This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reform UK article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why does the article describe Reform as "right-wing to far-right"? A1: A six-week discussion was held in January 2026 to assess how reliable sources tended to describe the Reform Party. It concluded that there were "ample grounds to include the term "far-right" in the lead and infobox alongside existing terminology".

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

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Low‑importance 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 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 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. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: January 2026 review of sources: Talk:Reform UK/Source review.

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

Shouldn't the opener say "right-wing populist TO far-right",not "right-wing populist AND far-right"? That's how parties like Restore are described. AxioChrono (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Since "right-wing populist" is a specific ideology and not just a position on the left/right political spectrum, I think the use of "and" is more appropriate and grammatically correct here. Conversely, Restore Britain is described as "right-wing to far right" (without the "populist" qualifier). Day Creature (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: keeps removing the footnote I added to the lead which clarified that Reform UK is classified as part of the Radical right (Europe) within the far right. [1] [2]. All of the justifications as far as I can tell used by Helper201 for the removal are completely false. There is no evidence for the claim that The vast majority of sources regarding [classifying Reform UK as] far-right say simply that [and not radical right]" and the "radical right" descriptor is used by many sources in the body and in academic literature, contrary to Helper201's claim that This descriptor [of radical right] is used by a single source. The claim that the page for radical right doesn't even say it’s a "moderate subset of the far right is also misleading, the Wikipedia article calls Reform UK successively radical right and one of the moderate European far right parties. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does the footnote serve? The lede is a summary of the body. Reform UK is a far-right party. If an editor wishes to add that they are a "moderate far-right" party, then there's a whole section dedicated to that: Reform UK#Ideology and platform. I'm opposed to the footnote, but I support adding the information from the footnote to the section I linked above. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, you are correct in everything you have stated. o keep neutrality an explanation of the umbrella term is required. Halbared (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why though, for neutrality sake? For neo-Nazi parties we don't use notes saying "Not 1940s Nazis that killed 6 million Jews, but post-war Nazism, which is a different from them". We just put neo-Nazi and leave it at that; for those who want to know more, as TurboSuperA+ says, can read more. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a supporter of the "radical right" label, I thought that putting it at least in a footnote was a good first step towards a better accuracy of the description. --Friniate ✉ 12:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the logic, only per MOS:OPEN, we should do so without being too specific. There is enough content in this article and at Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (which is linked) to elaborate on this. If the issue is it should say radical right rather than far-right, then to me that's a separate discussion. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've a point. Simply, since these are all IMHO temporary solutions, I viewed the note as the less evil. --Friniate ✉ 16:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "far right" is a broad umbrella term that includes both pro-democracy political parties and violent extremists? I am happy to remove "moderate subset of the far right", but I support having a footnote clarifying they are radical right somewhere in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazism is also pretty broad encompassing both partial and full idealisation of Nazism (pretty vague that), as well as including both pro-state and anti-state ideals. That sub-categorisation is not so dissimilar from far-right encompassing both pro-democracy and anti-democracy imo. But I digress. I'm not opposed to a simple note "as part of the radical right", I thought this was what it initially said to be honest, but became expanded maybe? I guess that was the issue if so, by starting off as a simple note that and turned into more of an unnecessary elaboration. Ideally the MOS:FIRST would instead just say Reform UK is a right-wing populist and far-right political party in the United Kingdom, as part of the European radical right. Or something to that effect with no note needed and due context included. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have several concerns with and comments for that:

1) We had an RFC and community's consensus was assessed to be for including the label in the lede. The opponents of the proposal spent their time trying to discredit academics and questioning reliability of sources (spawning two RSN threads). Nobody suggested a footnote. I am concerned that footnotes are going to become a way to bypass consensus.

2) "Moderate subset of the far-right" Do we have RS to support that? We also have many academics calling them "radical right". Radical doesn't sound very moderate to me. If we go with a footnote, then we have to decide what the footnote should say, and judging by the sources, it should be "radical right".

3) In MOS:NOTES the first reason to use a footnote: Explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article. This information is not too detailed or awkward to be in the body, because there is already a section in the body that deals with their politics and what they are exactly, Reform UK#Ideology and platform.

4) We arrived at a consensus after a painstaking analysis of (nearly) every available source out there, it was quite extensive: Talk:Reform UK/Archive 6#Source review tables. One cannopt simply ignore the sources and just describe Reform UK as "moderate far-right" based on... what exactly? And speaking of sources, the New York Times just published an article 2 hours ago calling Reform UK "far-right".[3] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even cited on the Radical right (Europe) that it is a "moderate subsection of the far-right", as was claimed in the note. Plus, the claim was supported by a single source, making it WP:UNDUE. Helper201 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's (although implicitly) said in the sentence Since the 2020s, scholars have described radical right as belonging to a subset of far-right politics, distinguished from the extreme right. But I agree, that article needs to be rewritten distinguishing better between different concepts that right now are confusingly intermingled. --Friniate ✉ 12:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear over at Far-right politics in the United Kingdom#Terminology, European radical right is pretty broad, UK far-right politics is the narrower scope here. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But, per WP:RSPWP, Wikipedia isn't considered to be a reliable source, and, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, what other articles say is irrelevant here. As we cannot rely on other articles, we need everything in this article to be stand-alone, and comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't proposing an edit to mainspace, I was providing information. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since last month this article has become very unneutral ~2026-31739-17 (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-31739-17, can you be more specific please? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of Reform is under discussion, see Talk:Reform (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 May 2026. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a left-wing smear attempt by using terminologies such as "far-right" and "right-wing populists". Are the Greens being labelled "left-wing populist" and "far-left"? ~2026-31909-57 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-31909-57, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, what happens in other articles is irrelevant here, but the article introduction here should summarise the article body. Do you think it does that adequately and that the article body is also biased, or do you think it's just the intro that's the problem and the body is okay? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the "ideology" section, various terms are applied to Reform UK with "neoliberal populist" being one of these. The source cited doesn't directly refer to Reform by this term, in fact it calls it "the Brexit Party" and cites its own source referring to "neoliberal populists" which itself does not mention Reform. What is the actual justification behind using the term? Jam006 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this is probably a bit outdated now given it's referring to the Brexit Party. Technically they're the same party, but they're obviously a bit different now compared to back then. — Czello ^(music) 12:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change "right wing to far right" to "right wing" under ideology ~2026-33036-02 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.

Discussed ad nauseam already on this talk page. Only reopen your request if, and only after, the consensus changes. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]