Talk:Reform UK

Far-right label

It's time to be clear and call the party what it is: far-right. Multiple sources following the general election have identified the party as far-right. Can we agree on this now?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/7/19/does-reform-uks-election-success-signal-a-far-right-future-for-britain

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/world/europe/reform-uks-success-is-latest-sign-of-strength-for-europes-far-right.html

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/mei/news-and-opinion/items/the-rise-of-the-far-right-in-britain.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/05/uk/nigel-farage-reform-party-win-gbr-intl/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nigel-farage-uk-election-2024-trump-ally-reform-uk-party-wins-seats-parliament/

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/the-anti-elite-elites-reform-far-right

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/01/05/in-the-uk-the-far-right-reform-uk-party-hopes-to-capitalize-on-the-conservatives-weakness_6402317_4.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/02/in-the-uk-nigel-farage-hopes-to-win-back-disappointed-conservatives_6673433_4.html

89.242.87.239 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The last discussion about this topic went dead for some reason. I wholeheartedly support the “far-right” label being added to the infobox (provided it written as “right-wing to far-right) but good luck convincing other editors.

If the label isn’t added to the infobox, I think it is inexcusable for it to not be mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Here’s an academic source I would like to add: https://transform-network.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/the_far-right_in_the_ep.pdf DWMemories (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest using some of these citations to expand the second paragraph of the Ideology and Platform section. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the hesitation on English Wikipedia to label far-right parties far-right. Reform UK is verrry clearly part of the same mouvance as the National Rally and the AfD. Very clearly. It is only to logical to at least put right-wing to far-right on the infobox. Right-wing populist is more a label used on German Wikipedia. However English, French or Spanish Wikipedia use a linear political spectrum, the information that the party is populist or eurosceptic comes after the information on the party's position (far-left, (classical) left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, (classical) right-wing, far-right). 80.187.73.181 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should do it if there are reliable sources to support it, and it looks like there are plenty. This is Paul (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Focus on article content first and then worry about the infobox. Use the citations found to add content and make the article better. Then when everyone’s on board with any changes, one can come back and make sure that the infobox provides an adequate summary. Bondegezou (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's vague. So according to you, first there should be a section in the article titled "Political position" or similar (or put it under the current Ideology section, as you suggested) where it is explained that the party is generally viewed as far-right, then the sources from that section can be used to source the infobox? Fine, the sources are there, but I'd like remind you that this section on the talk page was specifically opened for this matter of the infobox and the first sentence to be settled. 80.187.73.181 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I am making a suggestion to help you achieve the change you want to achieve. Bondegezou (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors of english wikipedia seem very hesitant to label parties as far right unless they are blatantly fascist. Jaybainshetland (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Including high-quality peer-reviewed papers who back the label 'far-right' or 'radical right' for Reform UK:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13416

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-70709-5_8

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/01979183241277541

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13412

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/article/929035/summary

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003453178-8/makes-climate-change-populist-issue-1-jonathan-white 89.242.87.239 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

When i think far right i think hitler, yk genociding a relgion, not reform who dont want illegal migrants here Spookybunny8 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And Reform is part of a very well defined mouvance with very well defined connections to Hitlerian thought. 80.187.101.188 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Saying Reform UK has connections to "Hitlerian thought" is rather silly.

Regardless, it's clear from the earlier discussion that while there are sources which describe them as far-right there are also plenty which dispute this label. Consequently it would be irresponsible of us to include it in the infobox or lead. As mentioned before, though, there could be scope for it to be expanded upon in the body of the article. — Czello ^(music) 07:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"Hitlerian thought" What the heck is that? The party is noted for its opposition to immigration, but this may indicate a tendency towards xenophobia or nativism. I did not notice any party propaganda about social Darwinism, eugenics, or racial hierarchy. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Czello Your personal opinion on the far-right seems out of step with the broader consensus. Numerous reputable sources consistently label Reform UK as a far-right party. Additionally, Hitler’s authoritarianism is distinct from the modern far-right, so drawing that comparison isn’t relevant. Trying to sanitise Farage's image won’t change this reality, and such an approach is unlikely to succeed. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not giving my personal opinion, I'm saying there are sources that have already been linked above which dispute the far-right label. Unless you mean the fact that calling them "Hitlerian" is silly - in which case I'd want to know what sources equate them to Hitler's policy. — Czello ^(music) 12:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which sources dispute the "far-right" label, and how credible are they? While the party is commonly described as right-wing, Farage has actively threatened legal action against news outlets and organisations that refer to it as far-right. However, given that numerous reputable sources categorise the party as far-right, this should be reflected in the infobox. Do you also intend to dispute this classification? 89.242.87.239 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

See the conversation above which goes through this (the BBC is very credible). Again, though, if a label is contested then the infobox should display that which undisputed while the varying opinions can be discussed in the body. The infobox isn't there for nuance. — Czello ^(music) 13:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC faced a lawsuit from Nigel Farage over the use of the far-right label, which puts its credibility into question in this instance. They were effectively intimidated. Are there any other examples you'd like to discuss? 89.242.87.239 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you source that they changed it for that reason?

It's worth pointing out that it doesn't make their retraction invalid, however. — Czello ^(music) 15:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article from the LSE. It seems to confirm that the BBC was contacted by lawyers from Reform after using the far-right label in an article, and also argues that the term is not a helpful description of the party. The author instead suggests that Reform falls into the populist radical right, which is a different part of the political spectrum. I have said above that we should add the term if reliable sources are using it, but when you dig into the topic you find the situation is more complex. I tend to agree with the idea that we need a section discussing the party's political ideology in which we can present the various arguments. This is Paul (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Czello The party’s ideology is often described as far-right, supported by numerous reputable sources. It’s not about what the BBC says; what matters is the consensus among credible references. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

lol "Tice said the label of being “far right” would have “huge implications”, if other media outlets used it and suggested that he and others could lose their bank accounts or the ability to get a mortgage. He said his lawyers had also been in touch with other organisations." Duck test for everyone. Good thing we have some far-right apologists in here who have managed to sanitise Reform. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally dislike Reform and what they stand for, but I also dislike pigeonholing them without strong and reliable evidence. Whatever your thoughts on Reform, they're clearly not AfD, nor are they National Rally. I would argue they have more in common with elements of the Tea Party movement and Trumpism than anything else. This is Paul (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And Trumpism is also part of this very same far-right wave across the wider western world (the wider west including Latin America). This is written, with many, many reliable sources, on our article on Trumpism, however the label far-right has not yet been added to the Republican Party infobox because the United States political spectrum is heavily moved to the right. It might get added in the future though. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I, 80. Etc., am not 89. Etc. I hope we won't get confused. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I hope our similar IP's won't get confused, if it was hard to understand. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is disputing that some sources call them that. But as other users have pointed out, it's not as clear-cut as that, which means it should be discussed in the body of the article instead. Again, the infobox isn't for nuance. — Czello ^(music) 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hitlerian thought is what its name says. And yes, the radical right has well attested (and therefore sourced) connections to it. This is recognised in France for the National Rally (see the [sourced] section "Positionnement politique" or translated "Political positioning" in the French Wikipedia article on National Rally [If you don't speak French, use some translation service]. It comprehensively explains in detail the positioning on the far-right, its implications, and the fact many far-right parties either reject the left-right spectrum or see themselves as representing the moderate right-wing), for example, and more and more for the AfD in Germany too. Reform UK is clearly part of this mouvance. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And the radical right, as separate from the more extremist extreme right, is a widely recognised part of the far-right in political science, contrary to the radical left, who's membership of the far-left is contested. The radical right is described as a “normalised far right”, since it largely derives from extreme right thought, and is therefore not independent. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And as a last point, I am skeptical of news sources in articles on complex issues, especially questions of political science. But the academics are even more prone to calling the party far-right than the news sources. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. Saying Reform have "Hitlerian thought" would need a source that explicitly says that. — Czello ^(music) 18:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't WP:OR. I was talking about the radical right which has well defined connections to hitlerian thought. Subtlety exists, you know. I never said such an enormity. And this was just in response to one comment regarding my phrasing with the radical right in general (not Reform UK, I just mentioned the very well defined mouvance Reform is part of). Reform UK has only to do with this that it is part of the radical right (as sources say). 80.187.71.128 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Vote to add the far-right label in the infobox

Support. Additionally, the high-quality sources mentioned earlier provide strong evidence to support the label. There is no reason to omit the party’s actual ideological position when it is widely covered in both reputable media outlets and academic research. These sources clearly outline and validate the classification of the party's stance, making it essential to acknowledge in any accurate discussion. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, there's a trend of putting populist parties on the extremes, when really they're quite more moderate. I believe Reform being right-wing is good enough. Polish kurd (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's called an academic debate, not a trend. 80.187.71.128 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Populism is not an ideology. I recommend familiarising yourself with the relevant scholarly literature. What you may perceive as a trend has, in fact, been the subject of academic study for decades. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per my and other's reasoning above. 80.187.114.106 (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - the fact that political scientists like Tim Bale speak against the label speaks volumes. The academic case for such label is thin and arguments I saw listed here for this label fall under WP:OR. It does not warrant a new classification - it only warrants a mention in the Ideology section of some media outlets labelling the party as far-right. Brat Forelli🦊 17:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Reform UK is a complex party with different factions. As others have noted, there are plenty of sources which name the party far-right or radically right. I’d like to add two more here.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13416 (names Reform UK radically right).

https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A1%3A9414753/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A178840230&crl=c (discusses Farage’s far-right activities).

The party had candidates who spread far-right rhetoric before the 2024 General Election. However, Farage said he does not condone these views. Labelling the party “far-right” on its own would fall under WP:OR. But I believe “right-wing to far-right” would be fair.

Whatever the outcome of this vote, it needs to be clear sources have labelled the party far-right. This should probably be done in the ideology section. DWMemories (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the sources, and they would have to be thrown out if used for the article.

The first one names Reform UK as radical right, yes. The problem is that we have political scientists who argue that radical right and far-right are distinct. Tim Bale even goes as far as argue that Reform UK is radical right, but not far-right. This would be WP:OR since you are jumping to a conclusion that is not there (that Reform UK is far-right, as "radical right" does not make it clear).

Second source comes from CounterPunch. It is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards - see WP:COUNTERPUNCH. Brat Forelli🦊 09:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This comment strikes me as bizarre, like other things in this debate. You were for saying the radical left is clearly part of the far-left on another discussion (and there, there is an actual academic debate on it's inclusion), but here you argue that the opinion of one Tim Bale and some few others outweighs the very clear consensus on the attachment of the radical right to the far-right. You also mentioned a consensus on this question of radical right/far-right in the BSW talk page. So why do you say the opposite here? 80.187.85.160 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let me explain. We know what Tim Bale wrote on this topic. Tim Bale is a political scientist, one that is credible and notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article, too. He wrote an article on this party specifically (Reform UK), stating that while Reform UK is radical right, it should not be called far-right.

Ultimately we work on a case-by-case basis. After all, even our dear friend DWMemories over there believes that Reform UK should be "Right-wing to far-right", but not just "Far-right". But there are two radical right parties, Alternative for Germany and Vox (political party), that are labelled as just "Far-right" on their articles. I find that to be inconsistent, because either we should label every radical right party as just "Far-right", or none.

Either that or we do that on case-by-case. I do wish that there was a "global" discussion that could hash out a consistent infobox placement for ALL radical left and radical right parties, but I have little hopes of Wikipedia being organized enough for this. Brat Forelli🦊 10:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. A WikiProject would be a good place to start such a discussion. I am not fundamentally against right-wing to far-right, but I don't understand the will to not mention far-right at all. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish such discussion would take place and we could just have it that every radical party would be either always "Right-wing to far-right" or "Far-right" (depending on how the consensus would go), instead of the current situation where it is just a mess.

As for Reform UK, I just see there is a palpable implication that it is not as radical as radical right parties. This is exemplified by both Tim Bale as well as by fellow editors such as DWMemories, who supports "Right-wing to far-right" yet opposes just "Far-right", despite the fact that Vox and AfD are labelled as just that on Wikipedia.

As for "the will to not mention far-right at all", I am the person who added Le Monde's statement to this article, so I included it. I think we can add more as well, as long as they actually do directly call the party far-right instead of going into vague/WP:OR territory. I just do not think it is something to be included in the infobox. Though a footnote of this view existing would not be a bad idea (a footnote explaining that some describe it as radical right and far-right). Brat Forelli🦊 10:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also support such a footnote, to at least mention the label. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Too contentious for the infobox for the reasons explained above. Could be worth mentioning in more nuance in the article body; however, the infobox is not for nuance. — Czello ^(music) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I am guessing (this is OR, other comments have academic bases) the party will be seen as far-right soon enough, but at least an explanatory note would be good. and of course I support detailing everything in the Ideology section. 80.187.71.128 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Reform’s use of lawsuits to intimidate British journalists and media outlets has long delayed this portrayal. Bigotry, anti-migration sentiment, conspiracy theories, culture wars, transphobia, and anti-Islam rhetoric all shape the party’s true ideology. A small group of users has managed to conceal this identity on Wikipedia by dominating the discussion. This is a call for wider participation to review the evidence without bias. Furthermore, here are several reputable sources from the past month that describe the party as far-right: Good Law Project, Le Monde, Middle East Eye, Hope Not Hate, The Guardian, France24. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the "small group of users" theoretically trying to hide this label, but there are definitely sources and the profile of the party is clearly that of a radical right/far-right party.

I suggest you ping every participant in this discussion and the previous discussion on the talk page instead of making these comments. 80.187.71.128 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, please ping every participant. Though I’m uncertain whether we will get any consensus here. DWMemories (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Saying that users are trying to "conceal" anything isn't conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. Also your comment appears to speculate that the reason the far-right label isn't more universally used is because of lawsuits being used to intimidate, which is speculation. — Czello ^(music) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Czello. However, there was an editor who received a ban after making blatantly racist comments on the previous discussion. This person was trying to argue against the far-right label being used. DWMemories (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that someone on the far-right would seek to argue against the label's inclusion; I think the IP was implying that this "small group of users" (I'd be very keen to hear them named) was doing so maliciously or to whitewash. — Czello ^(music) 19:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though, of this group, I’d like to name User:Pip69420 (who simply made an opinion post claiming the party was centre-right) and Boscaswell (who was banned). DWMemories (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the sources you have provided.

Good Law Project - Good Law Project is not even a media outlet, it is a non-profit company. The best you can do is include it as their opinion.

Le Monde - we do have the fact that Le Monde considers the party far-right mentioned in the Ideology section, yes.

Middle East Eye - this article seems to call the 2024 United Kingdom riots movement far-right, but not Reform UK itself. In fact, it calls it right-wing - right-wing media outlets and politicians like Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party,.

Hope Not Hate - advocacy group. Not an WP:RS.

The Guardian - show me where this article calls the party far-right. This does not appear to be the case.

France24 - the only problem is that it includes this ambiguity of calling it "hard-right" instead of far-right. If there are several reputable sources calling the party far-right, then surely we could have less vague cases?

I do find it concerning that at least 2 of the links you give do not prove your point (as in, they do not call the party far-right), while other 2 are not WP:RS. Brat Forelli🦊 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, other sources were also mentioned. And Le Monde is a very serious and reliable news paper. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPSS, "Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source." But it is a reliable source that we included in the article, exactly. Yet their statement alone is not enough to treat it as a fact - it did warrant a mention. Brat Forelli🦊 10:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just for information, this is important, Le Monde Diplomatique and Le Monde are owned by the same group but are far from the same newspaper, Le monde diplo is a very left-leaning newspaper made for diplomats, Le Monde is one of the most neutral and serious newspapers in Europe, with a slight centre-left bias, a slight one. Le Monde has the most neutral style of any French news source except for Agence-France Press. Le Monde is considered very reliable by Wikipedia standards. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

So really, no, Le Monde (not diplomatique) is considered as reliable if not more reliable than the Guardian or similar Journals. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for letting me know. But just "Le Monde" is not included on the list of WP:RSPSS at all. Though I cannot confirm whether it is reliable at all. Brat Forelli🦊 10:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be easy to find information on the reliability and neutral writing style of Le Monde (again, there is only a slight centre-left bias more or less similar to the Guardian's centre-left bias) 80.187.85.160 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The IPs are correct. Le Monde is reliable. Thinking of it as the French equivalent of The Guardian is not too far off. Indeed, I have noticed they source quite a lot of content from the Guardian. But, Le Monde is still a newspaper, and newspaper reporting is generally considered a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is not the best way to approach editing Wikipedia. Let's get the text (with citations) correct in the ideology section of the article. Then we can come back to the infobox. We should focus on content, not votes! Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Then add the far-right label yourself? It's backed by a wide range of sources. 89.242.87.239 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I see some sort of weird hostility to including this label, which is bizarre. Most "right-wing populist" parties are referred to as far-right. And this voting approach is the very common way of dealing with questions on political positioning. I do not understand the hostility to at least correctly debating this matter with reliable sources. Since the debate seems to be blocked by certain users, an RFC or a vote seems to be the correct manner of proceeding. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The comment on blocking the debate, for information, has absolutely nothing to do with the idea with users wanting to "hide" the label, those comments are not supported by me. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's been some discussion of there not being sufficient academic sources to make a change to 'right wing to far-right'.

I'd like to point out seemingly, how little evidence there is to suggest the party is simply 'right-wing'. Potentially then, neither term could be deemed to be accurate.

Each term probably warrants being reassessed, from scratch, without assumption's of Reform's political position, which they have not made clear themselves.

Perhaps, simply 'radical' would be a suitable description in the infobox? 92.11.255.227 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair point.

In the meantime, should we remove the position from the infobox? It’s proven to be extremely contentious and I see no reason for keeping it if we cannot come to any consensus. DWMemories (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Use the reform party definition - national instead of right wing - it is a national party - suggestion 2A02:C7C:A829:8200:20C0:7376:1588:E6BE (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Support as "right-wing to far-right" This debate has been going on for months (previously in a different topic which went dead for some reason). There are strong sources suggesting both right wing or far right, and there are clearly more extreme ends of the party better described as far right. This would be the least contentious option, it would detail the spectrum of the party better, and there are many sources mentioned in this thread which could support this. Sizewell (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose to open an RFC to (finally) find a consensus on this matter. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You could do this but as it is clear there is no consensus for this inclusion, and as Czello has pointed out that some sources use this term and others dispute it, creating no consensus among sources either. As this is quite well attended by editors already, why do you think a wider discussion will achieve the consensus you want? At this point I would suggest that you should be looking at WP:BESTSOURCES, so forget newspaper reporting. You (or someone) did list some academic sources above, but Brat Forelli has already dealt with most of these. Let's just finish that discussion:

1. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-70709-5_8 is about UKIP. Calls it radical right. See Brat Forelli's comments on that point. Not the same thing.
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/01979183241277541 Does not talk about Reform
3. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/article/929035/summary Radical right. Not far right
4. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003453178-8/makes-climate-change-populist-issue-1-jonathan-white I haven't read the whole chapter but cannot see it calling Reform far right.

So there is more work to do here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, but adding far-right in a note or directly in the infobox does not mean removing right-wing entirely. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 89.242.87.239 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Forgive me if this source has been critiqued already, but to me it seems clear it names both UKIP and The Brexit Parry (which is now Reform UK) far-right. https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A1%3A9414753/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A178840230&crl=c DWMemories (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Two others here which may not have received enough attention: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/general-election-2024-the-results-in-10-key-graphs

https://transform-network.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/the_far-right_in_the_ep.pdf DWMemories (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You gave a source from WP:COUNTERPUNCH, which is not a reliable source. Brat Forelli🦊 15:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Counterpunch article is not reliable. Also given were:

1. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/general-election-2024-the-results-in-10-key-graphs - a look at Keir Starmer's vote share and results of the general election. Although written by an academic, this is not academic research. Neithe ris it specifically about Reform UK. This is not a WP:BESTSOURCE.
2. https://transform-network.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/the_far-right_in_the_ep.pdf - about the EU parliament, and thus is not a BESTSOURCE for discussing Reform UK, a party that is UK only and not an EU parliamentary party. Its only mention of Reform is in footnote 18 on page 11. I cannot see where it is specifically called far right.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe stop pushing so hard on this one point and try engaging with what other editors are saying? Collect together the best sources and suggest some text for the article. It would also help you if you register an WP:ACCOUNT. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, I am not the only participant, far from it, in this discussion. I am a different IP than 89.etc, and this section on the talk page is my first time contributing to this article. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

So, while I have responded to many comments, I don't think I'm forcing it more than other users. 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend both of you create accounts to avoid such confusion. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We have provided more than enough sources to back the calim 89.242.87.239 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you support a footnote? 80.187.85.160 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Partly agreed. Regardless of what the infobox says, the ideology section needs changing. We should work on that first. DWMemories (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's already a vote on this taking place above. — Czello ^(music) 11:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

So, is a vote likely to result in any changes being made? Or, is a change simply 'too contentious'?.

I would support a vote on whether or not 'Right-wing' (by itself) is an accurate description of Reform UK, in the infobox. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of Reform being a right-wing party. The media aren't actually allowed to describe Reform UK as a 'far-right' party, due to the threat of being sued, so I'm not sure think we can take their word for it. 78.144.150.245 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No consensus - the discussion died down two weeks ago and there was no agreement for a change.

As for your take, I am not sure what you mean that there is no evidence for Reform UK being a right-wing party - it certainly is not a centre-left, centrist or a centre-right one.

Lastly, we have to take sources' word for it. Making our own interpretation of what the source meant is WP:OR. Brat Forelli🦊 05:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As discussed above, we don't know that's the reason they're "not allowed" to describe them as far-right. Reform can sue, but we don't make the assumption that the lack of a description is for that reason. It's WP:OR. "Right-wing" is a broad, but accurate, descriptor. As the infobox should be for broad statements and not nouance, that's why it should stay as that. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely a description of 'Right-wing' requires the same amount of evidence as a description of 'radical', or 'far-right'? Which of Reform's policies can be described as right-wing? It says in their manifesto / contract, that they want to 'freeze immigration and stop the boats'. They want to go beyond simply controlling immigration, as the Conservative Party aims for. Simply leaving the description as 'Right-wing' suggests little to no difference in their political positioning, to the Conservative Party. 78.144.150.245 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This is less about the policies and more about how the party is classified. It is commonly classified as right-wing.

In fact, this isn't really our business to determine whether a specific policy is right-wing or left-wing. There are a plenty of anti-immigration left-wing parties, most (in)famously Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht, the Dutch Socialist Party, or the Danish Social Democrats.

Regarding Conservatives vs. Reform, Conservatives are labelled centre-right to right-wing, while Reform is labelled right-wing. As far as the voter base goes, Reform overlaps almost entirely with less moderate factions of the Conservative Party. Brat Forelli🦊 06:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Reform UK can be classified as simply a 'Right-Wing' party. They bear little similarity to other right wing parties. They have a lot in common with the German AfD, in terms of policy. They have a very similar, low tolerance stance on immigration, and have had leaders that do not welcome more immigrants.

Looking at Wikipedia's usual stance on far-right parties, it seems that only political parties that have been recognised as being associated with Nazism or fascism in the past, warrant a description of being 'Far-right'. That is the case for both the AfD and France's National Rally. 78.144.150.245 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is again WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 06:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that "right-wing" is a broad descriptor, so it's more fitting. Though I'd also add that 1) the policies you described just aren't inherently far-right and 2) it's WP:OR anyway — Czello ^(music) 06:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Euroscepticism

Reform UK is a party that was formed as Brexit Party. The main idea of the party is to leave the European Union. As a part of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group when they were in EU Parliament, and their strong continuous stance of opposing the EU and leading the campaign for UK to withdraw from EU. This is seen as a 'hard euroscepticism', with Reform UK being used as an example for this particular ideology.

This ideology has a significant difference from other soft eurosceptic parties that supports the existence of EU but with opposition to its certain policies, like right-wing Polish party Law and Justice, and the European United Left–Nordic Green Left, which is an alliance of the left-wing parties in the European Parliament.

Therefore, I believe it is important to highlight the difference between these two ideologies and change the information in infobox from 'Euroscepticism' to 'Hard Euroscepticism'. Jeremy Hulber (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately we need to go with what sources say, and the last time this was discussed the consensus was that sources simply say "Eurosceptic".

That said, I'm inclined to say that mentioning Europe in the ideology at all is a bit dated. Europe hasn't been a central theme of Reform's ideology for some time, so I'm inclined to remove it or add "(historical)" after it. — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In Farages maiden speech in parliament he said the current parliament is a remainers parliament https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-07-23/debates/C133D2F0-7130-4DE8-BA4D-6E04AD0F5703/details#contribution-2C5FB052-BC21-4459-B7FD-F4D027E51FE2and he still still talks about bercow blocking trying to block brexit so It would still seem to me its still a part of their ideology GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea why this is up for debate. I can’t imagine any reliable source would say it’s a “soft Eurosceptic” party.

I’d just change what it says in the infobox. It’s so obviously a Hard Eurosceptic party. DWMemories (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree they are clearly hard eurosceptic not soft GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Request edit on 18 November 2024

not a registered political party but rather a company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.22.235.111 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

They are registered as a political party https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Registrations?currentPage=7&rows=30&sort=RegulatedEntityName&order=asc&open=filter&et=pp&et=ppm&register=gb&regStatus=registered&optCols=EntityStatusName GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Put a anti vandalism on the article

This would prevent any not necessary edits Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Councillors

Could someone please edit the councillors to 40? The source has them on 40 now GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)