20:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If the problem is the paraphrase that I did, I can add a direct citation instead. --Friniate ✉ 20:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is nothing to do with the phrasing. The problem is that the text in the infobox is already sourced in the article body so it does not need a reference. See MOS:INFOBOXREF, it says: references are "generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". Why are you so keen to add the unneeded reference? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Because a lot of editors keep questioning the political position because there's no reference.

And secondly because I think that it's important that in the infobox it's mentioned "radical right", which is the most used label among scholars. Adding it in a note it was a compromise for me, if that's not acceptable then I'm proposing to add it directly in the parameter. --Friniate ✉ 13:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The way to get "radical right" into the infobox is to first get agreement that the reliable sources support it with enough weight to add it as being on equal terms with "right wing" and "far-right" in the "Ideology and platform" section. Then you can summarise it as that in the lead and in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to do here... The fact that RS support it with enough weight can be verified through the source review that was done in January, if Bale as a tertiary source is not sufficient. --Friniate ✉ 14:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

As it's well sourced in the body I actually agree with DeFacto that it doesn't need a cite, just the addition to Ideology is sufficient here. Also a reminder we are not here to provide facts, we are only documenting what RS has reported. CNC (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that if "radical right" is not accepted even in a note, I doubt very much that will be accepted directly in the parameter... --Friniate ✉ 13:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reform is far-right now?

I do not understand why this Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6 decision was made in the favour of keeping the term far-right, this discussion seems to be quite split. Restore Britain is the a far right party, Reform is simply not.

I opened the first 30 references from this article and zero of them described Reform as far right, with many using the term right-wing.

This BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clygr52dn1ro quotes a reform spokesman as saying "the far-right will never be welcome in the party ".

Many believe that the term far right is used to slander and ostracise right wing political views (Straw man)... Chattenoir (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The sources are listed here. --Friniate ✉ 10:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

So there is only one British secondary source that describes them as far right... Chattenoir (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you don't count all the British scholars listed, yes... --Friniate ✉ 17:10, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Well those are not secondary sources are they. However I do not see any british academic sources either? Chattenoir (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It is absurd that there is only one UK news source that has described them as far right, by the way Chattenoir (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The academic studies on Reform are not secondary sources? What? Please read WP:SECONDARY and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Academic sources should be preferred to News organizations for two reasons: WP:NEWSORG (Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics) and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable: most of the labels used by news organizations are used in passing without specifying the rationale or defining them or even talking about them). In the table there are a lot of British academic sources and of British magazines, it just wasn't done a breakdown according to the nationality since it was considered relevant only for news organizations... My guess is that at least half (but probably more) of the scholar sources listed have at least one British author or were published by a British journal... --Friniate ✉ 22:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

And by the way the only tertiary source on the matter, Tim Bale (see above for the quote), is British... --Friniate ✉ 22:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Very scarce reference information is provided for these sources, just the name of the writer and no information on the journal, volume, or issue of the paper... It is literally impossible for me to find most of them.

I would not be surprised if reform was only associated with the far right in the context of talking about their far right supporters.

The fact is they are simply not far right. Maybe since you do not live in the UK this is lost on you, but this is a matter of common sense. Chattenoir (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I would propose in-line citations which proper reference information, on the sentence in the lead which uses the term far-right. Barring that it will need a 'better source needed' template for what I have seen of these references! Chattenoir (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see MOS:LEADCITE, if there is a need to copy the bundles of references from the body (Ideology section) to the lead then it could be done, but to me it seems like unnecessary clutter given the depth of sourcing in the body, with citations for far-right are abundant in this section. So I really don't understand what you mean by struggling to locate them. Also, where editors live/nationality is not relevant here, please focus on content, not editors. CNC (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chattenoir There are the links, it's sufficient to click on them to "locate them"... I agree though with adding the references in a note, we were discussing the issue here. --Friniate ✉ 11:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the name of the journal is written in the table, it's the third factually wrong assertion that you've made in this thread so far... --Friniate ✉ 11:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I just looked again and realised I didn't notice or click the "list of sources" box which was collapsed. You're right, it names the journals and more. Chattenoir (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

What were the other two factually incorrect things I said? lol Chattenoir (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't object if it satisfies other editors, it's also fair to assume such claims will continue to be challenged. I think that Template:Efn could satisfy this while avoiding WP:REFBOMB territory, and arguably the body with 5+ refs for far-right is a bit overkill, especially given the further sourcing in the body itself. CNC (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely necessary given the claim IMO Chattenoir (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see my reply above regarding my blindness to the dropdown box, apologies. Chattenoir (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chattenoir I agree with much of what you said and the RFC did result in an inclusive description, not even wikivoice, however please take care to be respectful of other editors, even if their comments are frustrating. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Its a pathetic attempt from left-wing authors who of course would never even dare to call Jeremy Corbyn a self-hating, antisemitic, left-wing lunatic loser. Typical double standard. If a party who according to the polling average obtains 25 to 30 percent of the vote is far-right how many percent of UK voting population is right-wing then? 300 percent? ~2026-24805-51 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

See this RfC. T ^{let's talk!} 14:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A Private Health Service?

Is there any reason for not having a section relating to Reform, the National Health Service and the involvement of the private sector? For might not such a section indicate that, in term of national health, Reform are following a right-wing/big business agenda? ~2026-26470-97 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26470-97, there is no reason not to have a section about that if it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. Feel free to add something if you have researched it and can do that. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

First sentence of the article is left-wing smear

"radical right", "right-wing populists", "far-right"

The author of that line thought: "Hey, let me find as many straw man arguments" as possible and frame the party I dont like in the worst possible way."

Get rid of the left-wing bias. ~2026-24805-51 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Reform UK/Source review, it's based on due weight from reliable sources. Please focus on content not on editors in future. Thanks. CNC (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia editors listened to people who write comments like this, every UK political party would be either be described as centrist, left wing or right wing. With nothing allowed further to the left or right on this spectrum. These 3 alone, are not adequate to describe the differences in policy, attitudes and opinions that separate the view points of political organisations. All it would do is lead to political articles that a more narrow in their use of language and less well defined. Wikipedia is not meant to avoid controversy, for the sake of (a minority of) people being offended by descriptions they find offensive. ~2026-25154-88 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If the cap fits. Jaybainshetland (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Flash and circle

The Fascist symbol, Flash and circle has been added to this page. Reform is classed by some political academics as 'far-right', which in the terminology they use refers to an umbrella term. Specifically, the academics say 'radical.' Attaching a well known fascist symbol to the page now breaks NPOV by attaching Reform to Fascism. It ought to be removed or the symbol removed from the template. Halbared (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The fascist emblem is also my main issue with the page though I neglected to mention that above. ~2026-24149-12 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove "Part of a series on Far-right politics in the United Kingdom"

You can argue all you like about how reform is Right wing - far right

But to add "Part of a series on Far-right politics in the United Kingdom". Is a bit silly.

reform doesnt share any

• Ideologies
• Principles
• Politicians
• Activists
• Intellectuals
• And too an extent History

Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Putting Reform UK in that sidebar next to groups like Blood & Honour or Combat 18 is a huge mistake and goes against Wikipedia's rules on being neutral.

When you put them in the same list, you're telling readers they are the same thing, but they aren't. Even the experts people you guys keep quoting, like Tim Bale and Cas Mudde, say there is a massive difference between "radical right" parties that follow democracy and "extreme right" groups that are anti-democratic or violent. Mudde literally says they are "fundamentally different." By putting them in the same box, we are ignoring the actual science.

Reform should be removed from this sidebar. If we want to be neutral, we should use labels like "Radical Right" that actually describe them without grouping them with neo-Nazi organizations.

There is still a massive debate in the political community and political scientists in the UK weither reform is right wing or far right. But to add the far right thing on the page. Is pretty much suggesting wikiedpia thinks reform is far right. And puts them on the same level as BNP or UKIP Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It looked like the changes was made today by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lp0_on_fire

@Lp0 on fire

can you please not edit stuff with ur own bias views this is breaking Wikipedia's rules on being neutral. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't add a navbox; I just cleaned up the links. Since this is a UK party it makes more sense to link Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (which has a section specifically about Reform UK) than Far-right politics. I think you maybe meant to ping someone else? lp0 on fire () 06:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeh probably me, I added per diff. To elaborate the guideline is WP:SIDEBAR. Reform UK are part of the scope at Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (hence the link was refined), given the content here (Ideology section which is mainly based on far-right politics) and at the parent article; this makes the sidebar WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. There was also previously consensus that far-right should be included alongside right-wing populism. CNC (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead section

Following a previous RFC, the wording in the opening paragraph was changed to Reform is "a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. It is placed on the right-wing to far-right on the political spectrum, and has been described as part of the populist radical right in Europe."

That wording above seemed reasonable in my view, as my understanding of the previous RFC was whether to describe Reform as right-wing to far-right, not a description of far-right, but a description of right-wing to far-right.

The wording has since been changed to "Reform is a right-wing populist and far-right political party in the United Kingdom."

Has this recent change gained consensus? I do not approve of the change in wording. As far as I'm aware, BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and many other British media outlets do not describe Reform UK as far-right. Reform UK strongly disputes that they are a far-right political party, though I accept that some academics (not all) describe Reform UK as far-right and some media outlets which are left-leaning, socially liberal publications such as The Guardian may well describe Reform as "far-right" in addition to populist.

I don't think "far-right political party" should be in Wiki-voice without a very clear consensus. The previous wording of "placed on the right-wing to far-right on the political spectrum" seemed more neutral to me, and WP:NPOV is vital. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

my understanding of the previous RFC was whether to describe Reform as right-wing to far-right, not a description of far-right, but a description of right-wing to far-right. That was the question, but not the consensus of the RfC was for: ample grounds to include the term "far-right" in the lead and infobox alongside existing terminology.

The stable lead prior to this result read: a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom (in wikivoice), thus it is appropriate for this is read as: a right-wing populist and far-right political party in the United Kingdom in wikivoice also, per the consensus.

We took a step a few steps to get there, along with a diversion along the way (ie radical right as primary descriptor instead, which wasn't better suited as a compromise it seems) but this is usual post-RfC to fine tweak the wording in reflection of the close.

Unfortunately the previous sentence provided, while an improvement to the previous version, was ultimately a false balance as it set RWP as the primary descriptor with far-right / radical as secondary descriptors. This, to me, is not placing far-right alongside existing terminology, but instead after it, as less significant etc. CNC (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You're correct, the BBC, ITV, sky, and all centrist news organisations in the UK don't call Reform "far right".

I don't actually see the guardian as attaching the "far right" label to Reform. In fact, recently they stated that the "far right" are backing Rupert Lowe's party; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/15/rupert-lowe-great-yarmouth-first-party-far-right-reform-uk.

I don't really understand why Reform can't be described as "right wing popularist" in the opening paragraph, as this is the actual consensus (more that Reform refer to themselves as "centre right".

Note, this kind of mislabeling is consistent across UK political parties. On Wikipedia

- Labour are described as "centre left"

- the Tories are described as "centre right to right wing", therefore further right than labour are to the left

- the green party are described as "left wing", not far left

- your party are described as "left wing", not far left

- reform UK are described as "right wing to far right", therefore further to the right than your party is to the left

- restore UK are described as "right wing to far right", despite positioning themselves to the right of Reform UK

Then you have Advance UK, positioned presumably to the right of restore UK.

Are we really saying that the UK has multiple mainstream far right parties and no far left parties? BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

sorry my phone has typoed and unformatted my response, hopefully it still makes some kind of sense BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, it's because of the policy WP:CONSENSUS. This consensus isn't based on centrist news organisations but instead WP:SCHOLARSHIP based on the WP:RELIABLESOURCES guidelines. How other parties are described by reliable sources, in both quantity and quality, isn't relevant to how these sources describe Reform UK. But let's compare.

There are also a few parties in the UK labelled as far-left on WP, the difference being they are not so popular, just as left-wing populism isn't as popular in the UK; Workers Party of Britain (left-wing to far-left), Communist Party of Britain (far-left), Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (left-wing to far-left), Also soon Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024), based on IMT + Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992) refounding under the Revolutionary Communist International (far-left).

So actually, there are two "left-wing to far-left" and one "far-left", while Reform UK and Restore Britain are "right-wing to far-right" and Advance UK is "far-right". The coincidence of such a balance is not lost on me, it might even be intentional per NPOV. CNC (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well no, the parties you mention in your reply (with the exception of the workers party) aren't populist at all, but are fringe parties - the left wing equivalent of parties such as Britain first, BNP and patriotic alternative, all of which are far right non-populist parties. They aren't "populist" because what they stand for isn't popular.

The worker's party are different and do have some populist appeal. I note that the workers party are - however - not described as far left in the opening paragraph of their article, but as "a socialist, left-conservative political party".

I'm sure you can find "reliable resources" (of course what is considered reliable has also been defined by left-leaning Wikipedia editors) which state that Reform are far right, but it is outside any kind of common consensus and should not be inserted into the opening paragraph of this article.

As I mentioned in a reply above, I find the whole politics section of Wikipedia to be a waste of time due to systematic bias... To me I think it makes sense to keep this article biased as it makes it easier for readers to see it for what it is. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Please focus on content, statements like what is considered reliable has also been defined by left-leaning Wikipedia editors is not doing that. If you have an issue with so-called systematic bias, for example RS policy, then you are welcome to propose alternatives at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, or you could raise concerns at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Otherwise yes, as I said, left-wing populism isn't popular in the UK, thus these far-left parties all remain fringe. Likewise there was a time in the UK when right-wing populism wasn't popular either (ie, not so long ago), and far-right parties were all fringe as a result. This is somewhat covered at Right-wing populism#United Kingdom, ie the mainstreaming of RWP which UKIP very much failed to achieve. Hope that helps explain things. CNC (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you are young... UKIP were, in fact, very popular once upon a time and indeed were a populist party before the word "populist" was commonly used in political discourse.

Just to clarify, are you stating that the UK communist party engenders "left wing populism"? I don't really get the point you're trying to make as the political parties you're bringing up are neither "populist" nor popular, but are fringe parties and are not symmetric to the right wing parties. The populist left wing party in the UK is the Green Party.

I won't be taking up your invite to contribute to reliable sources or otherwise, it would be a waste of time, but I will call out the systematic bias. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Being "populist" in the political sense does not mean being popular or doing what is popular as you have insinuated and claimed. -- ::::::Cdjp1 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's clear that a significant number of legitimate concerns have been raised on the talk page recently both by registered editors and IP editors – given the fact that most mainstream media sources in the UK such as BBC News and ITV News do not describe Reform UK as "far-right" and that the descriptor of "far-right" can have a strong negative connotation in the UK as it can be associated in the public mind with Nazi, fascist and antisemitic elements which do not apply to Reform UK's policies. Reform UK themselves strongly reject the descriptor of "far-right".

While I fully accept that a number of academic sources describe Reform as "far-right", it is also the case, for example, that the professor of politics Tim Bale wrote that labelling Reform UK as far-right is unhelpful, and that it "causes too visceral a reaction and at the same time is too broad to be meaningful", as an umbrella term. I am therefore today adding to the lead section a short WP:NPOV rebuttal from Reform UK for the "far-right" descriptor. This short rebuttal is from sourced content in the main body of the article, so no additional citation is needed for the lead section as per WP:LEAD guidelines. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan Sorry, but I had to revert you. We don't add the self-description for any party AFAIK, why should we do it here? Reform describes itself as center-right, it's a view that AFAIK is not shared by any reliable source, parties are clearly unreliable sources about themselves. --Friniate ✉ 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think that "right to far-right" doesn't faithfully reflect the consensus among reliable sources, then open a new RfC, don't give undue weight to Reform's views on itself... --Friniate ✉ 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't stated in this sub-section that "right to far-right" isn't accurate. In my opening post in this sub-section, I said that the content "placed on the right-wing to far-right on the political spectrum, and has been described as part of the populist radical right in Europe" seemed reasonable to me. I feel that including the short rebuttal in the lead section from Reform UK is perfectly reasonable as it is from sourced content in the main body of the article. Guidelines at WP:LEADREL states that "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This information is covered and sourced as appropriate in the main body of the article. It is not new content. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that it's sourced in the body of the article doesn't mean that it should be placed in the lead, there are a lot of things sourced in the body that don't appear in the lead. Reform's self description is a primary source for its political position and we can't give it the same importance and space that we give to the consensus among reliable secondary sources. --Friniate ✉ 21:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

As a compromise I'm open to write it in a note to the political position in the infobox, as it was done in other cases. --Friniate ✉ 21:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Reform's self-description in the lead

@Kind Tennis Fan and De Facto: Sorry, but giving equal weight to what Reform thinks about itself and to the scholar consensus on the matter it continues to seem to me a clear example of false balance (Reform defines itself as a center-right party, it's clearly a minority view), so I'm going to bring the issue to the NPOV noticeboard and possibly to a RfC. Before doing that, I'd like to understand if there's any room for compromise, either:

• Moving Reform's self description to a note where we'd describe the issue more thoroughly OR
• Reverting everything back to @CommunityNotesContributor: edit --Friniate ✉ 09:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@DartsF4: I fully agree with you, that's the reason why I tried to remove that sentence before. But if we don't manage to remove it, there's no reason why we should say that Reform rejects only the far-right descriptor, when in fact rejects also the "right-wing populist" one (source) --Friniate ✉ 13:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove the and "far-right political party in the United Kingdom" From the first sentance?

We legit had a massive debate about this a few months ago. And we agreed to use the term right wing populism.

why am i checking now to see "and far-right"?!?! Oldfoxy33 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ve noticed this as well. Eventually in time the “right wing” tag will be removed leaving just “far right” ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top. There was a more recent discussion which changed the consensus. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus: Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?

The excellent source analyses carried out by Glowstoneunknown et al clearly demonstrate that there is ample grounds to include the term "far-right" in the lead and infobox alongside existing terminology.

Further reading: Talk:Reform UK/Source review. CNC (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this a few months back which concluded as right wing populism

this is a classic case of systemic bias in Wikipedia 🥀 ~2026-27185-64 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

As much as I don't agree with the new label, consensus can change. That earlier discussion isn't set in stone forever - though, equally, neither is this new one. — Czello ^(music) 09:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 @~2026-27185-64 where are you both claiming consensus was achieved over right-wing populism? There was this discussion most recently, based on the short-term and temperamental consensus to go with "radical right" instead of "right-wing to far-right" as primary descriptor, but alas that edit of mine was objected to and reverted. What is left is the RfC consensus. CNC (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Its systemic bias in wikipedia

Non of the politics commuinity in the UK (torys, labour, BBC, sky etc) calls reform UK far right. Or even supports the idea

The politics scientists who you guys source say "using the term far right is not helpful"

yet here we are with Wikipedia saying

"reform is a far right party"

this is clear systemic bias Oldfoxy33 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's an WP:ACADEMICBIAS, but that's also intentional. When a political scientist says 'yes they are far-right but it's more helpful to define them as populist radical right, as part of the far-right, as the latter is an umbrella term and the former is more accurate' - it does not mean they are primarily right-wing populist; it still means they are categorised as far-right. If the argument is that it's not "helpful" or "fair" then see WP:RGW. CNC (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 you perfectly know that it was only one political scientist who said that, and that the same political scientist, an year after having said that, stated that most political scientist would classify Reform as a populist radical right party within the broader far-right family. If you want to change the label into "radical right" (and I'd even support you), there is plenty of good arguments without twisting the facts. --Friniate ✉ 11:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(and anyway you would need to open a new RfC) --Friniate ✉ 12:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We had this dicussion plently of times. we are just going in circles.

Im not repeating myself time and time again.

I agree that you have a point to say right wing - far right in the Political position

But to say "and far-right political party in the United Kingdom" in the first sentance is missleading.

we agreed that its a right wing populist group.

But u cant also say far right and compare it to actual far right parties like BNP UKIP etc Oldfoxy33 (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you are answering to me. IMHO the most accurate description would be "is a populist radical right party" (and then explaining in the ideology section that scholars classify this sub-family within the more general far-right family). But I got reverted even just trying to add that label in a note, so I'm not going to try it again, we need a RfC. Adding more scholarly articles to the source review, which IMHO already shows that this is the most preferred label by scholars, would also be helpful. --Friniate ✉ 12:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with "populist radical right" per sourcing, but also that "right-wing to far-right" should remain in the first sentence thereafter, similar to this edit (but without the "populist" repetition). This would satisfy: the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist, ie the second part given "radical right" is a scientific term, this requires context. At the moment the consensus has been based on bold editing, which is never sustainable long-term (ie it went from my edit, to removing radical right, to removing "described as", and here we are). It's not an ideal situation to say the least, but it does currently reflect the consensus in the RfC better than the previous version did. CNC (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the right to far right which links to the political position

what i dont agree is "is a far right party" when the wikipedia even admits the olitical position of reform Right-wing to far-right.

Is it far right? or Right wing to far right? Oldfoxy33 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"Right-wing and far-right" is actually more correct than "right-wing to far-right". We have sources describing Reform as right-wing, and we have (much more) sources describing it as far-right, but we don't have (at least so far) any source describing it as a "right-wing to far-right party", it could be even be argued that it's a (although very widespread) example of WP:SYNTH. --Friniate ✉ 16:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If we want to keep "far-right" in the infobox per the RfC, the best solution was probably the wording proposed by CMC above ("populist radical right" in wikivoice and then "described as"). But that was reverted too, so... --Friniate ✉ 16:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

there is barely any sources which describe reform as far right

and the sources which does say it. States that is unhelpful to call them far right

again systemic bias Oldfoxy33 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"the sources which does say it. States that is unhelpful to call them far right" ok then, tell me which one among the 23 scholarly sources listed for far-right say that it is unhelpful to call them far-right.--Friniate ✉ 18:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And please take into account that I'm not even defending the far-right label. But we can't have a serious discussion on how to move on if we don't share the same reality. --Friniate ✉ 18:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We do share the same reality.

its called systemic bias Oldfoxy33 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I happen to have a bias in favour of reliable sources and against things made up by random users on talk pages, sorry. --Friniate ✉ 18:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It isn’t true that there is barely any sources that describe them as far right plenty of sources in the recent rfc described them as far right which is why the consensus is what it is. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The question is not whether 'plenty of sources' exist somewhere that use the term far-right.

With enough searching, you can find strong labels applied to almost any political party. If hostile editors actively scour the world for anyone willing to use the harshest label available, they can easily manufacture the illusion of consensus. The question is whether that description reflects the mainstream, consistent characterisation in serious UK coverage. It does not, and you know it too.

If the bulk of major British outlets do not routinely describe Reform UK in those terms, then elevating 'far-right' into Wikipedia’s own voice misrepresents reality- regardless of how many marginal, foreign, or opinion-based sources can be assembled to support it. ~2026-27521-35 (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that per the Wikipedia policies we do not have to blindly follow the labels given in passing by mainstream UK media and ignore all the other sources:

1. Nowhere among Wikipedia policies is stated that we should use only UK-based news outlets and ignore those from the rest of the world, as you are asking us to do;
2. WP:NEWSORG actually says that scholarly sources are to be preferred to news outlets on scholarly topics
3. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says that information given in passing by otherwise reliable sources (and all the "right-wing" labels given by those mainstream media fall into this category), may not be reliable.

So, until you all will continue to ask us to remove far-right and leave only "right-wing", ignoring the fact that the "right-wing" label is even less sourced than far-right, it will be impossible to move on. There should be a serious discussion on how to be more accurate, the present situation has its flaws, but you are just asking us to throw Wikipedia's policies under the bus, it's simply not possible. --Friniate ✉ 12:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That response is a lot of policy name-dropping used to dodge the actual point.

No one is asking you to 'ignore all non-UK sources' or'throw policy under the bus.'

What’s being challenged is your weighting and interpretation of sources, not their mere existence. Listing policies doesn’t magically make that judgment correct. This is not a counting game. Saying 'we don’t have to follow mainstream UK media' is true but beside the point. If the bulk of serious, relevant coverage of a UK political party does not characterise it as 'far-right,' then promoting that label misrepresents reality and indicates problematic bias, confounded by the malicious choice to add fascist imagery.

This is a blatant case of elevating the harshest available framing simply because it can be sourced somewhere. Give me an hour, and I'll have the Greens be 'far-left' by the same rules. You’re dismissing consistent mainstream descriptions as 'in passing,' while treating stronger labels from a narrower, less relevant set of sources as more meaningful. That’s not neutral application of policy - it’s editorial preference dressed up as policy compliance.

And the claim that 'right-wing is even less sourced than far-right' is exactly the kind of outcome that suggests something has gone wrong in source selection. If a widely accepted, uncontroversial descriptor appears 'less sourced' than a contested, highly loaded one, that should raise questions about how sources are being gathered and weighted — not be used as justification to double down.

At the moment, the argument boils down to: 'we found enough sources that say far-right, therefore that’s the consensus.'

That’s not a serious engagement with due weight. It’s just counting citations and calling it a day. It is embarrassing and the kind of partisan bias that brings the website into disrepute. This website has really gone downhill in recent years. I've always known bias like this existed, but it never stunk so badly, and those responsible were never as brazen as this. They think they can get away with anything, and quite clearly, they can. ~2026-27521-35 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because it’s on Wikipedia doesn’t mean it’s correct. Consensus doesn’t mean the information on here is necessarily right. And remember articles on here are always evolving so the wording as it is now will not be the same as it will next year. I'm convinced in time the "right wing" tag will be removed leaving just "populist" and "far right".. possibly with the addition of "fascist" -- Give it time. ~2026-27439-24 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I’ve seen situations like this corrected before, but only after months of pushing back against hostility and the sheer persistence of partisan editors.

It shouldn’t take that level of effort to fix something so obviously questionable.

For example, there was a period when the chauvinism article explicitly cited Nigel Farage as a “primary example of a British chauvinist,” which was eventually removed after sustained challenge (it took months). Likewise, Tucker Carlson’s article once opened by describing him as “far-right,” a characterisation that was later walked back after similar disputes.

In both cases, the issue wasn’t a lack of objections or evidence, it was the time and resistance involved in overcoming entrenched editorial positions. That’s what makes situations like this so frustrating: not that they can’t be fixed, but that it requires prolonged, adversarial effort to get there. I find such things mentally draining, and why I have no desire to get involved with this website more permanently. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Reform is consistently described by scholarly sources as a populist radical right party (a subset of the far-right in scholarly literature). That's the academic consensus and there's even a tertiary source to prove it. If you want to prove me wrong, less rhetoric and more links to actual academic sources, thank you. --Friniate ✉ 16:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that I'll just try by myself to open a new RfC to have radical right as a primary descriptor, I'm tired of these never-ending discussions where after having analyzed dozens of sources and tried to argue for a middle-ground solution respectful of sources and accuracy, I get accused of bias in walls of text without any serious attempt to engage with the scholarly literature on the subject. --Friniate ✉ 16:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It is bias tho. I debated this countless of times.

I just dont wanna keep going around in circles and have to have the same convo/debate every month. Everytime a wiki mod changes reform to be far right. Oldfoxy33 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder of the 1st unwritten rule of Wikipedia: you don't owe anyone anything and no-one is entitled to anything. We tried, we persuaded, I boldy edited, it even lasted a week (woohoo!) - it failed. Even the accurate middle ground is contentious it turns out, then "one side" will accuse us of bias despite our efforts. A lot of time could be lost here on this talkpage vs building an encyclopedia. CNC (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor I'm painfully aware of that, but then you see people trying to balance "far-right" in a lot of bad ways... I'll try, then if I won't succeed I can say that I've done what I could... --Friniate ✉ 22:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If anyone asks, let them know that I did enough to try 🙏 CNC (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s much disagreement with 'populist' - that’s a fair, widely used description and aligns with how the party is commonly understood and cited in major, meanstream political reporting and analysis.

As for 'radical right,' that’s an academic classification and not really the major issue here - it doesn’t automatically translate into everyday political language like 'far-right' does.

Just so we are clear, the actual point of contention is 'far-right.' That’s a much stronger, more loaded label, and it’s the one that needs clear, proportionate justification in how it’s presented - not just the existence of cherry-picked sources, but whether it reflects mainstream usage and is being applied with proper weight. And when readers are also confronted with prominently displayed fascist imagery it compounds the impression of editorial framing rather than neutral description.

As for the “more links to sources please” line - that’s part of the problem. Simply demanding more links ignores the actual issue, which is how sources are being selected, interpreted, and weighted. You can always find additional references if you look hard enough; that doesn’t make the resulting label representative or proportionate.

I’m also not going to engage in a source-harvesting scavenger hunt. That kind of exercise proves very little beyond who has the time and inclination to compile the longest list. It doesn’t resolve whether the sources are representative, how they should be weighted, or whether the conclusion being drawn from them is justified. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources were very carefully weighted, taking into account various degrees of pertinence. The selection might have been a little too random (but they were not cherry-picked, the list comes simply from all the sources listed by people with different opinions in the previous discussions, I then added some other sources that I found on google scholar with the search key "Reform UK right"), but the fact that we have a tertiary source practically confirming the conclusions of the review it's a clear indicator that they are not flawed.

Anyway, I'll open a new thread to discuss the idea of having radical right. --Friniate ✉ 17:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Saying the sources were carefully weighted doesn’t change the fact that the underlying pool is extremely limited.

We’re talking about a sample of a few dozen sources, gathered by a handful of editors, out of what must be thousands of potentially relevant sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. That simply isn’t a robust basis for declaring anything close to consensus.

That’s where the concern about cherry-picking comes from - not as a personal accusation, but as a structural issue. Even if selections were made in good faith, a small, editor-assembled sample drawn from prior discussions and a quick Google Scholar search is inevitably going to reflect what those editors happened to find, not the full landscape of coverage.

Nonetheless I appreciate your willingness to actually discuss this matter with me, your are the first to do so. Thank you. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that there are probably 100-200 scholar sources that could be used, certainly not thousands, Reform UK is a fairly new party. --Friniate ✉ 19:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Give me an hour, and I'll have the Greens be 'far-left' by the same rules. Great to hear! I've always wondered what Talk:Green Party of England and Wales/Source review would look like. If there is academic consensus that the party are far-left please ping me, I will duly support. CNC (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m sure in your mind that sarcasm was a big 'gotcha' moment, but in reality it just proves my point that you’re not engaging with the actual issue.

If the standard is simply 'find enough sources that use a label,' then the outcome comes down to who has the time and patience to assemble the bigger list. I could just as easily produce a selectively curated pool of sources to make the Greens look far-left. That wouldn’t demonstrate consensus - it would demonstrate how easy it is to manufacture one.

That’s the flaw here. It rewards source-harvesting, not judgment. It shows what can be found, not what is representative.

I’m not going to play that game. This isn’t about compiling the longest list of citations, it’s about whether the label being pushed actually reflects the balance of serious coverage and is proportionate to how the subject is understood in practice. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sarcasm?" I'm here to build an encyclopedia, that involves using the best sources with most in-depth coverage to produce the most accurate and complete content. I'm thrilled to hear you are considering beginning a source review, especially given how time-consuming these things can be.

If the standard is simply 'find enough sources that use a label,' the standard is an open collaborative source review; so ideally, less talk, more review. I'm already watching the source review page in anticipation, but I'd still appreciate the ping as I don't always follow my watchlist. Regards, CNC (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Your response just doubles down on the same problem.

Framing it as 'open collaborative source review' sounds good in theory, hoorah to you, but in practice it still reduces the issue to who is willing to spend the most time assembling cherry-picked lists of reliable sources. That doesn’t resolve whether the outcome is representative - it just formalises the same dynamic.

You say 'less talk, more review,' but without comphrehending that my entire criticism revolves around the review method itself being so obviously flawed. I’m not going to spend hours of time I don't have constructing a rival list just to prove how easy it is to construct a rival list. That would demonstrate absolutely nothing beyond endurance (there are thousands of reliable sources). It wouldn’t establish consensus, only the appearance of it.

And frankly, it comes across as a bit childish. If your goal is genuinely to build a high-quality, neutral encyclopaedia, as you claim, then reducing complex editorial judgment to a contest of who can compile the longest list is not a serious way of going about it. Frankly, it is embarrassing.

The point stands: if a label can only be sustained primarily through increasingly elaborate source-collection exercises, rather than clearly reflecting the balance of mainstream and relevant coverage, then the methodology is doing the heavy lifting - not the underlying reality. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to justify your accusation of "cherry-picked" sources, otherwise yes, WP is a volunteer project and that is how it functions. I'm dissapointed to hear you don't have the time to complete the source review for the greens along the lines of Talk:Green Party of England and Wales/Source review, given the simplicity of the task. To be clear, I'm referring to Give me an hour, and I'll have the Greens be 'far-left' by the same rules. by ~2026-27521-35. It's been well over an hour and I'm still waiting. Honestly, just please let me know; are you going to do as you said or was it all just hot air? CNC (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If the discussion continues in this vein rather than addressing the substance of the issue, then I don’t think it’s a particularly productive use of my time. I’m happy to engage where there’s a serious attempt to debate and address the issues being expressed, but otherwise I will leave it there. I have no time for childish banter and thankfully other editors here appear more serious in their communication. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on why I'm responsing in this manner:

• The sarcasm and the 'I’m still waiting' / 'or was it all just hot air?' line is unnecessarily rude and obvious needling.
• The whole reply shifts from substance to calling me out personally.
• It treats a rhetorical point as a literal promise, which is not good-faith.

Why should I engage with this? ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I need to stop arguing with staw, or "rhetorical point" as you put it, noted. Some may even consider this uncivil, so I'll apologise, assuming that's how I've been. There is no need to respond, however bare in mind about casting aspersions: not reward the most obsessive cherry-pickers, not just the existence of cherry-picked sources, who is willing to spend the most time assembling cherry-picked lists of reliable sources You've been persistent, so I'd recommend knocking it off now. FYI back tracking on that claim (without retracting it) while changing accounts doesn't change much, instead it looks worse. CNC (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s a more reasonable response overall, and I appreciate the apology.

But I will indeed be responsing to address a couple of things. To clarify: my point was never that the sources themselves were necessarily cherry-picked in bad faith, I have made it absolutely clear in an earlier reply (not to you, admittedly) that any relatively small, constructed sample drawn from a much larger body of material is inherently vulnerable to selection effects. That’s a legitimate methodological concern, not a personal accusation.

Likewise, the “give me an hour” comment was rhetorical hyperbole to illustrate that concern, not a literal undertaking. I thought that was obvious. I will also apologise if it caused confusion. I’m not “backtracking” from it - I’m clarifying what was obviously intended.

And on the account point: I haven’t 'changed accounts.' Temporary accounts seemingly rotate automatically, it is beyond my control. I’ve made no attempt to conceal that I’m the same person - quite the opposite, given the continuity in writing style and the fact I’ve openly referred to my earlier comments myself.

I’ll also say that the 'I’d recommend knocking it off now' line came across as unnecessarily threatening and hostile. I’m perfectly willing to keep the discussion civil and focused on substance, but I’m mot going to be deterred by you from expressing methodological concerns. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't intended like that, don't worry :) Where did you copy your text from anyway? I'm always curious to learn about new tech! CNC (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries, and I'm sorry if I came across as too argumentative. And I use languagetool.org by the way. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems quite unlikely that you could find a considerable number of sources that are considered reliable on wiki for almost any label; to apply to wiki articles. The question in my view is if enough reliable sources describe reform as far right to include it in the infobox as right wing to far right and in my view there are enoug such sources. And our decisons on this dont just follow mainstream outlets but other reliable sources like scholarly sources. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the rationale behind the "far-right" labels attached to these political Wikipedia articles.

The issue here is that you're taking scholarly articles in political science as the main reference point rather than mainstream news sources and common parlance. Social and political academia is dominated by left-leaning academics. That's been true for as long as I can remember and it's bourne out across numerous research articles on the topic.

For example, Duarte (2015) found that "58 to 66 percent of social scientists are liberal and only 5 to 8 percent conservative" and that "there are eight Democrats for every Republican."

So what you're really doing is taking a very narrow cohort of academics and retro-fitting their biased opinions (and they are just that: opinions) as fact to Wikipedia, presumably because they fit well with the opinions of editors. This leads to spurious outcomes such as labelling Reform UK as far-right. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You are asking us to ignore policies like WP:SCHOLARSHIP, in order to change the article. Please head to that talk page in order to progress your discussion, thank you. CNC (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

No thanks, I have no issue with the page you've linked to. It states clearly "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

The context here is political, yet "Political science" is a non-seqitur, because academic articles about political parties are opinions, not scientific facts. Political academia is objectively unreliable due to the underlying bias of the academic community.

Therefore, and within Wikipedia's own reliable sourcing guidelines, political academic articles should and must be secondary to fact-checked, mainstream media, which is far more neutral than the narrow range of left-leaning sources you are trying to give priority to.

Any lay person can see, hear, and interpret Reform UK's policies with their own eyes, ears, and brains. It isn't for Wikipedia editors to then define the party as "far-right", when mainstream reliable, fact-checked sources all place it as right wing. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. If you want to argue that this shouldn't be valid for social sciences, you'll have to argue for a change of the general policy. --Friniate ✉ 19:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're misinterpreting what you've cited from your link.

Scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, I agree. If I'm reading about something like options pricing using Black-Scholes, I'd expect to see plenty of research articles cited, as opposed to news articles.

But... Reform UK isn't an academic topic. It's a political party. So the sentence you've cited is irrelevant to this discussion, and underscores what I've already written. ~2026-27494-49 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you think that political science is not an academic subject we have really nothing to discuss further. When all the faculties of political science in the world will be closed, you'll be right. --Friniate ✉ 20:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Well if I'd written that, you'd have a valid point. But I didn't write that, and I don't really see the point in engaging further on this. ~2026-27494-49 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so, if you agree that political science is an academic subject, then how can political psrties, one of the primary topics covered by political science, not be an academic topic? --Friniate ✉ 22:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

At this point we are kicking a dead horse, the discussion already happened, open a new RFC if you want but consensus will stay the same. ~2026-24464-63 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Reform UK is literally only Right-wing

Reform UK has been described as a right-wing party on Wikipedia for more than a year, and the majority of news outlets and mainstream sources continue to classify it as right-wing. So why the sudden change? This is especially striking given that the political party Restore Britain, which is far more radical, only launched a few months ago. Just a few months ago, editors were discussing whether Reform UK could be more accurately described as centre-right to right-wing, pointing to its perceived moderation and the way it has increasingly begun to resemble a “Tory Party 2.0,” particularly due to the number of defectors from the Conservative Party. At the same time, both Reform UK and Restore Britain are now grouped within the same “right-wing to far-right” label. There is a clear difference between the two, and it is evident that one is more right-wing and radical than the other. Treating their political positions as equivalent makes the classification confusing and blurs important distinctions. I find this shift to be a profoundly political smear that raises serious questions about the consistency and neutrality of Wikipedia editors.

~2026-24680-79 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see the above response re: source review. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I just use grokipedia for political articles, i.e. https://grokipedia.com/page/Reform_UK does a much better job than this silly Wikipedia page.

You'll never be able to reach a sensible unbiased neutrality to Wikipedia articles because left wing students and academics simply have far more time on their hands to edit and control the narrative than anyone else...

and to be honest it's much better to have overt bias like this, as anyone reading the article can see it for what it is. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

An interesting observation about Grokipedia and two very interesting points about the content of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Grokipedia is complete AI generated slop, and is used (in my opinion) as a propaganda machine for the far-right. I will agree that there are left-wing students on here, but we can't always find unbiased sources as around 99% of sources out there are either leaning left or right. ~2026-24464-63 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Also the lengthy RfC: Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?. The even more recent^{yet to be reverted} change was otherwise referenced here. Regards, CNC (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This “source review” is a perfect example of Wikipedia process replacing actual judgment.

Instead of asking the obvious question: how is Reform UK commonly described by serious British sources? Editors have built a spreadsheet of random mentions from assorted foreign outlets, magazines, blogs, and advocacy-adjacent publications, then counted them like votes.

That is intellectually absurd.

A UK political party should be classified primarily through major UK political coverage: national newspapers, broadcasters, specialist political journalism, and serious domestic analysis. If labels like “far-right” are absent or uncommon in outlets such as The Times, The Telegraph, the Financial Times, Sky News, ITV, Channel 4, or mainstream BBC political reporting, that matters far more than ten overseas think-pieces and two activist journals.

This is not source evaluation. It is source harvesting.

Wikipedia editors often confuse quantity with quality: stack enough weak or irrelevant citations together, then pretend a consensus has appeared. But twenty marginal references do not outweigh one strong pattern in mainstream domestic reporting.

Worse still, this method invites obvious bias. If hostile editors actively search the world for anyone willing to use the harshest label available, they can manufacture the appearance of evidence while ignoring the language ordinary readers actually encounter.

An encyclopedia should summarise reality, not reward the most obsessive cherry-pickers.

If this is the standard being used, then “far-right” is not a conclusion reached honestly. It is a label reverse-engineered from selective sourcing and bureaucratic game-playing. ~2026-24149-12 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

All fair points. What do you propose as solutions though? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Well a sensible start be stop treating source-counting exercises as scholarship.

Passing mentions in weak or partisan outlets should never trump the consistent language used by major mainstream sources. Sources are not votes.

Secondly, labels like “far-right” should require a clear and overwhelming mainstream consensus, not merely the existence of some hostile citations. If wording is genuinely disputed, then simply use more neutral description sand state that some commentators use much stronger labels.

Third, controversial labels should be applied symmetrically. If the same evidential threshold is not used for left-wing parties like the Greens or Your Party, then neutrality is being selectively enforced.

Fourth, editors need to remember that Wikipedia is meant to summarise reality, not shape it. If ordinary informed readers would be surprised by a label (which I was, it brought me to this page and I don't even like Reform UK), that should be a warning sign that the article may reflect internal editor politics more than public understanding. ~2026-24149-12 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-24149-12, why not register an account name then (if you haven't already) and then in 30 days see if you have any luck in trying to implement some of your suggestions. Others have already tried - and failed. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That rather proves the criticism.

If reasonable editors have already tried to argue for stronger sourcing standards, domestic weighting, and more neutral wording and have repeatedly failed, then the problem appears to run very deep indeed.

That feeling is only reinforced when the page itself appears framed in a provocative or hostile manner - for example, the prominent fascist symbolism. Whether intentional or not, choices like that communicate editorial hostility rather than neutral presentation.

The response itself is also revealing. Saying “others have tried and failed” is hardly an invitation to participate. It signals that dissent is futile, that established groups already control the outcome, and that creating an account would likely mean walking into a hostile, time-consuming dead end. That is precisely why I have little desire to do so.

This website presents itself as open to anyone, but in practice controversial pages can become controlled by entrenched editor groups who know the procedures, patrol the page constantly, and can outlast casual contributors. In that environment, “just make an account and join in” is less a solution than a ritual gesture.

I had absolutely no expectation this would make any difference, but sometimes you speak up simply because it is the right thing to do in the face of obvious unfairness. I mean, it really is bad. Serious labels should be used carefully, consistently, and with evidence - otherwise they become rhetorical weapons rather than precise descriptions, they lose meaning, poison debate, and make honest disagreement harder. ~2026-24149-12 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the existence of parties such as Restore Britain, does not change how Reform UK should be described. The Wikipedia article for Restore Britain itself, describes the new party as a split from Reform UK, presumably because their party leader (and singular MP), was until February 2026 a member of Reform UK.

He was not removed from the party because he was too extreme for Reform UK, but because (according to Rupert Lowe), Reform UK felt that he was challenging the party leadership too often (e.g. Nigel Farage). ~2026-25154-88 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

until march 2025 Rupert Lowe was ousted out of the party and became independent ~2026-24680-79 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Far-right?

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.

---

Sorry, but Reform is not a far-right party by any means. ~2026-27601-51 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2026 (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.

Change the "right wing - far right" to radical right wing (or something on those lines)

Currently, the label far-right is being used in this article (and several others) as a definitive fact, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT. While some commentators use the term "far-right" as an umbrella term, leading political scientists like Cas Mudde and Luke March distinguish radical right parties (which work within democratic structures) from extreme right parties (which are anti-democratic).

Even Tim Bale, who was cited in this discussion, has argued in the LSE British Politics blog that applying the term far right to Reform UK is often unhelpful and to broad to be meaningful suggesting instead that the populist radical right (or any other phrase which means the same) seems as more politically correct in the current political climate in the United Kingdom

Per Wikipedia's policy on Due Weight, we should reflect this academic nuance rather than using a contested label in the project's voice.

Furthermore, if we look outside political science, into the political community in the United Kingdom. Most partys like Lib Dems, Torys and labour. Dont even describe reform as far right. (Kinda hypocritical to call them tory 2.0 and then call them far right)

And even unbias newsoutless like the BBC ITV and Sky have been told not to call reform far right Oldfoxy33 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

While I'm open to the idea of using only "radical right" instead of "right to far-right", I think that first of all it's necessary to get the facts straight: it's Cas Mudde that uses "far-right" as an umbrella term (I'm citing from his book of 2019 although the definition is older: This is what I call the far right, which is itself divided into two broader subgroups. The extreme right rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule. The most infamous example of the extreme right is fascism, which brought to power German Führer Adolf Hitler and Italian Duce Benito Mussolini, and was responsible for the most destructive war in world history. The radical right accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law, and separation of powers. Both subgroups oppose the postwar liberal democratic consensus, but in fundamentally different ways. While the extreme right is revolutionary, the radical right is more reformist. In essence, the radical right trusts the power of the people, the extreme right does not), it's his definition that has gained consensus among many scholars (I think that it's sufficient to see the huge amount of works in the source review that cite his definition). In fact, Cas Mudde explicitly said that Reform is a far-right party, so what are you talking about?

It's true that Tim Bale argued in 2024 that using the term far-right for Reform it's unhelpful, but in 2025 in another interview for LSE IQ British Politics blog he apparently changed idea, and he said that most political scientists (himself included apparently) would classify Reform as a populist radical right party within the broader family of far-right parties, stating that: Far-right is an umbrella term, and then beneath that you have two strains. One is the populist radical right, and the other is the extreme right. They are different from each other in the sense that the extreme right normally comes from Nazi subculture or at least a violent subculture, maybe it's trying to move away from that but there are still elements of that there. The populist radical right doesn't come from that kind of underground subculture. --Friniate ✉ 10:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

As for Luke March, he's a leading specialist of radical left parties, but I don't know any work of him in which he argued against the usage of "far-right" as an umbrella term, could you please link it? --Friniate ✉ 12:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Cas Mudde uses 'far right' as an umbrella term, but the issue here isn't the umbrella. it's the implications.

Mudde says the extreme right is revolutionary and rejects democracy (like fascists), while the radical right is reformist and accepts democracy (and doesnt want to overthrow it). If we just use far right in the projects voice, we are choosing a label that Mudde himself says covers two fundamentally different groups. Using the broad term instead of the specific one (radical right) makes it look like Reform is in the same category as anti democratic groups, which is exactly what Mudde and Bale say they are not.

Regarding Tim Bale's 2025 interview he literally says the difference is Tommy Robinson on one hand (extreme right) and Nigel Farage on the other (radical right). He says the radical right is much more committed to democracy. So, even if he calls it an umbrella, he’s still telling us that radical right is the accurate and that using the term far right to describe reform is unhelpful.

Wikipedia isn't about using the bmost general word possible. It's about being exact and political correct/neutral. If the experts agree Reform fits into the radical right sub-group, why would we use the more controversial and less precise far-right label? Oldfoxy33 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

To me the bigger question is that of the primary descriptor of "right-wing populist", in combination with what is effectively the secondary descriptor "right-wing to far-right"; the former is not well supported by sources (per review linked above). A more accurate description based on due weight imo would be Reform UK, [...], is a radical right political party in the United Kingdom. It has been described as right-wing populist and far-right. That moves radical right to the primary descriptor, as the most accurate per sources, and right-wing populist and far-right as secondary descriptors (RWP being less supported by sources, far-right being less accurate and less supported by sources than radical right, even if more supported than RWP).

What are your thoughts on that? As based on your final paragraph I couldn't agree more that we should be using more precise terminology based on due weight from the academic sourcing. To me radical right is as neutral as it get's, RWP and far-right are the two conflicting POVs as it were. CNC (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 I was going to answer you, but @CommunityNotesContributor has already expressed what I think in a better way than I would have done. --Friniate ✉ 13:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Per the sources provided in the rfc that changed it to right wing to far right I beleive there is enough calling them far right to include it in the Infobox as right wing to far right and I would disagree that reflecting the sources in this way violates npov. And weather parties call them far right should not change if we keep right wing to far right and we look at the overall reliable sources when making the decision not just bbc or sky news. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I actually think CNCs point about the primary descriptor is the most logical way forward.

If we look at WP:DUE, we aren't just counting the number of times a word is used. We are looking at the quality of the sources. Academic experts like Mudde and Bale are the gold standard for political classification. Both agree that Reform fits the Radical Right sub-group. Using Radical Right as the primary descriptor is the most accurate way to reflect this high-level consensus. Plus there are a lot of people both on wikipedia and in the general political community trying to label reform as a far right party to limits its growth and stuff like that

The person arguing for far right says we shouldnt just look at the BBC, but the BBCs retraction is a massive piece of evidence for WP:NPOV. If a high-quality reliable source like the BBC admits a term is an editorial error because it's not neutral, Wikipedia should treat that term as contested' rather than definitive.

By making radical right the primary descriptor and listing far right and populism as labels used by others, we satisfy both sides

We stay accurate to the academic experts (Mudde/Bale).

We acknowledge the other labels exist without adopting them as fact in the project's voice (WP:ASSERT). Oldfoxy33 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

If we look at WP:DUE, we aren't just counting the number of times a word is used. We are looking at the quality of the sources. Indeed, and I think the synthesis of sources attributes to what I'm proposing. When we looks at what's left of the academic sourcing after excluding passing comments of the 50+ sources reviewed, there is 8:3:3 respectively for radical right, far-right, and right-wing populist. Further excluding databases this narrows to 7:2:1 (for reference, I think academic databases are also very good sources, because they are precisely doing the job we are looking for: clear-cut political ideology categorisation). The fact this data is backed up by subject matter experts to me only confirms the accuracy, and better reflects the summary of the body. CNC (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, Right-wing populism is an ideology, not a political position. It was included in the source review for transparency since you get those articles if you look on google scholar for "Reform UK right", but they shouldn't be taken as a source for "right-wing". The only one who maybe could be used as a source for "right-wing" is Zulianello, since he explicitly excludes Reform from the "radical right" parties. So the 8:3:3 is in fact a 8:3:2 (that becomes 7:2:0 excluding databases), with the "2" being from the same author. --Friniate ✉ 13:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

"Right-wing populism is an ideology" Which typically combines ideological elements such as anti-elitist sentiments, neo-nationalism, social conservatism, economic nationalism, and fiscal conservatism. The ideological section of the article mentions that Reform UK is grouped with other right-wing nationalist and national conservative parties, but I don't see anything relevant to the protectionist policies typically associated with economic nationalist factions. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dimadick I'm not understanding your point. My point is simply that we shouldn't assume that the sources using "right-wing populism" are saying that Reform is simply right-wing rather than radical right or far-right. --Friniate ✉ 08:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the most widespread definition, and the one usually cited by the political scientist using this label, is the one by Cas Mudde. During the source review I've never seen this definition by Michalinos cited anywhere. --Friniate ✉ 09:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

And per the sources in the last RFC there is quite a few high quality sources that describe reform as far right enough to justify the current right wing to far right position in the infobox. Wikipedia should look at the overall sources and their quality and make its decision based on that not just treat it as contested and not include far right because the BBC doesn't call them that and made a retraction. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@GothicGolem29 Among the sources dealing in detail with Reform and its political position, there are far more sources using "radical right" than "far-right" alone, that's the point. --Friniate ✉ 09:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

At the very least we should include "radical right" in the infobox. --Friniate ✉ 09:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The close of the rfc did note that Radical right is adjacent to far right per the sources in the rfc and consensus there so based on that I don't really see that as a reason to remove far right from the position unless we can show a change in the osurces that show its not adjancent and of course a new consensus would need to be sought on that given the current consensus is it is adjacent. if your below message is suggesting add it to the infobox without removing far right I am neutral on that so far (although I would be curious what your suggestion is to do that)my main argument is against removing far right from the current right wing to far right for the reasons I have set out. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, the RfC's opening question asked to choose between "right" and "right to far-right", "radical right" wasn't even among the options (I supported the change too, but because the alternative was keeping "right" alone), so I think that we are not bound by it. It's true that most of the scholars who use "radical right" for Reform, use it as a part of the far-right, but I see a valid point also in the argument that in a situation in which most scholars use different labels (radical right as part of the far-right, which in turn is part of the more general right-wing), we should use the most specific label to be more accurate. --Friniate ✉ 15:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Radical right might not have been the opening question but that doesn't mean consensus as noted in the close on radical right does not apply. It seems likely to me that a new consensus would need to be sought if the close explicitly mentioned radical right as it did(I dont really have much more to add on the accuracy part though its a valid point worth considering.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you make of this proposed change? I agree far-right shouldn't be removed per the RfC, I think we are on the same page here. It's more so whether radical right is to replace right-wing populist as primary descriptor, leaving the latter to go with far-right. Something that is very much in line with the RfC consensus (ie to include far-right alongside right-wing). The main problem with the RfC is that many of us arrived late to the realisation that radical right was the most accurate academic terminology to apply, while otherwise quite clearly being right-wing to far-right. As Friniate says, the RfC didn't focus on radical right at the time, and sure maybe there will be another RfC needed over including radical right more prominently where it belongs. But in the meantime, based on this discussion so far, I'd like to at least try a bold edit before having to engage in the last resort. I'm also aware that there was very limited disagreement over the party being labelled as radical right as many of us came to argue; in fact, it wasn't really contested at all. CNC (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

If as my understanding is that you are proposing to change right wing populist to radical right but keep right wing to far right for now then I have no objection to that. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done with this edit based on consensus in this discussion, or at least my perception of it. I didn't change infobox due to ongoing discussion at CREF for political position? over inclusion of cite bundle/note. I assume this edit will be reverted, but we can't start an RfC without first attempting the supported edit. CNC (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Good enough not to fuss. The inclusive terminology reflects the spectrum of sources at least. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Szekere07 @Helper201 per recent changes. There was rough consensus for radical right as primary descriptor. CNC (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not a conclusive consensus - as far as I can see this whole discussion is a couple of editors making a sweeping change to something that has already undergone extensive scrutiny (there has been this exact debate before on this topic). We don't have to like or be supportive of something to recognise when this process provides disproportionate weight to a non-evidenced view. I am deeply concerned at the fact that there are 0 reputable and reliable sources provided which describe Reform UK as far-right and this RFC was not broadly shared with the Wikipolitics community. The grounds for changing the terms used is based on original research and synthesis of existing academic work and concepts, not based on independent and reliable reporting of the topic (i.e. the party in question) - put simply, no news sources in the UK describe Reform under the terms far-right. Overall, these are seriously questionable grounds for then claiming a new consensus. I can see from the responses below in other talk page sections and the page's edit war that I am not the only editor with questions, meaning it is apparent there is simply not a consensus for these changes and until there has been a wider discussion, none of these changes should take place. Greenleader(2) (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I realise I have misinterpreted this discussion, apologies. I will add I recognise the main RfC in question concluded there were ample grounds to include far-right which concluded also that the "only sensible alternative is 'radical right" - I think in an academic sense this is therefore the most appropriate wording to include and I was under the impression from this discussion now that's what would be best to include. I think we have to ensure what is included is not just a result of synthesis and OR but backed by reliable sources. The current wording in the page does't seem to reflect this was the main point being made. Greenleader(2) (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, my preference would be for the use of Radical right (Europe) instead of RW(P) or far-right in both the lead and the infobox. The RfC conclusion didn’t mandate the use of language in my view, instead giving a permissibility to a broader use of terms and the conclusion from this RfC closure was also wrong by implying radical right is "adjacent" to far-right when arguably on the page for radical right (Europe) we even acknowledge that "by 2025, the academics Bale, Mudde, Bennie, Widfeldt, and Hayton described radical right as belonging to a subset of far-right politics, distinguished from the extreme right", which is well sourced. The term was the mode in academic sources as highlighted by CNC in this discussion and in the RfC source analysis table. I do think the page should seek to use the most granular and accurate terminology here, and radical right both upholds the consensus to move beyond the current framing while being the most specific term because it captures the detail and is the most succinct. I don’t think we should prevent this because the specific wording in the RfC closure itself didn't properly capture this (and indeed acknowledged the term would be best as an alternative to e.g. far-right) - my point is that radical right is clearly the most optimal term to capture the consensus and in my view would fulfil the RfC. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Greenleader(2) Hi, I agree, but every time someone tried to add "radical right", it was reverted. I've tried to open a new thread in order to understand how to move on. --Friniate ✉ 10:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"the use of Radical right (Europe) instead" A bit too nebulous for my tastes. The "radical right" label groups together parties and factions with anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and Eurosceptic policies, but several of them are very different in their goals for their respective countries. They include right-wing populists, national conservatives (which often favor the assimilation of minorities into the dominant culture instead of outright persecution), neo-fascists, and Third Position/unorthodox fascists which often favor ethnopluralism. What exactly does Reform UK want to do with the minority populations in Britain? Assimilate them, expel them, kill them, or something else? Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No, no, the "radical right" label doesn't include neo fascists, etc, those are the extreme right. That's if we follow the terminology of political scientists (which is described in the article Radical right (Europe)). --Friniate ✉ 13:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That is the article I am describing, and it includes the neo-fascists. They are covered in the lead, with sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dimadick Fair point, I'm going to address that part, because that's not the way in which the term is used by the majority of political scientists nowadays and it should be made clear. --Friniate ✉ 09:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, one of the sources used to support that sentence (Minkenberg), says what I'm also saying, as it can be read in the body of the article. The online website doesn't mention "radical right" at all, I going to try to verify what the other source says. --Friniate ✉ 09:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. --Friniate ✉ 12:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

"What exactly does Reform UK want to do with the minority populations in Britain? Assimilate them, expel them, kill them, or something else?"

Illegal - Deport

Legal - Assimilate Oldfoxy33 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"radical right" as a primary descriptor - preliminary discussion

Ok, first of all I need some clarification (maybe @CommunityNotesContributor can help me): after a RfC do we necessarily need a new RfC to (partially) change the outcome, or can we also go through the alternatives listed here, like a dispute resolution?
Coming to the matter, I'll try to give a summary of the dispute:

• In January, after this RfC it was concluded to add "far-right" to the lead and the infobox alongside "right-wing"
• The decision was largely based on this source review which shows that:
  • Among scholarly sources the most preferred label are "radical right" and "far-right", with "radical right" being much more used though by the authors dealing in detail with Reform's political position (there's a ratio of 7 against 2). On the other side, most of the authors using "radical right", define it as a subset within the broader far-right family (5 out of those 7). Among the 14 authors whose works were classified either as "in topic" or as "databases", only one author (Zulianello) is clearly denying the radical right character of the party.
  • Among expert surveys classifying Reform on the left-right scale, the party gets a 9 and a 9.2 on a 1 to 10 left-right scale. The average weighted by the number of scholars taking part to each survey is 9.14.
  • Among British news organisations, the most preferred label are "right-wing" and "right-wing populist", with the Guardian being a partial exception (it uses also both "radical right" and "far-right"). Among non-British news organisations, "far-right" is preferred to "right-wing". "Radical right" and "far-right" are the most used labels by news outlets dealing specifically about Reform's political position (but there are also two positions by British media - Telegraph and BBC - explicitly against the usage of "far-right").
• The source review was later criticized for having only a relatively small amount of scholarly (57, that become 37 excluding passing comments) and media sources, deemed by critics insufficient given the (presumed) scale of available literature. Therefore, it was argued that it may not be representative of the whole academic and media discussion
• In addition to the source review it was also found a tertiary source (Tim Bale), that states that the majority of scholars would classify Reform as a radical right party within the broader far-right family (Note: the year before Bale also stated that he personally thought that it was unhelpful to call Reform "far-right" and it was better to call it only "radical right")
• The supporters of "right-wing" alone argue that:
  • "far-right" is not widely used by mainstream British media, that prefer "right-wing";
  • "far-right" is viewed (by British media outlets as well as scholars like Tim Bale) as a very politically charged label that puts Reform in the same category as the BNP, Tommy Robinson, etc;
  • "Right-wing" inherently includes also "far-right", "radical right", etc, therefore it should be preferred as a general not-controversial descriptor;
  • some of them tried to argue that academia is inherently leftist and therefore we shouldn't follow scholars' opinions to be truly neutral.
• The supporters of "right to far-right" argue that:
  • the vast majority of the scholarly sources either directly support "far-right" (2 out of 10 among those completely on topic, but 40% just excluding passing comments) or classify Reform as a radical right party within the broader far-right family (5 out of 10 among those completely on topic, 9% just excluding passing comments)
  • "Far-right" is the most preferred label by mainstream media outside UK, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to place particular weight on the way the term is used in local sources
  • If we'd automatically use the most general label ("right" or "left") in every "controversial" case, even if, as in this case, there's only a minority of sources using it for describing the party, we'd end up never using "far-right" or "far-left" and we'd arbitrarily exclude from the lead and the infobox a widely shared opinion
  • the view that we should disregard scholar consensus goes against Wikipedia policies
• Now, during the source review it was proposed also the idea of using "radical right" alone as a primary descriptor. The supporters of this idea argue that:
  • Both Tim Bale as a tertiary source and the source review show that "radical right" is the most used label among scholars. There's also a not irrelevant usage among news outlets dealing in detail with the issue;
  • It's true that the majority of the scholars using it understand it as a sub-family of the far-right (understood as an umbrella term), but we should be most accurate as possible in our descriptions in wikivoice;
  • The term is far less politically charged and doesn't put Reform in the same category as Mosley.
  • Finally, "right to far-right" is ambiguous, since it could also give the idea that the party has internal positions from the right-wing to the far-right. But we have no source saying that, only sources saying that it's right-wing and other sources saying that it's far-right. "Right to far right" could therefore also be seen as an improper sythesis.
• So far the objections to the usage of "radical right" have been:
  • It's a fairly technical term that would need to be explained to the general public
  • Both according to Tim Bale and the source review, most scholars using "radical right" understand it as a sub-family of "far-right" and therefore "radical right" is "adjacent" to 'far right'. That brings some supporters of "far-right" to argue that "far-right" implictly includes also the radical right, whereas some supporters of "right-wing" argue that for this reason the usage of "radical right" would still give an undue weight to the "far-right" label;
  • "Far-right" alone is used by a relevant minority of scholarly sources and excluding it from the lead and the infobox would deny it its due weight
  • Usually the labels used in infoboxes and leads on en.wiki for the political positions are only the ones listed in the first row of the Template:Political spectrum
• After the RfC, the introduction of "radical right" was proposed on two occasions:
  • Here it was proposed to add it to the infobox
  • Here it was proposed to add it to the lead
• Both discussions led to bold edits, that were later reverted:
  • On 10 April there was an attempt to add "radical right" in a note to the infobox, reverted after few hours
  • On 20 April there was an attempt to add "radical right" in the lead, reverted after nine days

Are there other relevant opinions that I forgot to mention? --Friniate ✉ 18:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about the summary

A couple of additional points are worth raising, as they go to the core of the disagreement and aren’t really resolved by the summary above.

First, there is a concern about representativeness. The source review is detailed, but it is still based on a relatively small, editor-assembled sample drawn from a much larger pool of relevant sources that exists. Even if done in good faith, that inevitably raises questions about selection effects and whether the outcome reflects the broader landscape of coverage or just what happened to be included.

Second, there is a clear gap between academic classification and public-facing language. Terms like 'radical right' come from political science frameworks and don’t necessarily map cleanly onto how labels like 'far-right' are used in general discourse, where they carry stronger connotations. Treating those as interchangeable is part of what’s being challenged.

Third, the issue of due weight remains unresolved. The existence of sources using 'far-right' is not really in dispute - the question is whether that label is sufficiently dominant and representative to justify its placement in Wikipedia’s own voice in the lead and infobox, as opposed to being attributed or contextualised.

Finally, there is a broader concern about methodology. If the outcome depends heavily on constructing and defending curated source lists, that risks turning the process into a contest of accumulation, a scavenger hunt where whoever finds the most wins, rather than a balanced assessment of how the subject is actually described across reliable sources.

edit: Lastly, there are also concerns about overall presentation. When an article combines a contested, highly loaded label with prominently displayed imagery or symbolism that readers may associate with fascism (for example, the flash-and-circle motif), it risks creating an impression of editorial framing rather than neutral description. Even if each element can be justified individually, the cumulative effect should be considered.

~2026-27393-76 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27393-76 I'm going to add the argument about representativeness (which I think that contains also the arguments about due weight and methodology) and its counter-argument. I'm not really understanding the second point though, the point about "radical right" and "far-right" being synonyms was raised by supporters of "right-wing" alone, so yours seems to me more a counter-argument against this claim, did I understand it correctly? If it's so it seems to me to be already included in the "The term is far less politically charged " argument. --Friniate ✉ 19:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway I'd ask to more experienced users which is the best method to go on, a dispute resolution? a RfC? Something different? --Friniate ✉ 19:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to group representativeness, due weight, and methodology together for convenience - they’re clearly related and overlap in practice. That said, it’s still worth keeping in mind that they are distinct concerns in their own right. Representativeness is about the sample of sources, due weight is about how those sources are reflected in the article, and methodology is about how sources are selected and how conclusions are drawn from them. Lumping them together is fine for brevity, but they shouldn’t necessarily be treated as a single issue.

On the second point, you’re right that it was not phrased as clearly as it could have been and rather than trying to explain it again, best to just ignore it as it should not distract from the main points.

I will await the reply for the best method to proceed before contributing further. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added argument and counter-argument, please tell me if it's ok. On the method, sorry, but I was not asking you but to the more experienced editors, something that I'm not (at least not on en.wp) and I think neither are you, no offence--Friniate ✉ 19:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"On the method [...] I was not asking you" - yes, I’m aware of that. I only said I would wait for the reply, as continuing the discussion here seems pointless if it’s potentially going to be moved elsewhere (then again I've no idea what an 'Rfc' is).

Moving on, I think your summary of my points is entirely fairly worded, yes, even if it is brief. The second addition, though, the 'counter-argument', is more problematic - not because it raises a counterpoint, but because of how it does so.

Saying 'nobody has proven it is not representative' isn’t really a neutral summary of the issue. It is blatantly biased wording, and it shifts the burden of proof in a way that doesn’t reflect the underlying concern (see below):

A contemporary UK political party like Reform UK has been covered across:

• national and regional newspapers
• broadcasters
• academic papers and books
• think tanks and policy institutes
• international media
• polling organisations and expert surveys

Even restricting yourself just to academic and quasi-academic material, there are almost certainly far more than a few dozen references discussing its ideological position. Once you include journalism and broader analysis, you’re easily into the hundreds or thousands of relevant mentions globally. So a pool of 37 non-passing scholarly sources is not the universe of evidence - it’s a sample, and a relatively small one at that, relative to a much larger body of material. That’s a methodological limitation, not something that can be dismissed simply by pointing to a tertiary source. I'm not saying the 'source review' is inherently useless, but it does mean:

• it cannot, on its own, establish representativeness
• and it shouldn’t be treated as if it captures the full scope of discussion

Now, more importantly, including that kind of 'counter-argument', worded as it is, directly in the summary risks blurring the line between describing the dispute and arguing one side of it. A summary section should outline positions, not pre-emptively defend one of them. If there are counter-arguments, they’re better presented as clearly attributed viewpoints rather than framed as settled conclusions. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm describing what the supporters of "right to far-right" argue, so I think that it's inherently biased. Also saying "academia is inherently leftist" is a really biased sentence, but it's there anyway, since it describes the argument that was made...

The point that is made here is that usually Wikipedia works exactly like that: you don't agree, you bring new sources. I agree that it's far from ideal and that it's fairly easy to bend it for pov pushers, but I don't see many alternatives other than using tertiary sources. But tertiary sources are a rare good, you have correctly pointed out that here we have only one, and I think that it's fairly likely that it is the only one existing.

Moreover the source review did include also international media and national newspapers. --Friniate ✉ 20:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to rephrase the counter-argument anyway, tell me if now it's better. --Friniate ✉ 20:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s an improvement in wording, but it still has the same underlying problem.

Framing it as 'nobody has proven… not representative' still shifts the burden in a way that doesn’t reflect the actual concern. Representativeness isn’t something that is assumed by default and then needs to be disproven - it’s something that instead needs to be demonstrated, especially when the sample is relatively small compared to the wider body of available material.

There’s also an issue with how the supporting points are being presented. Saying the conclusions are 'confirmed' by a tertiary source and 'indirectly' by surveys reads less like a neutral summary of an argument and more like an endorsement of it. At the very least, that should be clearly attributed as a position held by some editors, rather than phrased as an objective validation.

But, at the end of the day, I suspect I am just wasting my time here attempting to achieve objective neutrality, so just put whatever you like. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but all those points are attributed, they are introduced by the sentence The supporters of "right to far-right" argue that: We can make it visually clearer if you want... --Friniate ✉ 20:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

On reflection, I think I see where the confusion came from. What threw me is that the wording attributed to my position was noticeably more neutral in tone - to the point that it didn’t read like an argument at all, but more like an objective observation. So I thought for a moment that an objective observation was the whole point.

Alright then, if that's the case, you may have the counter-argument however you please, as long my argument gets to be written by me:

"[ADDED LATER]: Tthe source review relies on a relatively small sample — around 57 sources, or 37 excluding passing mentions — which is insufficient given the scale of available literature. They contend that it is self-evident that many more relevant sources must exist, and that such a limited pool cannot reasonably be considered representative of the broader academic discussion, calling into question the strength of the conclusions drawn from it." ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't it be shorter? I tried never to write more than three lines per argument, it's already really long and if everyone asks the same... --Friniate ✉ 21:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be right

"The source review relies on a small sample of 37 sources which is insufficient given the scale of available literature. They contend that it is self-evident that more sources must exist, and that such a limited pool cannot reasonably be considered representative of the whole academic discussion."

That is equal length to current counter-argument. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

further refined:

"The source review relies on a small sample of 37 sources which is insufficient given the scale of available literature. They argue it is self-evident that more sources must exist, and that such a limited pool cannot reasonably be considered representative." ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27393-76 I'm sorry, but on a second thought, yours is not really an argument for "right wing" to begin with, but only a methodological argument against any kind of conclusion drawn from the source review. Instead of an argument and a counter argument, I think that it'd be better a neutral note under the source review, along the lines of "The source review has been criticized for having only a relatively small amount of scholarly (57, that become 37 excluding passing comments) and media sources, deemed by critics insufficient given the (presumed) scale of available literature. Therefore, it was argued that it may not be representative of the whole academic and media discussion."

The counter-argument would obviously go too... --Friniate ✉ 22:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s a fair distinction.

The point I’m making is ultimately about whether the source review can support a firm conclusion at all, rather than directly arguing for 'right-wing' over 'far-right.' In that sense, it is more of a methodological critique than a substantive alternative.

That said, the implication still matters: if the method isn’t strong enough to establish consensus, then it also isn’t strong enough to justify a more specific or contested label. So I’m fine with it being framed as a general criticism of the review, as long as that implication isn’t lost. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of points to clarify here, because we’re slightly talking past each other.

First, on your 'inherently biased' point - there’s a difference between reporting that a view exists and how that view is framed. Including something like “some editors argue X” is fine. But phrasing like 'nobody has proven it is not representative' isn’t just describing a position, it’s presenting it in a way that implicitly validates it by shifting the burden of proof. That’s the distinction I was getting at.

Second, I need to be clear here: I did not make any argument about 'academia being inherently leftist,' so I’m not sure why that’s being brought up in response to me. That feels like a misattribution at best. If other editors raised that point, then fine - include it as their view - but it’s not mine, and responding to it as if it is doesn’t address what I actually said. You should be above such things as I am assuming your bold red name implies some kind of status here.

On the broader issue: I understand the 'bring more sources' approach is how Wikipedia often operates, but that’s exactly what’s being questioned here. When the available pool of sources is very large (you've admitted yourself it is at least in the hundreds), a relatively small, constructed sample - even if it includes some international media and newspapers - still raises legitimate questions about how representative it actually is.

Saying 'this is how Wikipedia works' doesn’t really resolve that concern, it just restates the process. The criticism is about whether that process, in this case, is sufficient to support a strong and potentially contentious label.

And on tertiary sources - I agree they’re valuable, but the existence of a single tertiary source doesn’t settle the issue either, especially if the underlying debate is about how broadly a label is used and understood. At most, it’s one piece of evidence, not a definitive resolution.

So the core point still stands: the concern isn’t that sources don’t exist, it’s whether the way they’ve been selected, framed, and summarised is enough to justify the weight being placed on them in the lead. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

1. "there’s a difference between reporting that a view exists and how that view is framed." I agree, but that was the point made. You can dislike it, but that was it. You can suggest other rephrasings if you want...
2. I never said that you did, I brought it up only as an example of a heavily biased argument that was reported. I completely disagree with it, but nevertheless I reported it, so why can't we do the same with other arguments? The only thing that I think we must agree are facts, and there must be no misleading facts in the summary, but then when it comes to opinions, how can you report a dispute without reporting the points that were made?
3. I understand your point, but that is a point for keeping the status quo. If we say that the number of sources that were reviewed is not enough (I partially agree), and that a tertiary source alone is not enough (here's where I disagree), the only logical thing to do is to look for more sources. Until the results of the source review are not proven wrong, you can't just disregard them (also because what's the alternative, decide by ourselves? "I think that's only right-wing, let's write it in the article"? I hope not...)

--Friniate ✉ 21:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Another method that I've recently tried is to look on google scholar to the sources published between 2025 and 2026 (with "Reform UK right" as a search key) and then analyze the works cited by those sources. In this way you'll get the most relevant works published in the previous years. --Friniate ✉ 21:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

On the second point: You used direct quotes in a reply to me, which clearly implies you’re responding to something I said. I didn’t make that argument, so presenting it in that way is misleading and doesn’t engage with my actual points. One of the first things I was trained to do as a journalist is never use direct quotes unless someone has *actually said those words*.

Still though, I appreciate you engaging with me so civilly which contrasts with some of my earlier experiences on this website.

This is all I have time for today, but I will gladly continue this tomorrow. Thank you. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I used direct quotes because I was quoting my summary, sorry if it was confusing. --Friniate ✉ 21:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You are right. It stemmed from the confusion I mentioned above and I hastily assumed you were trying to summarise something I said and I apologise profusely for my error. Sorry. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

“some editors argue X” why the WP:AICURLY and excessive WP:MARKDOWN? We are not !voting, we don't need to be bolding opinions. Just use italics if you need to. You used direct quotes in a reply to me, which clearly implies you’re responding to something I said. Oh, I think I see now... CNC (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise if my writing conventions are not entirely in keeping with the customs of the website. ~2026-27393-76 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about the method

Ok, I'd like to understand what is the best method to go forward now. Should we bring the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard?--Friniate ✉ 09:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with these processes, but that sounds wise. I have my concerns about the RfC closure, which didn't properly reflect the discussion and placed too much weight on voting, as well as aforementioned, holds innacurate conclusions. It seems very difficult then to implement, nor necessarily should be. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave it here for a few days, then if nobody objects I'll open a formal dispute resolution, adding as parties all the people that took part to the last two discussions about "radical right" and those who reverted this label in the article. --Friniate ✉ 13:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Greenleader(2). Regarding challenging the RfC, that would be best done via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I think it's still "fresh" enough, but could be wrong, maybe someone else can confirm? DR is not the venue to challenge an RfC result is the emphasis here, nor is this talkpage in fairness, simply because there are procedures and processes for this already etched in stone.

@Friniate As for DR suggestion, that does sound the appropriate venue on reflection. I did think that NPOV noticeboard might be the better option, but it doesn't seem like more editors getting involved would solve the issues in the near term (in fact, I'd argue it's disrupted the probability of compromise, one that had already been achieved). Good chance DR also recommendations an RfC if the matter can't be resolved there. Also good idea to wait a few days, at least until the dust settles, if there is any dust to settle that is.

Personally though I don't intend on participating in further dispute resolution; I checked my edits here and doesn't look I've reverted anyone, while the only edit of mine that was revert was this edit by looks of it (by yourself), which I'm very much willing to accept based on the rationale. Per MANDY, I'm not keen on the undue disclaimer, but knowing how WP works, I don't expect it to last long with readers turn editors. So maybe, just maybe, it's provocatively based on enough undue weight (for anyone who even remotely attempts to maintain MOS:OPEN) to beneficially attract new editors. That might sound like the wrong route to get somewhere, but at this point I'll take it rather than exhausting further time and energy on this topic. If it stays, and that is the compromise with the current wording, then so be it.

Also not objecting to being listed as a participant, given my involvement here as well as making the edit that ignited this dispute (due to the way my edit evolved into where we are now). As for current edit warring, that's what WP:RFPP is for. CNC (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I must say that I wouldn't support a challenge to the RfC closure, given on how the RfC was structured (it was possible only to add something to the existing terminology, not to replace it altogether) I did support it too, although I think that what came out of the RfC is not the best solution. --Friniate ✉ 17:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I wish it had been challenged initially, but alas rationale closes rarely do get challenged. That is to say it's better to have the result endorsed rather than editors throw shade on the decision forevermore. Like the HnH close review that was snow endorsed, no arguments there anymore. It's also why I've left other topics tbh, simply because editors keep criticising a close that no-one is willing to challenge at AN. At some point it becomes disruptive, ie the refusal to engage in policy and procedures, hoping that enough mud will eventually stick etc. You can't throw mud at a wall that's been endorsed by the broader community, but it's easy against a single editors rationale for a close. This is more speaking from personal experience, but alas that is most of my argument why I don't oppose the RfC being reviewed at AN. It's long overdue and I'm quite confident it would be a frosty reception to put it in consensus terms. CNC (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I felt it was not reflective and a poor close, but the mood didn't seem to be there. Halbared (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If I am understanding correctly and the dispute is about either having right wing to far right, just far right or just radical right I think the better route would be a rfc as the current consensus came from an rfc rather than going to dispute resolution(unless someone opens a closure review which was mentioned by some here.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@GothicGolem29 Well, WP:RFCBEFORE though says that before starting a RfC we should try alternatives. Is there a policy that mandates that we should go thorugh RfCs if there had been a precedent RfC on the topic before?

I'd just like to try a different process, because I feel that during a RfC many people would end up casting !votes, leaving no space for discussion and middle-ground solutions. Moreover, as the precedent RfC showed, there are canvassing attempts outside wp on this issue, and I fear that a RfC would only encourage that, whereas in a process centered on discussion and arguments they wouldn't be very succesfull. --Friniate ✉ 09:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

We have tried alternatives there have been numerous discussions on this talk page and the issue has not been resolved. And the other alternatives are not mandated in that information page and in my view are not really suitable to a dispute about overturning a rfc result. Yes WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The RFC is wider community consensus so cannot be overidden by a limited group of editors in a dispute resolution.

In my experience based on being involved with multiple rfc on this including the last one that decided ton right wing to far right there is always a lot of discussion on the matter not just people casting !votes.Canvassing is an issue that would need to be monitored but I don't agree that the issues with canvassing means we should do a process that potentially overrides community consensus with a local one instead of giving it over to the wider community in an RFC. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, fine then, no dispute resolution process. I'm also not going to open a new RfC to push for radical right, because thanks to @Dimadick:'s remark above I've realized that we should fix Radical right (Europe) (it's not only a lead issue as I thought initially, but a much more profound one, since we should clearly distinguish between two differents meanings given to the term that right now are confusingly mixed), and doing that before the RfC would avoid a lot of discussion and doubts later on. --Friniate ✉ 19:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeh, this part. Let's fix that before wikivoicing. CNC (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2026 (2)

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.

---

Reform now has 32 Senedd representatives and another 1,421 English councillors. The page doesn’t reflect the election outcomes of 8/5/26 ~2026-28065-03 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2026 (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.

Protected edit request on 8 May 2026

Reform UK has won 34 seats in the Senedd. Propose updating Infobox. Folkezoft (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Reform UK#Senedd elections will need updating first, per MOS:INFOBOX, unless an admin can also update that alongside it, and realistically the lead should be updated for consistency also. Also not controversial, as long as done properly. Ideally someone can provide the change from X to Y for those changes. CNC (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

We changed voting system, so all seats are constituency seats now; we no longer have regional seats. So change:

::|-
::|[[2026 Senedd election|2026]]
::|TBD
::|TBD
::|{{Composition bar|0|20|hex={{party color|Reform UK}}}}
::|TBD
::|TBD
::|{{Composition bar|0|40|hex={{party color|Reform UK}}}}
::|{{Composition bar|0|60|hex={{party color|Reform UK}}}}
::|
::|}

to

::|-
::| [[2026 Senedd election|2026]]
::| colspan="3" {{n/a}}
::| 367,985
::| 29.30
::| {{Composition bar|34|96|hex={{party color|Reform UK}}}}
::| {{Composition bar|34|96|hex={{party color|Reform UK}}}}
::| +34
::|}

and it will blank out the Regional vote columns with {{n/a}} —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

References

The Political smear just before the local elections changing the party's political position to far right didn't work huh

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.

---

Good try but Reform UK will always be the Mainstream right wing most of their voterbase is also just made up of ex Conservative/Labour voters the main far right section within Reform UK has mostly gone to Restore Britain and only more will come. You could compare Reform UK to the LDP party in japan both have/had a far right section within the political party but one is only described as right-wing while the other one is described as far right ~2026-28068-41 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you’re over estimating the influence Wikipedia has. This website is well known for its left wing bias and I honestly don’t believe people are that thick or impressionable to believe whatever biased information appears on hear added by retired academics, students, activists or political party members all on the left wing of the political spectrum. But regardless.. it hasn’t worked based on the results yesterday. So let them waste their time… ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on scholarly and intellectual consensus for it's classification instead of the feelings of single individuals. ~2026-28094-12 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2026 (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.

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026 (3)

Change far-right party to right wing party. ~2026-28002-88 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done per Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?. CNC (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are the results of the elections not being added to Reform UK

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 is really ridiculous we have the full results of the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament, there is absolutely zero reason not to add these ~2026-27940-05 (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2026 (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.

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026 (4)

Reform UK is not by any reasonable definition 'far right' please amend accordingly. Perhaps the phrase 'to the right of the centre-right Conservative party' would be less controversial and more accurate. ~2026-28028-98 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done per Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?. CNC (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2026 (3)

Replace the line often known simply as Reform with also known as the Reform Party or simply Reform, per source eight, which uses the term 'Reform Party' in its subhead. Additionally, replace 'Reform Party' in the title of source eight with 'Reform UK', as the source's current heading uses the latter rather than the former. Loytra^✨ 23:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, though there has been some dispute over this phrasing in the the past so isn't uncontroversial. CNC (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Loytra^✨ 04:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Only via editing I think, but the unsourced puffery of "often known simply as" has been restored more than once, while the "Reform Party or simply Reform" I remember being included at one time also (or change between Reform and Reform Party). I wouldn't even say "also known as Reform" based on the subheading; it's only known as Reform after introducing the subject as Reform Party, so really, it's only known as Reform Party also. Unless there is sourcing that introduces the subject as Reform, maybe best to keep it simple: also known as the Reform Party. Or even with a note attached to that with Or simply Reform, if there is sourcing that support that. Thoughts? CNC (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Reform UK Wales

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.

---

Should Reform UK Wales be added to the affiliates, given REF Scotland is there?

PS: it is far-right GaryT556 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2026 (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.

The Latest Elections

Reform UK gained councils so the total councils needs updating. ~2026-28032-48 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Admin protection edit request

Add Reform UK Wales to the affiliates section of the infobox. — Knightoftheswords 14:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Support as not controversial. CNC (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026 (2)

Add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_UK_Wales in the Affiliates Oldfoxy33 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026 (5)

Add Reform UK Wales to affiliates and update Scottish and Welsh Parliament numbers MrMackers (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026 (6)

Change the Scottish Parliament and Senedd numbers to the new figures, 17 and 34 respectively. This can be verified on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2026/scotland/results and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2026/wales/results. Councillors in England (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2026/england/results) should be updated too, but at the time of submitting this request two councils are yet to have submitted results, so it may be worth holding off on changing councillors until counting is finished. ThisCatLikesCrypto (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026 (7)

Change “Councillors: 987” to “Councillors: 2,441” in the infobox and party statistics section, per the 2026 local election results. Magapetro (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Magapetro (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2026 (2)

Change number of councillors from 987 to 2354, which is the current number given by the citation. JayCLE18 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

They sure are taking their sweet time with this. Dylpickle1971 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2026 (3)

Change number of Scottish Parliament members from 0 to 17 to reflect recent election results.

Change number of Senedd members from 0 to 34 to reflect recent election results. JayCLE18 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 15:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

text talking about 2026 devolved elections as prospective to be deleted or replaced?

"The party plans to stand at the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, and expects to win significantly in the 2026 Senedd election in Wales, under the new more proportional system."

should be deleted, and probably replaced with some additional text in a later section outlining the results. Morwen (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2026

The link to Dan Barker in the Governing board section links to the 2024 manchester mayor election for some reason Oldfoxy33 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is a link to a person . Going to Manchester elections.

Instead of going to the guys page itself or not being linked at all ~2026-28329-30 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Its not clear what you want to change, do you want to remove the wikilink entirely or change the link target? If so where should the link go? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is a page for Dan barker. Than to that page

If there isn't. Than remove the link. ~2026-28329-30 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Reform NOT far-right.

Reform is not far-right.

And if this isn't changed, expect to see hundreds of talk page requests and comments about it for the years to come.

Because the party is NOT far-right and is right-wing/centre-right. ~2026-28105-16 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The info box says centre right to right wing and we base that on reliable sources not what editors think reform isnt GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to clarify that the political labels are more academic than colloquial? Quite see thI ese sorts of objections over terms. SullyK (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The radical populist right is a subset of the far-right. ~2026-28065-53 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached to label Reform as 'far-right' in the lead. If you are interested as to why, please see this thread. T ^{let's talk!} 19:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed in ample depth here, and it is described as far-right due to an ample amount of reliable sources calling it so. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 20:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Been discussed to death - the base problem is that left-leaning political academics have lumped any right wing populist party as "far right" by creating a new category of politics called "The Radical Right".

The majority of Wikipedia editors controlling this page have decided these academic views - rather than mainstream parlance, mainstream journalism and common understanding - are what matters most.

Btw, the actual page on far right politics mysteriously ignores the same academic definition, instead presenting it as extremism and fascism.

So, to conclude,left-leaning academia has conflated modern right wing political parties with historical "far-right" politics, and Wikipedia goes along with it when it suits. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Parties that adopt populist messaging both on the left on the right are branded as being right-wing/left-wing to far-right/far-left, with left-wing examples including the Workers Party of Britain and Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. This is not something that would be expected from any significant amount of bias against right-wing Populism. ~2026-28065-53 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

For the Workers Party of Britain the label “far left” is not mentioned in the opening section of the article, nor anywhere else I can find, except one mention under the political position in the infobox. ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Voice that disagreement at Talk:Workers Party of Britain. ~2026-28065-53 (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m not interested in that page just your reasoning in including that page as an example. ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

My reasoning is that I wanted to to show you that the far-right/far-left label isn't limited to right-wing Populism. ~2026-28065-53 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussed at depth per links above, indeed WP:ACADEMICBIAS is real, and it's present on WP. CNC (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It's labelled as far right due to the majority of Wikipedia editors being far left. I'm sure there's some guideline they use to come to the far right conclusion, but it's obvious it's clutching at straws. Far Right is basically Nazi Germany. To think Reform are far right like Nazi's is complete nonsense. Parties like the EDL, sure, they're far right... But Reform and their policies line up more with Centre Right to Right Wing. A Party like restore Britain would be more suitable to be Right Wing to Far Right. Then in contrast, we have a party like the Green Party who are incredibly Far Left but are only tagged as Left Wing.

From left to right, I'd put the main parties as follows:

FL = Green Party & Your Party

LW = Labour Party

C = Lib Dem

CR = Conservatives & Reform

RW = Restore Britain

FR = EDL

But then again, this is just my opinion and i'm sure theres some stretched guideline but logically, i believe this fits more accurately Thursby16 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

If far-right equals Nazi Germany, then far-left better equal Soviet Russia, right? It's beyond farcical to argue that the Greens are somehow more left-wing than Reform is right. The Greens promote taxing the rich and expanding social services. Reform advocates mass deportations of non-whites and "melting Nigerians all down to fill in the pot holes". You tell me which is the extremist party ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ Loytra^✨ 14:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

> "Reform advocates mass deportations of non-whites"

- Completely false. Reform want mass deportations of ILLEGAL MIGRANTS & foreign criminals. Not "non-whites". Unless you're alluding to all illegal migrants and foreign criminals being non-white? Source A Source B

> "melting Nigerians all down to fill in the pot holes". You tell me which is the extremist party"

- Well, okay? Pretty sure that is not a Reform Policy and was just one single councillor saying some stupid crap online (two years before becoming a councillor). In that case though, this makes the Green Party also extremist:

- Newcastle Green Party candidate, Tina Ion, posted calls for “every single Zionist” to be killed Source C Thursby16 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to remind people here that this talk page is about discussing changes to this article. It is not a general discussion forum about the rights or wrongs of political parties. Morwen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I am discussing the article. I'm aware theres likely a guideline as to why Reform UK is , for some reason, categorised as Far Right. And also somewhat contesting that since Reform UK is pretty much identical to the Conservatives. Thursby16 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The populist radical right is a subset of the far-right. ~2026-28301-87 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

While Reform backers hate this term, is not the mis-use of the union flag (to spread hate, division and fear) a reasonable indication that the party is far right? ~2026-28320-15 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, majority of Reform supporters use the Union flag to express love for their country.... not to spread hate. Contrast can be said with every left wing protest where they call everyone a nazi and to be killed. Thursby16 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM, if you have significant sourcing to justify your proposed sweeping changes, please provide it. If not, this discussion should be closed. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Bolton for Change from affiliates

Bolton for Change (BfC) changed their descriptor in 2022 removing the joint Reform ticket. Also in the 2026 Local elections no BfC candidates ran; with Reform running solely as 'Reform UK'. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bolton-local-election-results-2026-33871086 https://bolton.moderngov.co.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0 DontForgetJeff (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2026

Re-add {{Far-right politics in the United Kingdom sidebar|expanded=Active organisations}} nil ^nz 10:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This sidebar was removed as a BRD response to this recent bold addition. You'll need to follow the WP:ONUS policy and get a consensus before this can be re-added. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

defo not Oldfoxy33 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Marking the edit request as answered for the backlog since the page protection has decreased and Nil has edit access. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown In response to this, there is this edit request that you may have missed, depending on your interpretation of "active". @DeFacto you've restored the same edit twice now, which is quite obviously edit warring, I think that's probably enough for now. Given the content dispute has continued after full protection was lifted, it's baffling to continue edit warring thereafter. I agree with your assessment of ONUS/BRD, however this doesn't excuse an editor edit warring to enforce such policies. CNC (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Twice, yes, because after GlowstoneUnknown's second restore of it within a few hours, mistakenly saying: There is no active discussion about the sidebar, I assumed they would accept that rvt with no further probs given my explanation in the edit summary. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2026

reform are not a far right party ~2026-29110-87 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done see WP:REFORMRFC. CNC (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Far-right concern

I believe labeling everything as 'far-right' just causes division and misinforms people by ignoring local views. It shows a systematic bias on Wikipedia that keeps this political prejudice going. Changing the description back to 'a right-wing populist to far-right political party in the United Kingdom' works better. It gives people a sense of the actual political spectrum, instead of just slapping on a rigid label - not only that, the majority of sources go with 'right-wing' anyway. The universe is expanding in the social media age, and we need a 'two-world' system to reflect that.

To clarify myself: Revert top description to 'a right-wing populist to far-right political party in the United Kingdom'.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a Reform, by the way, I'm an ex-Labour.) ~2026-28467-08 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The current consensus and wording in the article is right wing to far right(and in the lede right wing populist) its not just far right. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The Populist Radical Right is a subset of the far-right that does not (necessaril) oppose democracy, which is something that Reform UK falls under. ~2026-28301-87 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to contradict what I said that the current wording is right wing to far right which is what you supported above(and I am slightly confused why you mentioned it.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing the description back to 'a right-wing populist to far-right political party in the United Kingdom' works better. I don't remember this moment, mainly as RWP is not a political position, so it wouldn't be "to" far-right, but inclusive of, in the search for correct grammar that is. Previously it was somewhat weasel worded as 'RWP and described as radical right / far-right', with a lack of due respect for NPOV (the false balance bit, by attributing far right but but leaving RWP in wikivoice, when the RfC was very clear regarding the outcome). CNC (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) label

Thread retitled from How is Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) labeled as only Right-wing, while Reform UK is labeled as Far-right..

TUV is essentially a Northern Irish satellite party of Reform UK so why is it only labeled as Right-wing if Reform UK are so called "Far-right" ~2026-28811-03 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources used for TUV's ideological classification only refer to it as being right-wing while Reform UK's sources refer to it as being right-wing to far-right. ~2026-29226-71 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

so source bias ~2026-28811-03 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If your concerns are with the sources then you have to take it up with them. ~2026-29053-98 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Far-right

One Nation has the exact same agenda as Reform UK, yet hasn't got far-right in its lead. Putting far-right in Reform's lead is dangerous and Reform is slightly more moderate than One Nation, yet has the far-right label in its lead.

I appreciate there's been a consensus, but that doesn't mean far-right should stay there or will stay there. ~2026-29316-51 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It comes down to Wiki having a bias to "academic" sources, which themselves have their own bias towards the left of the political spectrum, as well as crafting the term 'far-right' into a catch all umbrella term by which old style right wing parties can be categorised as 'far-right' (fiddling goalposts) by some academics anyway. The commonname term obviously no being applied by the general public outside of left ideologues. Halbared (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Well what you’ve described is exactly the truth..Wikipedia isn’t exactly infamous for its right wing bias is it? As exemplified by this page and the “far right” label, which if those advocating its inclusion be honest is being used as a smear. ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Linke

Like they call the Left in germany left wing populism (not far left) even tho its a common understanding across political community that they are far left. Even the BBC says it is

But they call reform Far right? just because a handful of political scientists say they are right wing populists and somehow

right wing populists = far right

Left wing populists = not far left

its clear bias Oldfoxy33 (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not "a bunch", but it's the academic consensus, as you perfectly know, and "right-wing populist" is an ideology, not a political position (there are even centrist populist parties, as there are center-left and center-right populist parties), so your equations don't make any sense.

In an ideal world we'd classify Linke as radical left and Reform as radical right, reflecting the academic consensus on the matter. The problem is that we still have a very messy article on the radical right, that throws different meanings given by different political scientists together, and we don't even have an article on the radical left (I'm planning to write it in the future), so we're still bound to use either "right" or "far-right" and "left" or "far-left" without any room for nuance.

BTW even if, as I said above, I favour symmetrical solutions, we have to take into account that the broader category that puts together extreme and radical parties is called "far-right" on the right and "radical left" on the left (yes, the same term has two different meanings, I agree, very confusing), and therefore there are far more sources that label Reform as "far-right" than sources labelling Linke as "far-left". --Friniate ✉ 10:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Friniate, when you say "it's the academic consensus", is it described as "the academic consensus" in reliable sources cited in the article, or is that the opinion of Wiki editors based on the sources they've seen? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

On the Linke I haven't done a specific research, so it's a guess based on a source review that I'm finishing on La France Insoumise (a lot of the sources describing the radical left family included both parties, although Die Linke is probably a bit more moderate).

On Reform it's based on Tim Bale's opinion (In 2025 Bale stated that "most political scientists" would say that Reform is a far-right party, "if you accept that as the umbrella term and then say they're populist radical right") that I've already added in the article and on the source review that I've done with other users in January. --Friniate ✉ 20:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually our One Nation article does call it far right in the lead. Anyway, the passage on Reform in this article is quite good.

Tim Bale, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said that because it is an umbrella term that is also a “loaded, weaponised term”, it’s bound to “cause confusion and controversy in equal measure”… Bale said not articulating which strain of far-right views a party espouses can also lead to confusion. He used the example of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, founded in 2019, which is expected to mount a serious challenge to Labour in the next UK general election after it made sweeping gains in May’s local elections. Bale explained that their objection to media organisations using “far right” to describe them was, in some ways, understandable, because they know it is a label that might put off more moderate voters. Reform UK has challenged the media for describing it as “far right”. He added that, in the sense academics use the term, it is accurate to call the party “far right”, but the problem is that the term encompasses both strains - extreme right and populist radical right. “Reform UK is definitely in the latter camp, but worries about being lumped in with the former if they’re labelled far right by journalists - and of course by their opponents, who are well aware that labelling them as such helps toxify them,” he said. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, my own fault for encouraging.

PRR fall under the far-right label due to their conspiratorial Ethno-Nationalism that's not found in mainstream right-wing parties. ~2026-29053-98 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are you responding to me? What is PRR? Halbared (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to address your claim that the "far-right" label was due to bias, when it's simply how Populist Radical Right (PPR) parties operate. ~2026-29053-98 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

What "conspiratorial Ethno-Nationalism" is in Reform? Halbared (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

As is typical of PRR parties it brands self as representing the "real people" against a "Cosmopolitan/Globalist/Foreign elite", which are typical PRR and far-right dog whistles. ~2026-29053-98 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Your claims are vague, quote the manifesto or official statements that are "conspiratorial Ethno-Nationalism." Halbared (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

From their "policies" page:

"This is a country that built global trade, pioneered industry, defended freedom, and shaped the modern world. Yet for years, the British people have been failed by political leaders who put ideology, bureaucracy, and international institutions ahead of their own citizens."

Note the vague usage of "ideology", "bureaucracy" and "international institutions". Their strategy is to let potential voters fill in the blanks for what these things actually are in order to achieve plausible deniability. ~2026-29053-98 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Request is to show evidence, and then you create your own fantasy to suit what you wish to see. Ta, kidder. Halbared (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You did not recognize the things that I just said, meaning that I can't help you any further. ~2026-29053-98 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2026

Change wording of far-right, as this party’s policies are within common conservative dialogue. ~2026-30377-44 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Cannolis (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2026

Shouldn't the opener say "right-wing populist TO far-right",not "right-wing populist AND far-right"? That's how parties like Restore are described. AxioChrono (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Since "right-wing populist" is a specific ideology and not just a position on the left/right political spectrum, I think the use of "and" is more appropriate and grammatically correct here. Conversely, Restore Britain is described as "right-wing to far right" (without the "populist" qualifier). Day Creature (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"Reform"

The usage of Reform is under discussion, see Talk:Reform (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 May 2026. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article should be disputed

Since last month this article has become very unneutral ~2026-31739-17 (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-31739-17, can you be more specific please? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Biased introduction

Sounds more like a left-wing smear attempt by using terminologies such as "far-right" and "right-wing populists". Are the Greens being labelled "left-wing populist" and "far-left"? ~2026-31909-57 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-31909-57, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, what happens in other articles is irrelevant here, but the article introduction here should summarise the article body. Do you think it does that adequately and that the article body is also biased, or do you think it's just the intro that's the problem and the body is okay? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Footnote in the lead

@Helper201: keeps removing the footnote I added to the lead which clarified that Reform UK is classified as part of the Radical right (Europe) within the far right. . All of the justifications as far as I can tell used by Helper201 for the removal are completely false. There is no evidence for the claim that The vast majority of sources regarding [classifying Reform UK as] far-right say simply that [and not radical right]" and the "radical right" descriptor is used by many sources in the body and in academic literature, contrary to Helper201's claim that This descriptor [of radical right] is used by a single source. The claim that the page for radical right doesn't even say it’s a "moderate subset of the far right is also misleading, the Wikipedia article calls Reform UK successively radical right and one of the moderate European far right parties. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What purpose does the footnote serve? The lede is a summary of the body. Reform UK is a far-right party. If an editor wishes to add that they are a "moderate far-right" party, then there's a whole section dedicated to that: Reform UK#Ideology and platform. I'm opposed to the footnote, but I support adding the information from the footnote to the section I linked above. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I see, you are correct in everything you have stated. o keep neutrality an explanation of the umbrella term is required. Halbared (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Why though, for neutrality sake? For neo-Nazi parties we don't use notes saying "Not 1940s Nazis that killed 6 million Jews, but post-war Nazism, which is a different from them". We just put neo-Nazi and leave it at that; for those who want to know more, as TurboSuperA+ says, can read more. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

As a supporter of the "radical right" label, I thought that putting it at least in a footnote was a good first step towards a better accuracy of the description. --Friniate ✉ 12:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the logic, only per MOS:OPEN, we should do so without being too specific. There is enough content in this article and at Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (which is linked) to elaborate on this. If the issue is it should say radical right rather than far-right, then to me that's a separate discussion. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you've a point. Simply, since these are all IMHO temporary solutions, I viewed the note as the less evil. --Friniate ✉ 16:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the "far right" is a broad umbrella term that includes both pro-democracy political parties and violent extremists? I am happy to remove "moderate subset of the far right", but I support having a footnote clarifying they are radical right somewhere in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism is also pretty broad encompassing both partial and full idealisation of Nazism (pretty vague that), as well as including both pro-state and anti-state ideals. That sub-categorisation is not so dissimilar from far-right encompassing both pro-democracy and anti-democracy imo. But I digress. I'm not opposed to a simple note "as part of the radical right", I thought this was what it initially said to be honest, but became expanded maybe? I guess that was the issue if so, by starting off as a simple note that and turned into more of an unnecessary elaboration. Ideally the MOS:FIRST would instead just say Reform UK is a right-wing populist and far-right political party in the United Kingdom, as part of the European radical right. Or something to that effect with no note needed and due context included. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have several concerns with and comments for that:

1) We had an RFC and community's consensus was assessed to be for including the label in the lede. The opponents of the proposal spent their time trying to discredit academics and questioning reliability of sources (spawning two RSN threads). Nobody suggested a footnote. I am concerned that footnotes are going to become a way to bypass consensus.

2) "Moderate subset of the far-right" Do we have RS to support that? We also have many academics calling them "radical right". Radical doesn't sound very moderate to me. If we go with a footnote, then we have to decide what the footnote should say, and judging by the sources, it should be "radical right".

3) In MOS:NOTES the first reason to use a footnote: Explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article. This information is not too detailed or awkward to be in the body, because there is already a section in the body that deals with their politics and what they are exactly, Reform UK#Ideology and platform.

4) We arrived at a consensus after a painstaking analysis of (nearly) every available source out there, it was quite extensive: Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#Source review tables. One cannopt simply ignore the sources and just describe Reform UK as "moderate far-right" based on... what exactly? And speaking of sources, the New York Times just published an article 2 hours ago calling Reform UK "far-right". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not even cited on the Radical right (Europe) that it is a "moderate subsection of the far-right", as was claimed in the note. Plus, the claim was supported by a single source, making it WP:UNDUE. Helper201 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's (although implicitly) said in the sentence Since the 2020s, scholars have described radical right as belonging to a subset of far-right politics, distinguished from the extreme right. But I agree, that article needs to be rewritten distinguishing better between different concepts that right now are confusingly intermingled. --Friniate ✉ 12:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty clear over at Far-right politics in the United Kingdom#Terminology, European radical right is pretty broad, UK far-right politics is the narrower scope here. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

But, per WP:RSPWP, Wikipedia isn't considered to be a reliable source, and, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, what other articles say is irrelevant here. As we cannot rely on other articles, we need everything in this article to be stand-alone, and comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing an edit to mainspace, I was providing information. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The term "neoliberal populist" is unclear and unnecessary

At the start of the "ideology" section, various terms are applied to Reform UK with "neoliberal populist" being one of these. The source cited doesn't directly refer to Reform by this term, in fact it calls it "the Brexit Party" and cites its own source referring to "neoliberal populists" which itself does not mention Reform. What is the actual justification behind using the term? Jam006 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If anything this is probably a bit outdated now given it's referring to the Brexit Party. Technically they're the same party, but they're obviously a bit different now compared to back then. — Czello ^(music) 12:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2026

Change "right wing to far right" to "right wing" under ideology ~2026-33036-02 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.

Discussed ad nauseam already on this talk page. Only reopen your request if, and only after, the consensus changes. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Reform

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 article is erroneous/inaccurate and misleading. Reform UK is not "far right" as described it is just a patriotic right wing party like the Conservatives used to be. I shant be making a donation if the article is not corrected. ~2026-33392-32 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2026 (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.

Far Right

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.

---

What is the basis for “far-right” labelling of Reform? Given BBC had to apologise to Reform for referring to it as “far right” in 2024 (numerous sources). ~2026-33315-80 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

A consensus was reached a while ago, but should probably be reviewed. They’re definitely not “far-right”. KittyKinkle02 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Sources describe it as being right-wing to far-right.

2. It follows consistent labeling of right-wing Populist parties. ~2026-33494-22 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Which politically unbiased & contemporaneous sources do list them as "far-right"? I only see them called that on Wikipedia and by left-wing journalists.
2. Simply listing all "right-wing populism" as "far right" seems wrong. Can you show me where consensus was reached for this?

KittyKinkle02 (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

See the frequently asked questions section of this article. ~2026-33494-22 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2026 (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.

Timeline

Timeline in the Leadership section is broken DontForgetJeff (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Elaborate. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 16:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For me it shows "Timeline error. Could not store output files" DontForgetJeff (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see it now. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 12:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Too many references

We don't need so many references in the ideology section, there are literally three references per sentence. ~2026-35565-70 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)