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 article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Reform UK. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Reform UK at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

Reform UK live membership tracker

@Helper201 You said you prefer third-party sourcing over first-party sourcing for the membership count. Where do you think the third-party sourcing gets their numbers from? Yeah. Most likely the live membership tracker that I linked: https://www.reformparty.uk/counter.

So seriously, what's the point of trying to find a new source every other day?

Alexysun (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IS. Reliable third-party sources are preferred on Wikipedia, it's not a matter of my opinion. The party's website counter is also going to constantly change, so if we did it that way, we would forever be chasing our own tails. Also, some third-party sources do note where they get the membership number from and they do find it in other ways than the party's tracker. Helper201 (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited in the Wikipedia information with citations that the front & back end code of the membership ticket was checked by Sky News, The Independent, The Guardian and The BBC after accused fakery by Kemi Bachnoch on X. All agreed it aligned with new signings in tandem.

The ticker is the source for all newspapers on secondary citations.

Although updating every day may seem to be chasing one's tail. Perhaps a more even approach would be to change every 10,000 + or - or once a month. Alternatively to link to said ticker via its web address. www.reformparty.uk/counter

for current membership number rather than stating what it is. 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:F4EE:EBFF:FE02:B090 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As said above reliable third party sources are preferred on Wikipedia so changing every 10k would not work. And linking a first party source for all membership rather than a number at all would run into the same issue as above Wikipedia prefers reliable third party sources. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change far right to centre right. Reform is not far right. That is incorrect. 116.14.25.98 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Change

Recently, Reform UK hit 200,000 members, this is significant, as considering that now the Labour Party is at around 309,900 members, this puts it on course to soon overtake Labour in Membership, please update Member count accordingly to reflect this. BritishWikiEditor21 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it puts them on course to overtake labour their rate of membership has drastically slowed and given they have along way to go who knows if they will get there. I would say its significant tho due to how big a number it is and how much that will help reform with activists and money GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "Farage, who previously owned 60% of Reform UK Party Ltd prior to giving up his shares". To: "Farage, who owns 60% of Reform UK Party Ltd, claimed he was going to give up his shares in September 2024. As of February 2025, no further announcements of the sale have been issued. No change of share division has been registered at Companies House."

References: "I'm giving up ownership of Reform UK, says Nigel Farage" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6q0j8pdj4o, Sam Francis & Joshua Nevett, BBC, 19 September 2024 "REFORM UK PARTY LIMITED Company number 11694875", https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875/filing-history , Companies House, retrieved 12 February 2025

Can I also suggest that the overly long introduction is summarised, by someone more familiar with the topic than I, with the details split off into other related sections? Perhaps also align the section headings similar to other UK parties, such as the Liberal Democrats? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)

2A00:23C6:22BE:3901:A456:14FB:E920:409F (talk)MF 2A00:23C6:22BE:3901:A456:14FB:E920:409F (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This appears to be WP:OR. It's not on us to offer commentary on this. — Czello ^(music) 15:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP Lineage.

Reform UK has been considered by many (the public, news sources and even party members) as both the spiritual and practical/internal sucessor to UKIP, the BBC when having Reform members on sometimes bring up that "Reform is part of the UKIP lineage", news sources such as Al Jazeera have even outright said that it is a successor, of which I put as a citation in my last revision adding this back in.

This was also (albeit slightly different) present in the infobox for a long while until (what I presume) is very recently, and I only added back a mention of UKIP after someone had removed it seemingly without debating or informing other users first. Charliephere (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence that Reform members or the public consider it a successor(allthough, I am not sure Wikipedia goes off that anyway rather reliable sources.) Do you have any other sources other than that one Al Jazeera article? GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/back-to-the-future-the-similarities-between-2015-ukip-and-2024-reform-uk/

https://isj.org.uk/farage-and-reform-uk-a-clear-and-present-danger/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/reform-uk-inside-story-of-nigel-farage-quest-for-power

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/06/more-harm-than-ukip-reform-uks-threat-to-the-conservatives

These are just a few of them.

on platforms like X where they are popular, I always see them being put as continuing from UKIP and being their successor. Charliephere (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. The first link does not mention them being a predecessor from what I could see.

The second does not seem to be listed on this list of reliable sourcesWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sourcesbut your right does describe them as predecessor tho also does for the Brexit party.

The third mentions heritage but not necessarily calling it a predecessor and also mentions the Brexit party. The last one doesnt mention them as a predecessor at all. so only one of those calls them a predecessor and I am not sure how reliable a source that is.

X isnt really a good indicator of what the public think and given theres 200k reform members or above that i am not sure it is a good indication of that either. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's just a few, and lineage pretty much means (or at the very very least implies) that there is a Successor/Predecessor relationship. Charliephere (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s just a few do you have any reliable sources that specifically say it’s a successor? It could also be talking about there being a link through Farage and other former members rather than a direct successor. Also,if they did mean it’s a successor relationship why would they not just say that rather than talk about lineage? GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Also,if they did mean it’s a successor relationship why would they not just say that rather than talk about lineage?" That's what they mean, they talk about it a tad more in depth.

"reliable sources that specifically say it’s a successor?" some of the ones I've sent already are reliable, and one does specifically say it's a sucessor, while the others heavily imply or reword it. The BBC has talked about this before in interviews but I dont even know where to start scraping through all the BBC videos to find those instances. Charliephere (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure they do or they would specifically say it.

The ones that are clearly reliable don't specifically say its a predecessor and the one that does specifically say it is a predecessor is not listed in the wiki reliable sources list. I do understand it would be hard to find videos but wikipedia can only go off the sources it has. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is listed as a reliable source last time I checked, and Ive seen other articles that cite it as a source.

With those BBC instances though, the host on there said it outright. Charliephere (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote user Czello here, from the Reform talk page archive, "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."

The opinion piece from Aljeezra and others can go in the body if you feel strongly enough.Halbared (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats disputed by someone else as just an opinion piece which is why I asked for other sources. But for wiki to act on those bbc instances there would need to be proof like an article or something.

what Halbared says above is a good idea imo maybe put it in the body rather than the infobox due to it being contested GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]