Talk:Reform UK

RfC: Primary political descriptor for Reform UK in lead and infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

LLM generated RfC that recapitulates this RFC from February without any new information or any sources. This close does not prejudice editors in good standing opening a non LLM generated RfC in the subject, although RFC workshopping is advised.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the primary classification for Reform UK in the lead sentence and infobox be changed from "far-right" to "right-wing to right-wing populist", while retaining discussion of the "far-right" label in the article body?

• Option A: Change lead/infobox descriptor to "right-wing to right-wing populist" and cover "far-right" characterizations in the body text.
• Option B: Maintain current lead/infobox phrasing ("right-wing to far-right").

Johnsmith2354 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While a previous RfC established inclusion of the term, recent coverage and political science classifications warrant re-evaluating weight under WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Major international wire services, public broadcasters, and academic political scientists primarily classify Reform UK as "right-wing populist" or "radical right," while "far-right" remains a contested characterization rather than a universally applied descriptive standard. Applying "far-right" in the infobox and voice of Wikipedia conflicts with NPOV guidelines on disputed descriptors. Moving the detailed debate regarding terminology into the body text provides a more accurate, neutral reflection of broad secondary sources. Johnsmith2354 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

wp:Snow close bring something new, nothing has changed since last rfc "far-right"_be_added_as_a_descriptor_for_Reform_UK?-20260111010500 . Otherwise this is WP:DE User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

On second thought this should just be closed as ai generated. Seems very likely it was. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh man. Are ai generated RfC's a thing now? NickCT (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What are the sources for the political scientists please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not a candidate for WP:SNOW. The purpose of this RfC is to evaluate evolving weight under WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT based on developments in mainstream reporting standards and political science literature.

For instance, major national broadcasters like the BBC officially acknowledged that referring to Reform UK as "far-right" fell short of editorial standards and issued a public apology for doing so (The Guardian). Additionally, mainstream academic political science literature (e.g., studies by Matt Goodwin/Legatum Institute and leading UK academic analyses) standardly classifies the party as "populist radical right" or "right-wing populist" rather than "far-right".

Because the party's descriptor remains actively disputed across major reliable sources, opening a formal community discussion to determine proper weight in the infobox versus the body text is standard process. Johnsmith2354 (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• WP:BADRFC/Maintain status quo: We've only just had an RFC on this which found consensus for inclusion for far-right in both the lead and the infobox. This is disruptive relitigation when nothing has substantively changed since the last RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, I propose a moratorium on discussion of the political position/ideology of Reform UK for 12 months given the constant disruptive religation of the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• WP:BADRFC-close and moratorium on new discussion, no new information has come to light, this RfC was composed by an LLM, and RfC consensus was recently reached in the last few months. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:00, 21 July 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 page is contradicting itself

The political stance on the side bar is "Right-wing to far-right" Whilst the first sentence is "Reform UK, also known as the Reform Party, is a right-wing populist and far-right political party"

which is it? right wing to far right or far right Oldfoxy33 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes summarize article content. If there's a contradiction between the body and the infobox, the infobox should be changed to match the body. I will do that momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as right wing to far right for two reasons

- all political parties have far left - left - centre left - centre - centre right - right - far right in that area of the article, if there is one. labels like right wing populist should be located elsewhere

- consensus is that the party is right to far right per previous discussion. restore britain is labelled far right and acts as an anchor to the more moderate reform uk Kanagawastation (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Technically all my edit did was add the word "populist" and change "or" to "and" to match the February consensus. But, honestly, my position on infoboxes is that they are a blight upon Wikipedia that we should stop using so I'm not going to get hung up on one diverging from article text if it becomes a sticking point. What I will not brook is changing the article text away from the February consensus to match the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

i completely agree with your intentions. however infoboxes are essentially precedent even if they do have their problems. external consistency is imperative when it comes to this matter. i agree we need to keep the consensus of right wing to far right though. this is simply my position though Kanagawastation (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

We have a strong established consensus on "right wing populist and far right" in the article text. If the infobox says "right wing to far right" that must not override the article text. I don't care if the infobox says that. I do care if editors suggest the infobox text should be imported back into article text. Just being clear. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay because lowk i thought you were talking about the infobox since that was just changed to right wing populist to far right. i support the consesus for the lead Kanagawastation (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• The far-right is a subset of the right wing, so they don't contradict. The most in-depth sources, as I recall, call it far-right or analogous terms. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Grunty89, please see this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

If the infobox is going to say "Right-wing to far-right" then the lead should be consistent with this and say the same. To just state one over the other (i.e. solely right-wing or solely far-right) in the lead is both inconsistent with the infobox and unbalanced. Helper201 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

In my view, there is no contradiction. The infobox states that its political position is right-wing to far-right, that is, contains both right-wing (as opposed to centre-right) and far-right tendencies. This is to indicate the breadth of tendencies in the party. A party that contains both right-wing and far-right tendencies nevertheless is also both right-wing and far-right. It is therefore valid in the lead to describe it as both right-wing and far-right. Describing it in the lead as 'right-wing to far-right' would be an odd construction. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Categorising Reform UK as far-right

This is an inaccurate description of this populist party and should be moderate to a more accurate centre-right party.

If this categorization is to continue Wikipedia should moderate the description of the this governments Labour Party as "far-left"

By dictionary definition, not Wikipedia concensus this is more accurate. Leonardo6767 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Leonardo6767, please see the frequently asked questions banner at the top of this page for some background on discussions concerning this topic. TarnishedPath^talk 06:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Classifying Reform as Far Right!

Change: Reform is a far right populist party To: Reform UK, also known as the Reform Party or simply Reform, is a centre right political party in the United Kingdom. It has eight members of Parliament in the House of Commons, two members of the London Assembly, thirty-three members of the Senedd, seventeen members of the Scottish Parliament, two police and crime commissioners, and controls twenty-six local councils. It is to the right of the Conservative Party. Nigel Farage has been leader of Reform UK since June 2024. Garyclifford01 (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Also see the #FAQ and extensive conversations on this previously. — Czello ^(music) 09:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Reform UK

The Reform UK political party is not a far right wing party. This terminology is grossly incorrect and extremely misleading and needs to be removed in the dscription of the party. ~2026-53590-06 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

See the pre-existing discussion above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)