Jump to content

Talk:Reform UK

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-wing to far-right in the lead

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago14 comments4 people in discussion

So I don't understand or agree with this revert. The lead should reflect WP:BALANCE, as is done in the infobox with the party's position as "Right-wing to far-right". I know there is consensus for far-right to be in the infobox and I agree with that. However, the lead should also include right-wing. For those wondering why "right-wing populist" cannot cover that, for the simple reason a party can be right-wing populist and simply/only far-right. There is no page for "far-right populism", so right-wing becomes a very broad and encompassing term and therefore not enough to establish a party's political position. Reform UK is not simply or only far-right. Plenty of reliable sources simply call the party right-wing, e.g.:

It is only fitting WP:BALANCE that right-wing also be included alongside far-right in the lead. Helper201 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As I have said in many venues this is WP:SYNTH unless the sources distinguish the right wing from the far-right and indicate that far-right is not just a subset of right-wing. Every far-right political subject is right wing. Every far-left political subject is left wing. It's WP:SYNTH and non-neutral for us to introduce doubt based on varied non-contradictory language. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Then change the wording to not violate synth. Say something like "Reform UK is regarded variously as either right-wing or far-right". There's never been any Wikipedia-wide consensus for position "X to Y" in the infobox being synth, so I don't see why we should suddenly start regarding this language in the main body as such. Helper201 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nothing sudden about it. It is a result of a well-attended, 6-week RfC. You provided some 15-16 sources, Talk:Reform UK/Source_review has dozens. However, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. If enough time has passed, anyone is welcome to start a new one. TurboSuperA+[talk] 17:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
TurboSuperA+ the conclusion of the RFC was for adding far-right, not the removal of right-wing from the lead as well. Helper201 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
My mistake. I'm just so used to editors asking the same thing over and over again, I responded on autopilot. That is on me. Currently, it says it is a "right-wing populist" party. If "right-wing" is to stay in the lede, I prefer it this way; "right-wing to far-right" never looked right to me. A large number of sources also called it "right-wing populist". But as I said, I'm not against having another discussion if what the majority RSes say has changed. But it would have to be structured. Feel free to update the Source review with new sources, that never hurts. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
TurboSuperA+ thank you for acknowledging your mistake. I tried to set out as clearly as I could in the opening that I did not - and do not - want far-right removed or replaced. I agree with that consensus for the inclusion of far-right. I've set out why I don't think "right-wing populist" is not an appropriate replacement for "right-wing". Furthermore, "right-wing populism" is an ideology, simply "right-wing" is a political position, like far-right is. I.e. ideologies and political positions are different. "Looking right" I'm afraid just is not a persuasive argument. And as I mentioned, the consensus never said right-wing cannot or should not be retained or included. It simply concluded for the addition of far-right. Which again, I agree with. I'm simply saying right-wing should also be included, per WP:BALANCE. Helper201 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
If the previous RfC didn't specify whether "right-wing" should be included (and how), then that is a discussion worth having. I suggest that you start a new discussion on whether to include it, and if so, whether it's "right-wing" or "right-wing populist" and "right-wing to" vs. "right-wing and". You'd also have to notify editors, WikiProjects and noticeboards because it's a contentious issue and it has to be decided on by more than three editors that are currently in this discussion. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You aren't understanding the locus of the SYNTH. The SYNTH is in assuming an author who said right-wing did not mean the definition to be inclusive of far-right because any complete set of right-wing subjects is also a complete set of far-right subjects. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's simply your interpretation of the sources. Synth indicates we state simply what sources explicitly say. Helper201 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And none of those sources explicitly say that Reform UK is not a far-right party. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not trying to argue its not a far-right party. I literally never said that. I tried to add right-wing alongside far-right, not in place of it. Helper201 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Again you are creating a distinction where the sources provide none. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You're better off just leaving it alone. You can't win against the entrenched liberal elite here and they only shoot themselves in the foot when they try these tactics anyway. ~2026-41526-79 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 days ago11 comments6 people in discussion
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)Reply


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)Reply

Discussion

[edit]
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)Reply
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)Reply
Oh man. Are ai generated RfC's a thing now? NickCT (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What are the sources for the political scientists please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago22 comments6 people in discussion

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:

  1. Change to Right-wing to right-wing populist
  2. Change to Right-wing populist
  3. Keep the status quo (Right-wing to far-right)

Magapetro (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply


Right-wing populism is an ideology, not a political position on the left-right axis. There can be extreme right parties which are also populist, radical right parties which are also populist and centre-right parties which are also populist. We have a specific parameter in the Template:Infobox political parties for ideologies. --Friniate ✉ 06:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Status quo and reiterate call for a moratorium, it's been well-demonstrated that there is a plethora of reliable sourcing supporting the far-right label so as to classify it as WP:DUE weight. The previous RfC came to a consensus that populist radical right is used in most sources to mean a subset of the "far-right" (a label that includes both "radical right" and "extreme right"). The current consensus also established that WP:NEWSORGanisations don't trump reliable academic literature, and that the academic literature discussing the party in terms of comparative politics predominantly use "radical right" and "far-right" to describe the party. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - You refer to political science literature and peer reviewed studies. Please provide some links to these. As regards the options, I specifically said, when closing the last attempt, that workshopping was advised. Why have you chosen these options? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Could you clarify which specific academic literature you’d like me to reference in support of this classification? Jptr11 (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Journal articles or books primarily. Peer reviewed and by political scientists. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The infobox should prioritize citing peer-reviewed political science literature about the party’s ideology rather than relying solely on broader “far-right” classifications. Jptr11 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am asking that Friniate, who began this RfC, provide evidence for their statements that political scientists and peer reviewed sources describe the party as they say. If you are not in a position to do so on their behalf, let's wait for them to do so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It was Magapetro that initially opened the RfC, not Friniate. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Acknowledging GlowstoneUnknown’s correction clarifies that Magapetro initiated the discussion regarding the infobox parameter, not Friniate. Jptr11 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Apologies, yes. So let's wait for Magapetro to provide the sources they say exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Apologies I just got caught up in another rfc here are the following sources for all my claims
Magapetro (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
None of these sources are sufficient to throw out the numerous reliable sources supporting "far-right". The existing consensus was established to add "far-right" alongside existing descriptors.
  • The first source is merely reporting about the BBC issuing a retraction, not arguing that the party cannot be described as far-right.
  • The second source is a WP:BLOG and was already discussed in the previous RfC.
  • The third source explicitly supports describing Reform as "far-right", as it defines PRR as a subset of it.
  • The fourth source doesn't seem to mention "far-right" at all, certainly not rebutting the claim that Reform is "far-right".
  • The last source also includes PRR as a subset of "far-right" in its definition.
– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Magapetro could you provide some sources please? Or else consider withdrawing this RfC. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Magapetro, did you write this RFC with an LLM? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No answer. This arbitration enforcement thread pertains. Pangram suggests the text is 100% AI with humanisation, and I note the lack of any sources (despite the questions above) and the fictitious (hallucinated?) wikilink. I've called it and collapsed as LLM generated. Finfixer, you have entered a non status quo vote. Are you content for me to close this RfC without prejudice to a proper RfC (with workshopping) being opened by a user in good standing and without using AI? If you would prefer to persist with this one, we can do that. I can't bold close the RfC if you don't wish to withdraw, in which case it will continue to run. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to the alledged LLM statement by Magapetro, since he has contested the LLM label it may be best to await a decision by the noticeboard before disregarding it. It is premature at this point to do so when the RfC in general is in good faith. However, after skimming the previous RfC on the matter I think the question should in part become whether ideology should be mentioned at all in light of the dispute. Doing so in the infobox either makes a disputed wikivoice statement or a clumsy wikivoice statement. That is not an option in this RfC when it should be, but technically the RfC can still be guided that way.
For the foregoing reasons I do not think I can alone allow a speedy close, but do think it could be beneficial. As such, I will conditionally withdraw my stance if the following conditions are met;
1) The noticeboard finds the collapsed comment LLM or Magapetro withdraws it and no other stances against the status quo have been made by that point.
2) The next RfC or preceding workshop, which you agree to start without undue delay, facilitates discussing omitting ideology all together. Finfixer (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK we'll se how the case progresses. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You will have my support if sources are provided. Finfixer (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose C, no opinion as to A or B yet.
So in a similarily spirited RfC on Restore Britain one of the arguments was that a range should not be used in the infobox. It is too up for interpretation for inclusion in the infobox. I am inclined to agree and believe it could have contributed to the RfC deciding on far right, because it noted the quality issue of the status quo. So in light of that precedent I am already able to say that the status quo is the worst option of these all. Either A or B must prevail and I will return to that question later. Finfixer (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add a section on https://reformparty.uk/news/reform-uk-vows-to-stand-up-for-women-and-mothers

Reform UK has announced plans to become the most pro-family government in British history, with its Women and Motherhood Protection Act.

The Act would bring together key protections currently scattered across different laws, including equal pay, sex discrimination, employment rights, unfair dismissal and maternity leave

Women and Motherhood Protection Act- billed by Reform as a major package to safeguard working mothers, including protections against pregnancy discrimination, enhanced redundancy rules, and specific rights for breastfeeding, fertility treatment, and parents experiencing miscarriage or stillbirth. ~2026-41492-03 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources (not sources directly from the party). At the moment this reads promotional. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why is reform uk labelled far right but the greens aren’t labelled far left 🤔

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Fishy ~2026-41624-23 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The reason for Reform's label is in the #FAQ at the top of this page. As for the Greens, that's a conversation for that specific article's talk page, not here. We don't label parties to reflect one another; we do it to reflect the sources. — Czello (music) 18:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"I'm just asking questions." – Do not feed the trolls. Yue🌙 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reform_UK&oldid=1367239508"