Talk:Reform UK
Talk:Reform UK
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reform UK article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Q1: Why does the article describe Reform as "right-wing to far-right"?
A1: A six-week discussion was held in January 2026 to assess how reliable sources tended to describe the Reform Party. It concluded that there were "ample grounds to include the term "far-right" in the lead and infobox alongside existing terminology". |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
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 [1] 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
|
|
| 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)
- 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)
- What are the sources for the political scientists please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
|
|
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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.
RFC: political position parameter in the infobox
OP extensively used LLMs, which are against the rules and accordingly been blocked. like the close above, this does not prejudice any RFC from being opened in good faith. (non-admin closure) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Should the position parameter in the infobox be changed from Right-wing to far-right to Right-wing populist or Right-wing to right-wing populist while keeping the breakdown of these varying characterisations, like far right, in the article body? Proposed Options:
Well, the current infobox descriptor was established during a previous RFC based on the balance of sources available at that time, since then significant shifts in academic & editorial discourse by major public service broadcasters so there needs to be a review of this label so it complies with WP:NPOV & WP:WEIGHT. The label "far-right" is still a heavily contested & pejorative label, several major institutions clarifying their terminology, as of WP:LABEL wiki should avoid value laden descriptors in voice unless theres a near universal consensus among reliable secondary sources, due to the academic & journalistic landscape being divided between "populist radical right" & "far-right", using "far-right" in the definitive text of the infobox violates neutrality rules. Major national & international broadcasters have moved away from using "far-right" as a descriptor for the party, like how the BBC corrected its reporting & issued an apology after incorrectly labelling Reform UK as "far-right" stating the description fell short of its editorial guidelines on neutrality, mainstream UK & international outlets routinely use "right-wing populist" or "populist right" as their descriptive anchor to maintain journalistic neutrality. Political science literature increasingly classifies the party under the distinct terminology of "populist radical right" instead of "far right". Analysis from the London School of Economics says that its an academic error to conflate Reform UK with the far right, as the party operates entirely within democratic frameworks & it's core platform focuses on populism & nativism rather than anti-democratic extremism. Peer-reviewed studies like the International Barcelona Institute for International Studies & Bristol University Press categorise Reform UK as a definitive case of a Populist Radical Right party rather than an extreme far right entity. As of WP:NPOV & WP:BIASED reliable sources are allowed to have bias but wiki must stay completely neutral. When major institutions disagree on a label the infobox must reflect the broad non-contentious common denominator (Right-wing/ Right-wing populist) rather than using the most extreme label as an absolute fact, infoboxes are made for clear, undisputed data so complex political spectrum disputes should be detailed in the article body instead of compressing it into definitive contested labels in the infobox. Thanks. Magapetro (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC) I STRONGLY object this collapse. The accusation of it being llm are baseless & sources being fake is a violation of WP:TALK, im a real neutral editor, you can check the hundreds of contributions I've made. Literally all of the links provided are real, the Mas Poder Local is a real, peer-reviewed political science journal publishing a June 2026 academic study analysing Reform UK's campaign as a Populist Radical Right party, clicking it literally downloads the legitimate research PDF. The IBEI reference is the Barcelona Institute of International Studies, an established research centre, using inaccurate third party ai detectors to make personal accusations & unilaterally shut down a policy discussion when another editor @Finfixer: has already engaged & opposed the status quo is disruptive. I've tweaked the IBEI text's formatting to avoid any further confusion and I ask that the editor who collapsed this Sirfurboy🏄 or an admin, uncollapse it immediately so the community can evaluate the actual WP:NPOV & WP:LABEL arguments on their merits. Thanks Magapetro (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
So the discussion is completely balanced and addresses all viewpoints I expanded the options to include both points raised by @Finfixer: and @GlowstoneUnknown:, the new structure also allows the community to comprehensively vote on the exact weight of the sources. Thanks Magapetro (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||
Why is reform uk labelled far right but the greens aren’t labelled far left 🤔
| WP:DENY Athanelar (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Fishy ~2026-41624-23 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
|
Request edit on 3 August 2026
 | The user below has a request that an edit be made to Reform UK. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 609 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. |
- What I think should be changed:
- Why it should be changed:
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
On 17 February 2026, Nigel Farage announced the creation of his Reform UK frontbench team.[159][160] In the May 2026 local elections, Reform UK won over 1,400 seats (out of 4754). In the Scottish Parliament election, Reform won 17 MSPs (out of 173), and in the Welsh Senedd election, they won 34 MSs (out of 129).[161]
Surely the correct numbers ought be 129 and 96 referring to the size of the Scottish Parliament and Senedd not 173 and 129??
DefiantTackle (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
References
RfC workshop on the contents of the political position parameter
The previous RfC was closed without conclusion due to the openers use of LLM's, which in the absence of objections by users in good standing allowed speedy close. However, the old RfC was closed without prejudice for an RfC. The old RfC was unable to in any case to capture the range of possibilities and was hindered by the LLM discussion. It was @Sirfurboy who proposed that any RfC to be opened on the matter be preceded by workshopping. I am inclined to agree.
Workshop procedure
I think the best way to discuss is to split your answers to sets of designated paragraphs on all questions. If you make additional proposals, please mark them clearly so they can be discussed under.
I am proposing this workshop to run for at least 7 days and no more than 14 with an end when no discussion has taken place for a day provided 7 days have gone by. It should be closed with a closing tag to discourage further discussion, which could disrupt a possible RfC. The closer should start the connected RfC without undue delay, if an RfC was agreed on.
Workshop
So the question before us is about the contents of the infobox parameter "Political position". We should decide if an RfC is the right call right now. If it is, we should establish some form of agreement for what options should be in the RfC and how discussion should be focused. That is the purpose of this workshop.
The questions are;
1) Should we have an RfC?
If yes;
2) Should we or should we not include the option of ranges other than the status quo? If the answer is "No", the RfC will propably have narrower discussion (right vs far right vs status quo) and thus easier closing with a clearer consensus, but less opportunity for fresh compromise.
3) Should the RfC have an option to leave the parameter empty or should discussion of such a novel solution be on a project level?
4) Should there be a secondary question on whether a moratorium should follow, and if so, for how long should the RfC suggest it for?
5) What should the component positions be in light of the sources? Do we only do right wing and far right, or do we aknowledge that major sources have described the party as a radical right subset of far right giving us the option of "radical right". If we go for including it we will have a 4-5 option poll without ranges and 7-8 option poll with ranges.
The workshop may also decide other things as they come up.
Finfixer (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- The proposed alternative to ranges in the previous discussions were multiple labels separated by a slash (so "right-wing/far right" instead of "right to far-right"). This would still allow us to reflect differences among sources and at the same time it addresses the issues that some users have expressed against ranges, arguing that it's SYNTH to write "right to far-right" if you have one source using right-wing, another one using far-right, but no source saying "right to far-right".
- On a general basis, I'm obviously in favour of including "radical right" among the options, but I fear that many users would object using it until the article Radical right (Europe) won't be fixed to reflect the fact that most scholars now use this label with a different meaning than "far-right" (it's considered a subset of far-right rather than a synonym as it was until the 1990's). --Friniate ✉ 12:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- If the quality of a Wikipedia article is so low that it negatively impacts the ability of other Wikipedia articles to display vital information, then that is an issue. While low quality isn't usually justification for deletion I would certainly consider draftifying that article under WP:NORULES. That's a high bar for me because I prefer leading rule interpretation with text (textualism), intent, and original meaning (originalism). But I think an article that prevents developing other articles in a project wide manner due to pure outdated nature shouldn't stand. A political position article is important for the project, not an afterthought.
- I might look into the article and consider an AfD on it if it is really that bad right now. Finfixer (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Finfixer It's not so bad IMHO, only outdated, but the material that is now present can be saved IMHO. Having no article would be even worse... --Friniate ✉ 21:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't believe we should have an RfC, no new sources have come to light regarding the party's political position, so there's no justification for changing the description. The argument that a range is unsuitable given the wording in the sources doesn't compel me, firstly due to MOS:STYLEVAR, this is common practice amongst every article on Wikipedia where sources use one of two labels to denote a position on the political spectrum, and secondly because there's a much simpler solution in just changing the wording in the body, indicating that the range refers to the range of sources, not that any one source describes it as a range (i.e.
[...] the party has been described as anywhere from right-wing to far-right [...]
, or something to that effect). - If there is to be an RfC held, I believe that these options should be discussed: Status Quo, Right-wing only[a], and Far-right only[b]. I don't think removing the label is worth discussing, per MOS:STYLEVAR again, as the only time articles tend to deliberately exclude a position parameter from the infobox is when there is insufficient sourcing supporting any label (not sufficient sourcing supporting multiple labels).
- I assert that if an RfC is deemed necessary following this discussion, that a ≥6 month moratorium should be intrinsically linked to the discussion, no matter the outcome. If there's no enforced moratorium following the opening of an RfC, that leaves the door open for repetitive and disruptive RfCs to be opened with little to no justification.
- I don't understand question 5, the wording is confusing, so I'll say this. Given the academic consensus that radical right is a subset of far-right, then assuming any sources use the former term and don't have an explicit definition within them (e.g. in a glossary) that excludes it from the definition of far-right, they should be considered to support the label of far-right for the party. I am currently content with the wording in the body, where radical right and far-right are listed separately, as that allows for more nuance in differentiating the specificity of each of the sources' descriptions, however, in previous RfCs, I've seen editors make claims that the radical right sources are suitable rebuttals for the far-right sources, or otherwise support solely right-wing instead, and I find it irritating.
- I still think that the status quo is the most suitable compromise, but if an RfC is decided to be held, the question should be neutral and unambiguous, avoid breaking MOS:STYLEVAR, and avoid overcomplicated lists of options that may derail discussion.
- – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The RfC is limiting itself to the infobox parameter. If we all found agreement on that without an RfC, it probably would not be needed, and we could just enact the workshop consensus. If we are not in agreement then it is a different question to the previous one, as long as the RfC is tightly drawn. The page, per previous RfC, describes Reform as "a right-wing populist and far-right political party." We are not revisiting that, so we accept that consensus. An infobox is meant to summarise and not supplant the main text per WP:INFOBOX. Therefore the only legitimate summaries, in my view are to describe Reform UK as:
- Right wing to far-right (Status quo);
- Right wing / far-right (Status quo with minor revision);
- Right wing populist and far-right (not a summary but a restatement of the lead); or
- Leave it out
- Note that "right wing" only and "far-right" only both subvert prior consensus and cannot be used. Although you could argue that right-wing is an umbrella term that includes far-right (the same argument that was made about radical-right), we cannot use that argument on this RfC, because this RfC is all about how to summarise the existing consensus which is to list both.
- I am now going to advocate for just leaving it out. Option 1 is arguably not a summary of the lead, and people object to the "to". Option 2 and 3 are both cumbersome, and don't pin this down. Moreover, we have a second parameter showing just below it, which is ideology. Why do we need a political position at all, if we are summarising the ideology? What does it tell the reader that the ideology parameter does not tell them? How is it useful to repeat information in the first sentence, if the information need is met by the ideology parameter? Just take it out. I think what I would like to hear is a good reason why it is necessary to have a political position parameter at all. If there is such a good reason, the reason itself may guide us as to what goes in it.One final note on procedure here. I think any attempt to open an RfC by any editor before this workshop concludes must be considered as disruptive of the workshop and closed. I say this, not because I think anyone here will do that, but because I've seen it happen before that editors just stroll in and decide to go ahead (as the two LLM RfCs above did) without taking note of the discussion. That is, we have a short consensual moratorium on opening the RfC until we conclude this discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I was just drafting something similar myself (albeit not so eloquently) questioning the need to include this parameter at all. Hence I fully support @Sirfurboys position on this, and support dropping the parameter altogether. IMHO it adds nothing of value to the infobox or the article and is nothing more than a constant source of disagreement and disruption. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The RfC is limiting itself to the infobox parameter. If we all found agreement on that without an RfC, it probably would not be needed, and we could just enact the workshop consensus. If we are not in agreement then it is a different question to the previous one, as long as the RfC is tightly drawn. The page, per previous RfC, describes Reform as "a right-wing populist and far-right political party." We are not revisiting that, so we accept that consensus. An infobox is meant to summarise and not supplant the main text per WP:INFOBOX. Therefore the only legitimate summaries, in my view are to describe Reform UK as:
Moratorium proposal
As far as I can tell there as been at least two full RFCs on this in the last 10 months (someone correct me if I'm incorrect) and numerous other attempts at relitigating this. I'm going to formally propose a moratorium on discussing this. I propose a moratorium of six months to stop this disruption. TarnishedPathtalk 13:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support, the constant rehashing of this discussion for no good reason is getting tiring. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
No oppose and comment, I can certainly agree that this particular page has assessed this question on multiple occasions. While I would be interested in another RfC limited on the infobox question with no bearing on the article body, I made this workshop with question 1 (Should we have an RfC) for a reason. It's not obvious another RfC is needed and the status quo is quite adequate. As a comment I would however suggest a moratorium of 3 months with the option of local consensus extention up to three times (a total of 12 months) theough short few day discussions (instead of 7 to 14 day), though I am not opposed to a flat out 6 month moratorium either.Finfixer (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Striking this per Sirfurboy, whose comment invited me to reconsider the impacts of disruptive RfC attempts and the importance the nuanced difference at play. New stance is oppose , though with support for a moratorium of 3 months IF no RfC is created by the workshop. Finfixer (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - No, there have been no RfCs on the matter being discussed in the workshop. There were two disruptive LLM generated attempts at RfCs and both have been closed without prejudice owing to the disruption. We don't let disruptive editing prevent productive discussion. Attempts to prevent discussion on a collaborative project are also disruptive. To be clear, starting this proposal right in the middle of the RfC workshop is deeply unhelpful. The only moratorium I am prepared to support is a moratorium on moratoria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Talk:Reform UK/Archive 3#RFC: right-wing to far right and Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? both discussed the political position. Both have been closed within the last 14 months. There have been numerous other discussions about political positions, including two aborted RFCs within the last month. Enough is enough, give it time to rest. TarnishedPathtalk 23:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:MORATORIUM and the spirit of Wikipedia. We should encourage and welcome discussions, such as this one, aimed at improving article content and stability. WP:MORATORIUM cautions against moratoria such as this, saying that
they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time (though not at any place)
. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)- Oppose for same reason. Besides anyone may vote snow close if they feel an rfc is rehashing same argument without new evidence or arguments at the table. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Which I oppose, but should remain part of any hypothetical discussion
- ^ Potentially piped to Radical right (Europe)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.