Talk:Turning Point UK

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2025

"The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right." -> Please remove from the introduction.

It is unnecessary in the introduction and implies manipulative attempt at presenting the movement unfavorably/leave a negative impression. There should be a separate section titled "Criticism". In a Wikipedia introduction, the goal is to provide a neutral summary of the topic, with balance and due weight. The introduction should summarize what the reliable sources say, but without editorializing or pushing a negative framing. 89.168.172.145 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The content you mention is based on reliable scholarship. Neutrality on Wikipedia is about representing the sources in a neutral way. It's not about avoiding mention of material in reliable sources which may be perceived as "negative". Cambial — foliar❧ 22:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The title itself disputes the current wording, and this is clearly a contentious paragraph. Better I think to agree here on content before reinstating it. Conan The Librarian (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Similar rhetoric and demographic to Generation Identity

The status quo lead has included a sentence about the close similarity of the subject's views to Generation Identity since 2022. The wording of the sentence has remained essentially unchanged since September 2023. It reads "The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right." Pinging those who have added, removed or edited this content in the lead to gain wider community input about whether it should remain on the page. @ApatheticName: @RoverTheBendInSussex: @Renamed user 707a17c4f3282d139544e984d63f61a5: @Slatersteven: @Sideswipe9th: @Discospinster: @Bobfrombrockley: @Czello: @ChopinAficionado: @Cyrobyte: @PompeyTheGreat: @Doug Weller: @45dogs: @Zenomonoz: Cambial — foliar❧ 17:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Something like that belongs to be somewhere in the article. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s fine in body, but first paragraph of the lead is a little random? Zenomonoz (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

What Zenomonoz said. It's useful analysis from an expert, but it definitely shouldn't be at the start of the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of our article, so no, not in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That text implies a far right leaning while the article itself acknowledges that is not clearly the case. I propose ensuring the title of the article is respected in the summary, so "The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right while recognizing the organization does not easily fit that categorisation.", but perhaps more succinct. Either way it doesn't belong in the lead. Conan The Librarian (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• This status-quo sentence should be kept in the lead as a summary description of the political views of this group, and broadly consistent with other scholarship. See for instance L. Fekete, "The hurricane from the Right," Race & Class, 2024;65(3):92-103 — "...promoted as guest speakers at events organised by Turning Point UK, an offshoot of Turning Point USA... The role of these media personalities is not just to attract attendees, but to amplify far-right narratives...". If we remove this description from the lead, we consider its ideological affinities with racism and far-right politics to be of lesser importance. This is an argument frequently made by the European far-right itself, but as editors we are under no obligation to accept this viewpoint. -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial yellowing:: Please stop restoring this to the lead ~2026-53069-34 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

IP, the status quo includes it in the lead. As Darouet points out, this summarises the political views of the group as understood and published by subject-matter experts. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

4 users stated it should not be in the lead. Another user said it should be "somewhere" in the article, but didn't say it should be in the lead. 1 user doesn't override 5 others ~2026-53069-34 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Plus the WP:ONUS is actually on those seeking to include disputed content ~2026-53069-34 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

No, two editors say it should not be in the lead. Other editors suggested it not be in the first para. Two editors say it should be in the lead first paragraph. The consensus you claim does not exist. It's appropriate to characterise racist fringe groups as they are described by scholars in the topic. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there at all. In the same article we say "The scholar Chris Allen, of the Centre for Hate Studies at Leicester University, has written that while the group is linked to Turning Point USA, which Allen notes has been linked to the far-right, the UK group does not fit traditional conceptions of the far-right." So no, we should absolutely not pick one nugget of one guy's 2019 analysis that sounds especially negative and put that in the lede ~2026-53069-34 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

"King's Army"

This group, which demonstrated in Soho yesterday, seems to have been promoted by Turning Point UK. Also relevant to the political uniform article? — The Anome (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"Far right links"

@Bobfrombrockley You've added a significant title phrase which justification seems to be sourced from a left wing (?) "research" pdf (HnH are quoting directly from the activist group that produced it I think) that bases its claim on alleged WhatsApp profile pics of a couple of supposed TPUK members. This seems rather tenuous as grounds for tarring the whole organisation. Could you please revisit the underlying report and clarify here the reasoning for such a significant title and content addition. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s my strong view HnH are a reliable source but I don’t object if you want to change the sub-section title to something descriptive of the contents that you think is more neutral. However:

• HnH is widely used by RSs as a go-to source on this topic. Eg Big Issue, Guardian, the Antisemitism Policy Trust,, the Independent (which mentions TP’s “far right connections”). Red Flare is less widely used, eg by Novara, Red Pepper, and Middle East Eye.
• Others describe TPUK itself as far right. Eg Guardian “[Firebomber Andrew Leak] pictured himself online wearing a union jack face mask, and frequently shared posts – including conspiracy theories – from Robinson and several far-right groups, including New World Order, the Traditional Britain Group and Turning Point UK.”; WonkHE “ the splintered far-right has not found a single charismatic leader that appeals to students. Right wing groups like Turning Point UK that are aimed at younger people use modern media platforms but their political platform is pretty indistinguishable from any other right-wing group.” The UK Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption described their Drag queen protests as “Far Right” and noted the presence of members of Britain First, DFLA and Blood and Honour..
• Manchester Evening News just says “right wing” - but describes the COO doing a nazi salute.

We can edit in some of this content to assuage your concerns. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. My main concern here was that the referenced content seems to be lifted by HnH without attempt at review from the underlying third party pdf. We wouldn't see the latter as suitable but that's where the actual text quoted is coming from (I think, I'll have to revisit when I have access to it again). If there are other reputable sources for those "far right" or other claims I think they would be better as references, as it's a serious categorisation. Conan The Librarian (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I have attributed. Would be good to add in other of these sources too and intend to do so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)