Talk:Reform UK

Political position of Reform UK

The University of Birmingham describes the Reform party as a 'far-right' party here: [1]https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/general-election-2024-the-results-in-10-key-graphs, and compares it with UKIP, which was also led by Nigel Farage (at the 2015 general election), which Wikipedia also described as a 'far-right' party: .

The Conservative Party has also been described as 'Right-wing' Conservative Party (UK), and I think most British voters would not say these 2 parties both occupied the same political position. Reform has shifted it's position further to the right at the 2024 election, particularly on issues such as immigration, asylum seekers and taxation [2]https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371. 80.43.59.80 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

and compares it with UKIP, which was also led by Nigel Farage (at the 2015 general election), which Wikipedia has also described as a 'far-right' party

Worth pointing out that we didn't list UKIP as far-right under Farage. It shifted to the far-right after he left.

The Conservative Party has also been described as 'Right-wing' Actually "centre-right to right-wing", separate to Reform simply being right-wing, establishing they're not in the same position. — Czello ^(music) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This is tricky.

Reform UK certainly had its fair share of far-right, racist candidates during the General Election campaign. But the party did drop support for these candidates before the polls opened.

The question, perhaps, is whether the party’s political position should represent the views of all its members or whether it should represent the views of its MPs and councillors.

If the former, I think labelling the party as “right wing to far-right” would be the most logical conclusion. If the later, I think the page should be left as is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727xz2kkgjo.amp DWMemories (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing.

Reform has at different times, given the impression of being either a right wing party, or a far-right party. So, perhaps the description should reflect that? 80.43.59.80 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

its center right to right wing also i support reform Pip69420 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

but surely if it has some, but not all, racist candidates and supporters that would make it "right wing to far right" wouldn't it? It's a very mixed party with some candidates more economically right wing than others and some more authoritarian candidates so just having "right wing" doesn't make sense to me LukeTheIncredibleFluke (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m agreed with this. A party’s political position is not the same as the political position of its leader. The Labour Party remained a “centre-left” party even under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership (despite him being more left wing). I’d support Reform UK being labelled a “right wing to far-right” party.

It’s also worth pointing out Farage’s political position is hard to define. He’s stated he wants to lead a “centre-right” party but it is clear Reform UK is NOT centre-right. Farage seems to believe the Conservatives have shifted further to the left in the last decade, which is certainly not the opinion of academics. I think we have to recognise the party has different factions with some leaning into far-right territory. DWMemories (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have at times, labelled the Conservative Party as socialists.

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-is-not-a-conservative-but-a-socialist-claims-reforms-richard-tice-13120054

The implication is that the leaders of Reform consider the Conservatives to be a relatively left wing party. 80.43.59.80 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that confirms my position on this. Labelling Reform UK as merely “right wing” neither reflects the views of its members or of its MPs.

If the party’s leaders both see the Conservatives as relatively left wing, I think that all but confirms their views lean towards the far-right.

Let’s not forget that UKIP under Farage’s leadership was part of the EFDD alliance in the European Parliament (a group which Wikipedia labels as “right wing to far-right”) DWMemories (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know how it works. If we have a source, then surely we are allowed update the political position? Or does it need to be authorised by someone else? LukeTheIncredibleFluke (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Two points. Sources need to meet WP:RS which you need to read.Also see WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that’s evidence they don’t know what socialism is. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d argue it’s evidence for both.

They’re not calling the Conservatives socialists because they’re politically similar to them. They’re doing it to show they’re further to the right. If they genuinely are this much further right than the Conservatives (and this is a big if), then I have to assume they are right-wing to far-right (as the Conservatives are actually centre-right to right-wing). DWMemories (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Economically, Reform appears to be more to the left than the Conservatives – e.g., Reform demands the nationalisation of key branches of economy, which in itself is quite leftist (too leftist for the US for instance). They are socially to the right, sometimes bordering far right when identities are discussed. But this is the song of the times across Europe: far-right social narrative and chauvinism combined with progressive economic policies. The left-right distinction is definitely unable to capture the current political spectrum. Do we insist on having it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

But we go by what the sources say, your analysis is original. Research. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d suggest those supporting a change should try to find some academic sources that label the party “far-right”.

We can then discuss the credibility of these sources.

Here are some I’d like to add:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%E2%80%9Creform+uk%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9Cfar%E2%80%9D+right&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1722459664042&u=%23p%3DnhogPPD0MxkJ (names Reform UK a “radical right” party. Wikipedia’s own page on the Radical Right in Europe says it is a term used to describe right-wing to far-right movements. Worth noting far more sources seem happy to label the party as “radically right” compared to “far right” because the term accounts for different factions).

https://transform-network.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/the_far-right_in_the_ep.pdf (discusses the Brexit Party as part of a larger group of far-right parties in Europe. Acknowledges the party’s name was changed).

https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/downArticle/473/8/1/250066 (talks mostly about the BNP and UKIP, though does mention Reform UK - probably not all that helpful). DWMemories (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

For me at least, this (along with the first source provided in the OP) is ample evidence to support a change. But if anyone has anything to dispute then please do. DWMemories (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

there's thing called Third position or syncretism they might meld more "left wing" beliefs like nationalisation but Reform has more kinship with National Rally or Fidesz than it does with the Tories or any Christian democratic EU party 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:29DA:74E3:45B7:9E9B (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with listing the party as Right-wing to far-right. There are factions of both, with many candidates sharing far-right and racist views, some dropped, some not. Additionally, certain MPs of Reform UK have recently sympathised and spread far-right conspiracies and views on social media. Furthermore, there's a huge proportion of documented Reform supporters who have shared far-right views. There are notable far-right factions of all sections of the party, so right-wing to far-right seems appropriate. Sizewell (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

why are we even debating this when its clear this party is clearly trying to appeal to nationalistic and fascistic sentiment? It's calling debating National Rally for being right wing when they're actually far right. Wikipedia editors failing to call out a racist project for what it is and instead quibbling over definitions. 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:29DA:74E3:45B7:9E9B (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Are enough of us now agreed? Can someone implement these changes?

Personally, I’d cite the University of Birmingham Source linked in the original post and the first source I sent, referring to the party as “radically right”. DWMemories (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Reform as populist right seems the best descriptor at the moment. Politico.eu and theweek.com use 'populist right,' you gov says 'culturally right.' This is an interesting article explaining why 'far-right' is wrong.https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/its-a-mistake-to-call-reform-uk-far-right/ The BBC said: “In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far right when referring to polling. This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/19/bbc-apologises-for-calling-reform-uk-far-right.Halbared (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment, the unsigned one. "Populist right" sounds correct to me. There is a problem with the term "far right" in that the moment it is used it enables the left and far left to call whoever is labelled with it Nazi. Reform UK is far from that. Then there are those on the left and far left who like to label populist right wing parties as far right for that very reason, so that they have a hammer to hit their enemy with, and it’s possible nowadays that some academics will want to do this.
This whole area is highly contentious, and for that reason alone I feel that we need not just an RS or two but absolutely unimpeachable RS's. If we have the BBC saying it was (and is) wrong to call Reform UK far right, then that's pretty solid, isn’t it? Bear in mind also that Farage and Tice threw out candidates who had clear far right opinions, and Farage himself has shown a strong determination to avoid the far right label. If we were to go ahead and describe them as far right despite all of that, it would be a "what the…" moment, IMO. "Populist right" feels correct to me. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Klu Klux Klan is described in wiki as Far Right. Reform are not that that far right. Maybe Klu Klux needs their wiki page amended though?

The lse.ac article mentioned above is also fair ,seemingly well researched by academics and seemingly unbiased. Jakecollingwood (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Although "populist right" wouldn't go into the position field, it'd go into the ideology field (where it already is) — Czello ^(music) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia labels the Conservative Party as “centre-right to right-wing” for a reason. There are factions within political parties.

Perhaps the question should be whether Reform UK are more right-wing than the most right-wing members of the Conservative Party. Are there members of Reform UK who are further right than the likes of Suella Braverman?

I’d argue there are, hence the previous sources I’ve provided (which have not been dissected).

“Far-right” on its own would CLEARLY be wrong. Reform UK are NOT on the same politically position as France’s National Rally and this is why the BBC corrected their comments. But after Channel 4’s investigation and the racist comments made by candidates, I think there’s enough to say there’s a large enough following within Reform UK that do sit on the far-right spectrum. DWMemories (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d also suggest Wikipedia shouldn’t exclude information which *could* be misused by extremists (you’re talking about the far-left here). It should go on academic opinion. DWMemories (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Do most of us here agree that for a lack of a better term, Reform UK is a very right wing political party? E.g. not simply 'Right-Wing'.

And that the Conservative Party is more of a Centre right to Right wing party? 80.43.59.80 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though I’d say “right-wing to far-right” covers their position. They’re more than simply right. DWMemories (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I second this, especially in the wake of the 2024 United Kingdom riots, which Farage responded to with an allegation or “two tier policing”.

That combined with the parties general lack of tolerance to certain marginalised groups, and the parties views on asylum seekers makes me think calling them simply “Right-Wing” is disingenuous.

However on the flip-side “Far-Right” would place them in the same league as parties such as the English Defence League & National Front, which are clearly more extreme than Reform UK.

Therefore i would say “Right-Wing to Far-Right” would be the only way to describe this party.

Also Sidenote: Someone should maybe add “National Conservatism” & “Anti-Immigration” to the “ideology” section. Jaybainshetland (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Good. It seems most of us agree a change is necessary. Farage’s response to the riots is indeed relevant evidence.

Unless anyone has anything else to add, I think the page should be edited in the coming days. DWMemories (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

At the moment the likes of Guardian/BBC et al are content to not paint Reform as 'far-right.' I checked the latest Guardian comment on the subject and they make note of Reform’s election candidates being dropped over links to far-right groups. You could make a RFC?Halbared (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To me it appears that the far-right label is indeed avoided by the largest UK media like The Guardian and BBC, and there are articles that openly argue that the far-right is not accurate for the party. Some of these sources are already in the ideology section, like this one by Tim Bale,[3], but there are also some other ones.[4]

Jaybainshetland brought up the party's response to this year's riots. The reaction seems to be "Some, such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, while condemning the violence, have suggested that far-right violence is a reaction to the fear and unease shared by tens of millions of people.", per Independent.[5]

I actually don't see why the riots or this (seemingly weak condemnation) response to the riots should speak in favor of attaching the far-right label to the party in spite of it being disputed. That would appear to be WP:OR to me. To not be dismissive of the opposite side, I would deem it to wait it out and see if there is a shift in the party's classification by the media and academia in the nearest future. Brat Forelli🦊 10:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The label is indeed avoided by the outlets you’ve mentioned. However, it is used by other outlets. Here are a few:

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

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

https://amp.dw.com/en/uk-thousands-join-anti-racism-rallies-far-right-stays-away/a-69909302

Neither “right-wing” or “far-right” alone is accurate. Only “right-wing to far-right” would accurately represent the the different labels the party has been given. DWMemories (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, I point to the sources I provided in an earlier post. Academic opinion should be what matters here and there are plenty of articles labelling the party as “far-right”.

I’m now agreed Farage’s response to the riots is not evidence the party is far-right, as this would be our own analysis of his comments. But it is clear some of those taking part in the riots (or, at the very least, agreeing with the riots) align themselves with Reform UK.

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/08/09/reform-uk-facebook-groups-rife-with-far-right-sentiment-and-support-for-riots/ DWMemories (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@DWMemories Byline Times is throwing shit hoping it sticks, but do you also deliberately conflate the official political position of a party[6], formally adopted by its executive body, and uncensored social media comments by random people?

By the way, you'll need to find sources that Farage's interview represented the official position of Reform UK. Read WP:SYNTH before that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary profanity and confused by the relevance of the party’s “official position” here. They label themselves a centre-right party, which is not exactly difficult to dispute.

Also confused what Farage interview you’re referencing as I have not suggested using one as evidence. DWMemories (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your words: Farage’s response to the riots is indeed relevant evidence. It's about his LBC interview I suppose[7]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also my words:

“I’m now agreed Farage’s response to the riots is not evidence the party is far-right, as this would be our own analysis of his comments.”

Why have you brought this interview up? DWMemories (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My point exactly, just because Adolf Hitler described himself as socialist, that doesn’t make him any less Far-Right, citing party material as a source is at best weak sourcing, and at worst, completely biased. Jaybainshetland (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, citing the party’s own manifesto is particularly weak evidence and no “official position” exists. We have to maintain Wikipedia based on academic opinion, not the opinion of biased politicians.

The party has been given plenty of different labels and therefore “right-wing to far-right” seems appropriate. Far-right on its own would contradict the articles arguing that label is wrong. DWMemories (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, no need for the swearing, second of all, it certainly seems like you have a bias towards Reform UK, so you would say that wouldn’t you? Jaybainshetland (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Always assume good faith. It’s probably not best to make guesses about people’s political views here. Do you have anything further to add to this debate in favour of changing the party’s position? DWMemories (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No mainstream media source will describe Reform as Far-Right, because they dont want the storm that will inevitably follow Jaybainshetland (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is original analysis. Though I agree we shouldn’t hold back changing Reform UK’s political position out of fear of the reaction that may follow. DWMemories (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to wikipedia being open, people causing a stir is a non issue, as it cannot be blamed on one particular person/company. We should just go ahead and edit in my opinion. Jaybainshetland (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also it is worth mentioning, i do have a slight COI due to my own political involvement, although i suspect this is the case for a few people in this discussion, therefore i believe a poll would be in order before making the edit. Jaybainshetland (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If that’s how we’re doing it, then I’d like to make my position clear.

I support changing the page to say “right-wing to far-right”. DWMemories (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The majority of Reform party members, and elected representatives, are former Conservatives. Tice, Anderson, Widdecombe et cetera. Another thing to mention was that the original Brexit party drew a lot of Labour voters in 2019. Now I consider it to be firmly on the right of British politics - right-wing or hard-right - but branding it as 'far-right' could demean the use of the word when used to describe fascist groups. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter the party consists of former Conservatives? The party’s current position is what matters here.

The party may have drawn Labour votes but this does not tell us much at all. People don’t always vote based on their left/right position (hence Tory seats shifting to Green).

To my knowledge, the term “hard-right” is used to avoid the “far-right” label but it means the same thing. Is there a distinguishable difference between the terms?

Changing the page to say “right-wing to far-right” would represent the different factions in the party. Either of the terms on their own does not give the full picture. DWMemories (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a difficult call to make, because whilst there are far-right members and candidates within the party, is it enough to push the position to 'right-wing to far-right'? The term 'hard-right' is coined by the media as a position past right-wing but not yet fascist/far-right. If the party is described it may as well be centre-right to far-right. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there any centre-right members though? And are there enough to make up an influential faction? The far-right members of Reform UK have changed the party’s general perception (having a candidate support Hitler didn’t exactly do them any favours). Is that not enough to support a change? DWMemories (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I’m going to respond to this in more detail once I have the time. But I warn this is not a political forum and you have dangerously invented a statistic to back up your argument.

“I guarantee to you that if you were to poll the entire country on whether they wanted the boats to stop coming across the channel with hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year, all bar about maybe 10% or 15% would say yes, they do want a halt to that immigration.”

No, you cannot guarantee this. You are basing this on your own assumptions rather than published data. And even if this statistic were genuine, it would be irrelevant. DWMemories (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Further to my previous comment, here are my thoughts.

I’m agreed people who understand the motive behind the riots aren’t far-right. But understanding the motive is not the same as believing the riots are acceptable. The media has unanimously identified the riots as the work of the far-right. If someone thinks these riots are justified, that someone is far-right.

The murder of the girls in Southport WAS NOT related to immigration in any way. The riots were organised under the FALSE belief that the murderer was not a British national. Therefore your comment about “those who refuse to integrate, and further, actually assault white girls in number […] sometimes kill them, is perhaps not such a good thing for the country” is completely irrelevant.

I’m concerned by your comment “a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs” and particularly your use of the word “white”. Not only does this seem to be made up statistic, but it also suggests immigrants attack white girls because they are white. I assume these rapists do not discriminate based on skin colour and (if you object to this) I’d like to see some academia backing up your argument.

I do not doubt there are people who voted Reform UK who are not far-right. You can believe immigration is too high without being far-right. But the party’s political position is not determined by the political position of its voters - it’s determined by the party’s policies and membership.

I’ve already critiqued your “10% or 15%” figure but would like to reiterate it’s a figure that both means nothing and is based on nothing. In the way you’ve phrased the question, people who are pro-immigration could be part of your figure. Someone may want the channel crossings to stop purely because they are a danger to the people crossing. In their place, someone might want a safe route to be made available. Your “hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year” figure is also, seemingly, made-up. Last year, only around 29,000 immigrants crossed via the channel.

Reform UK has members who are right-wing. But it also has members who are far-right. I point to the candidate who said the UK should not have participated in WW2. I point to the other far-right candidates who were initially allowed to be part of the party. And, again, I point to the articles I posted quite some time ago (which are still yet to be discussed).

If anyone were to change the political position, I would not object. I think it’s time for it to be updated.

English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) DWMemories (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Trying to get this discussion back to how reliable sources characterise Reform UK, here's an academic journal article calling it "radical right". The Guardian calls it "radical right populist" here. The Economist uses "radical right" here. The New York Times suggests it's a far-right party here, as does Le Monde here and CBS here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, as BBC News were forced to apologise for the error and retract it when they called Reform UK "far-right", saying "we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far-right", and that "it fell short of our usual editorial standards", explaining that "the original wording was based on news agency copy". It seems clear to me that the term has different meanings in different polities. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note too that The Telegraph reported BBC News's apology and added more context. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This matter is however complicated by political scientists such as Tim Bale arguing that far-right and radical right have to be differentiated, and that the latter should not be classified as the former - at least as far as Reform UK goes - here. In fact, this article is already present in the Wiki article of Reform UK. This also gets complicated by articles that explicitly argue against the far-right labels, like this one. I would also personally not count the New York Times article since the implication is only present in the title ("Reform U.K.’s Success Is Latest Sign of Strength for Europe’s Far Right") and the phrase "far right" is not used even once in the article itself, which makes it too ambigous to be usable.

To me it appears like this - we can find, let's say, 20 (reliable) sources that call the party just "right-wing", easily so. We can find some that call it "radical right", and a bit less that use the "far-right". But we also have sources that call for a differentation between the far right and radical right (including one that explicitly makes a case for Reform UK, in case of Tim Bale), and articles that explicitly argue against the far-right label. You've shown that there are sources that call the party far-right (and radical right), but this is not an argument all in itself because we have WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE. Brat Forelli🦊 22:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To me this implies that we definitely shouldn't have far-right (or radical right) in the infobox or lead. There might be scope to say under the 'Ideology and platform' section words to the effect of "elements of the party have been described as radical right or far-right". — Czello ^(music) 07:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for any particular label, more just trying to show that there are sources that use these terms to describe the party (and I was also a bit unsure about the NYT article). Interestingly, Cas Mudde, who Bale cites in that blog post, appears to consider the party far-right, to the extent that he's declined to write a comment piece on it (which doesn't help us much). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interesting case. For Mudde, both radical right and extreme right are variants of the far-right, while Tim Bale argues that radical right (or at least populist radical right) are not far-right, and states that calling Reform UK far-right is a mistake. Admittedly, Cas Mudde made it really difficult to us by refusing to write an op-Ed on it. Since that does make the case for labelling it as far-right at least difficult. Not to mention that Cas Mudde appears to believe, if I read it correctly, that the Conservative Party is far-right too, which is not something that could be substantiated by academic sources much, let alone pass WP:UNDUE. Brat Forelli🦊 15:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the solution to simply remove the political position from the infobox? While I believe there is enough evidence to support a “far-right” change, academic opinion is undoubtedly mixed. If there are sources saying the party is “right-wing”, sources saying the party is “radical right”, and sources saying the party is “far-right”, then none of these positions on its own is fitting. We can get different views across far better in the main article. I worry “right-wing” on its own is a great simplification. DWMemories (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The political position of the party is not disputed in a way that makes impossible to classify - no reliable source has ever called the party left-wing, centre-left, centrist, or even centre-right. No newspaper except for The Epoch Times (which we can comfortably dismiss as non-reliable here), let alone a political scientist, has called the party centre-right or anything to the left of that. It is a right-wing party, and that is what virtually anyone would agree to. This is the majority view.

The only question is how much right-wing the party is. There are articles that call it far-right, there are much more calling it radical right, but we also have political scientists arguing that radical right (explicitly in the contest of Reform UK) should not be considered far-right. But there is a dominance of just "right-wing" in reliable sources. Whether these sources are oversimplifying is up to speculation, which is not our business. I am sure this is recognized by the users supportive of the change, since the proposed change, as far as I'm aware, is to make the party's position "Right-wing to far-right", and not just "Far-right" - I am afraid this would be nearly impossible to get through. Brat Forelli🦊 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd keep simply 'right-wing', as it's undisputed that they are right-wing. I'd eschew other labels, but, as I said above, mention them in the ideology section of the body. — Czello ^(music) 07:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify I was not proposing the article say only “far-right” but instead “right-wing to far-right”.

For now, I’d be content with Czello’s suggestion. But, as Reform UK continues on its political journey, this subject should be monitored closely.

I’d press it should be made clear there are articles naming the party “far-right” but the term is disputed by Farage.

Would there be enough support to have “radical right” added to the first paragraph? DWMemories (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd keep such descriptions out of the lead and confine them to the ideology section. I think it'd be WP:UNDUE for them to be in the lead, and a bit too controversial. — Czello ^(music) 08:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Reform’s general election manifesto, one of their central policies on immigration is:

“Freeze Non-Essential Immigration

Strict limits on immigration are the only way to relieve the pressure on our housing, public services, increase wages and protect our culture, identity and values. Essential skills, mainly around healthcare, must be the only exception.”

To me, this is very much like saying there should be a freeze on almost all migration to the UK. Some of their elected politicians have advocated for a complete freeze on migration, such as Lee Anderson. That’s probably enough on it’s own, to justify changing the political position to ‘right-wing to far-right’. 92.24.65.193 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The same can also be said for:

“Leave the European Convention on Human Rights”.

These policies go beyond simply ‘right-wing’. 92.24.65.193 (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This would be original research. We base Wikipedia articles on what reliable, independent sources say about their subjects, not our own interpretations. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

As much as I agree the party’s actual position goes beyond “right-wing”, there simply isn’t enough academia supporting a change.

I do think “radical right” should be in the lead as this does not seem to be particularly controversial (the controversy is mainly about whether the term “far-right” should be used). For now, the infobox should be unchanged. DWMemories (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has mentioned Reform politicians such as Ben Habib, who before the 2024 general election, discussed his views about what should be done with asylum seekers who try to cross the channel:

“In April 2024, during an interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer, he advocated in favour of leaving immigrants to drown when they try to cross the Channel by boat” Ben Habib#Political career.

It’s certainly an extreme position to take, and was not rebuffed by other members of his party. 89.242.116.28 (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR. We make decisions based on sources, not interpretation of members' views. — Czello ^(music) 07:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Should the article be updated? Hexalogical (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No, because no consensus was reached on the change, hence the position is to remain as is. Brat Forelli🦊 08:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to mention the positions in the ideology section? DWMemories (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus, from what I can see, not to mention them, which is where onus would lie. — Czello ^(music) 20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Desmog

Is desmog a reliable source for the latest addition?Halbared (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• The facts are undoubtedly correct, but they're presented in a misleading manner. For example, nearly half of that £2.3m is from one of Reform's own MPs (and former leader) Richard Tice, who is indeed a noted climate change denier, something which is omitted from his hagiography of a Wikipedia article ([8] [9] etc. After that, it becomes fuzzier - one of Jeremy Hosking's investment companies does indeed have large holdings in the the energy sector, but then so do hundreds of investment companies. I would remove this as being technically true, but written out of context. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Membership

I changed the membership to the recently revealed figure of 80k + could someone keep this figure but please do the correct process so this red error message does not come up? GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it. It needs properly templating though – I'll get to that when I have a moment. — Czello ^(music) 12:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Heres the source to proove its been revealed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6q0j8pdj4o GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

33 councillors

We should add the 6 reform derby councillors to the total of reform councillors Spookybunny8 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They are a affiliate party so Im not sure if they should go under the reform parties councillors(and if they did there should be a little note next to it like the one on the derby council page saying six are from an affiliate.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)