Talk:Reform UK/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Error in graphic showing constituencies contested

I noticed that the map showing which seats the Brexit Party fought in the 2019 general election in that section of this article shows that they contested Dundee East. However, that is not the case (I think there was a candidate selected, but they withdrew before nominations closed and endorsed the Conservative candidate. A further look would also suggest that the map is showing that the Brexit Party fought every seat in Scotland apart from the 13 won by the Conservatives in 2017, but this is not the case - for instance Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Argyll and Bute and Lanark and Hamilton East were among several seats not to have a Brexit candidate, but all are marked on the map as being contested by the party. This would also seem to be the case with Canterbury. This is something someone might want to look at. Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this, they are marked on the map as having stood in Bristol North West when they in fact did not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B404:9200:84CB:CDCD:FCEE:1FCD (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Although Farage has said the party will be renamed Reform UK this has not officially happened yet and the party is still listed as Brexit Party according to the electoral commission. I therefore strongly suggest reverting the article to name Brexit Party until the name change is official. C. 22468 Talk to me 00:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've now restored the current official name. @Unreal7:, I think you made the move way too soon. We may also need a discussion whether Reform UK should have a separate article, and I can imagine quite a few voices in favour. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a separate article considering Reform UK will be the same party with the same key figures. JJARichardson (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That depends. If it has different underlying aims and objectives, as well as a new name, it should have its own article, irrespective of the individuals initially involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with a new article (with a section in each crosslinking between them, of course, and duplicating history where necessary) - a single-issue party dramatically changing both its name and focus at the same time seems to make it into a bit more of a "successor" situation than a "rebrand", even if there is some organisational continuity. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This does indeed sound like a successor, not a rebrand. Even if they were to be considered the same actual entity, this still needs two articles, as the two incarnations would be so radically different. -- The Anome (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks like an entirely new initiative under a new leadership and promoting an entirely new idea. In my view, it is formally proceeded as "rebranding" only in order to take over the large membership base - the only thing of relative value left from what was the Brexit Party. I'm all for a separate article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Brexit Party has now changed into Reform UK. I think we should change it now. BSMIsEditing (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted to change it, however it hasn't let me - has anyone else had any luck? Wikieditor123000 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor123000:@BSMIsEditing: I've requested speedy deletion of the Reform UK redirect to make space for the move. Once that happens we can make the move. — Czello 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up about the name change, this would mean the moving of categories and templates too, surely? The only question mark there is about the category of "Brexit Party MEPs", as there was never any moment when the party was called "Reform UK" and it had any MEPs. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please seek consensus before name change I am restoring the name Brexit Party and diff:99870964. Reason: Quite a few editors here have agreed that Reform UK will need a new article, since it does not appear to be the same political initiative as the Brexit Party, and also on account of WP:ARTICLESIZE.

Feel free to start Reform UK from scratch; it can me merged later if consensus is there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to very much disagree with this decision: Reform UK isn't a new political party, it's a rename of the Brexit Party. They may well have changed their objective, but what they submitted to the Electoral Commission was a name change request, not the folding of one party and the formation of a new one. They should share the same article as they are fundamentally the same entity. — Czello 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Politically it's a new entity with entirely different objectives and, most likely, support base, even if its leaders preferred to keep the old registration for whatever reasons. More importantly, superimposing Reform UK onto what was a decent, detailed article about the Brexit Party poses a risk of losing focus and ending up with a long, confusing article. On Wikipedia, we should respect pagesize limits and it is perfectly all right to have the same topic span several articles (see for example all the sub-articles listed at Timeline of the Barack Obama presidency or at List of film scores by Ilaiyaraaja). — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it a new entity, exactly? It's still the same organisation. They just had a rename. — Czello 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Has there been any other major rebranding of a political party that we could look to for precedent? The only one I can think of is Change UK/TIG, but their name changes were mainly down to lawsuits and not a change in the party's direction. I don't think renaming the article is a good idea (as the title won't match the content), but Reform UK is likely to remain very short and stubby until media coverage picks up, which may be some time (a quick search yields a press release, a few "Brexit Party officially changes name..." type articles and something with a very neutral headline from the Express). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the original PEOPLE Party was renamed to Ecology Party in 1975 and then changed the name to Green Party in 1985. Needless to say, we have three separate articles on Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The article should definitely be moved and not split – it's a rename, not a new party, and so the history includes the time it was known as the Brexit party. If you're looking for examples of similar practice, when the Front National was renamed National Rally, that article was just moved. Number 57 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to some of the discussion here on whether there should be two separate articles or not: I would be opposed to splitting the two articles and treating the Brexit Party and Reform UK differently, as they are the same political party, just with a different name. All the RS's (I've seen) discussing the new name for the party treat it solely as a rename; not as a new entity. For example: Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party will now be known as Reform UK...; gave him [Farage] permission to rebrand the mothballed Brexit party as Reform UK; The Brexit Party is no more after the Electoral Commission approved its name-change to Reform UK While they may have different immediate political objectives; as long as sources treat them as the same party, I don't think it's up to us as editors to decide whether these objectives are different enough to warrant two separate articles. If sources start describing them as different entities, then that would be a different story, but with the sources I've seen so far, I don't think we're there yet. With regards to what this article should be called, I think it's probably too early to see what name sources are using to call the party - whether they call it Reform UK, or stick with the (arguably) more well known Brexit Party. Seagull123 Φ 00:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this webpage at the Brexit Party website makes it obvious that the party itself considers the BP and RUK to be the same entity (That is why we have applied to the Electoral Commission to rename the party. ... The proposed name reflects the ambition: Reform UK.) - I know this doesn't overrule what RS's say about the party/parties; but whatever outcome of this discussion, the article(s) should say that they consider BP and RUK to be the same thing. Seagull123 Φ 00:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree with both of your comments. I think you make a good point, however, about the rename being WP:TOOSOON and maybe going against WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, they should be one article. — Czello 12:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• For now I would support having a new article on Reform UK but for now keeping it as a redirect to Brexit Party given the lack of information on it. Theoretically we could have one whole article with one section being about Brexit Party and the other being about Reform UK which short-term could probably work but IMHO wont in the long-term given as I said both parties are for 2 different things. –Davey2010^Talk 13:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• This quote from New Statesman adds to our discussion:

The known unknown is the extent to which Reform UK is treated as the successor to the Brexit Party by the broadcasters, particularly the BBC, in the run-up to the elections. The amount of airtime a party receives is, in part, set by its performances in previous elections, and the Brexit Party can point to its successful showing in the 2019 European elections and its significantly less successful showing in the 2019 general election.
But while the Brexit Party and Reform UK are legally the same entity, it is, to be blunt, unclear whether there is much, if any, read-across from the average supporter of the Brexit Party to the average opponent of lockdown. If I successfully won control of Reform UK in a card game from Farage and rebranded it the “Ban Private Cars From Cities by 2030” party, would I be entitled to receive the same level of media coverage I would receive had I fought and won the European elections myself? I am dubious that I would be, but if you are a BBC producer craving the attention and controversy that Farage brings, then you’ve certainly got a good excuse to give him more coverage than, say, the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats.

— www.newstatesman.com/politics/wales/2021/01/nigel-farage-s-new-reform-uk-party-unlikely-succeed-his-next-one-might

— kashmīrī ^TALK 18:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's looking like editors are split on how to go about this, and there hasn't been any movement in this discussion in a couple of days (I notified the UK Politics Wikiproject but it seems to have made little difference). Consequently I think I will start an RfC to get a more thorough debate going. — Czello 08:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Czello: Thanks for reopening this - I hadn't realised the name change had finally gone through! @Coolguy2246, JJARichardson, Ghmyrtle, The Anome, BSMIsEditing, Unknown Temptation, Number 57, Seagull123, and Davey2010: adding a quick ping here for everyone who commented in the earlier discussion, and hasn't already commented below, to note that it's been reopened. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Election boxes/colours etc

If this article is re-named (effectively moved) what happens to existing links to Brexit Party election results? I'm wary about historic Brexit Party links changing to Reform Party links, which would be misleading. This will involve the European Parliament election articles, hundreds of constituency articles, and by-election articles. Cheers. doktorb _words^deeds 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You just link it like this Brexit Party. Just like when we use the new names of Salisbury in Zimbabwe or Bombay in India in historical context. Keep the colours the same because I don't think they are changing those. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing would change visually, as the shortname and colour templates don't change when the article is moved. I agree however that clicking on a Brexit Party link and bring redirected to the Reform UK article is problematic. A solution to this could be to change the Brexit Party's shortname template to point to a specific section within the Reform UK article about the former party. We could even add a second infobox, to preserve information that is currently at the top of the page (which will obviously change if this article is renamed). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, the Manual of Style says no to having two infoboxes. Articles for long-running parties with very significant changes in their political positions and fortunes over time make do fine with one infobox.

I note, for example, that if you go to 1868 United States presidential election and click on "Republican", it takes you to Republican Party. We don't worry about this, even though what the Republican Party in 1868 stood for is a very long way from what the Republican Party today stands for. (There is a History of the Republican Party if you want details. If this article gets too long, we can have a "History of..." article too.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Website

I notice that Reform UK has their own website. Should this be added in, and if so, where? Alextheconservative (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Political Position

There is no 'Political Position' entry in the infobox. I would suggest an entry stating 'Right wing to Far-Right' with references including Hope Not Hate, Tim Bale and Marco Guglielmo. BobBadg (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate isn't considered a reliable source. I couldn't see far-right in the other two articles you listed: and in fact, that third article specifically states that the Brexit Party is not far-right: "establishing the Brexit Party, opening its bid to all those Eurosceptic voters who were not impressed by UKIP’s far-right stands.". Given the BXP has a mix of people from across the political spectrum, including communists, I think the political position for this article should remain blank. There's no requirement for this to be filled in, and I think doing so would just open the gates for edit warring and tendentious editing, all for no real gain. — Czello 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the previous comment, I think that it is too early to tell the political ideology of REFUK. While they are made up of the same organisers, they haven't put out official manifestoes yet. Alextheconservative (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes - it would be factually incorrect to call Reform UK 'far-right', especially as it was formed in order to get away from UKIP's new hard-right tendancies. I'd refrain from calling it 'right-wing' too - if you analyse the Brexit Party 2019 Contract with the People, their economic policy is centrist. I believe that their policies will be very similar to the 2019 Brexit ones, so I think 'Populist' and 'Anti-lockdown' would be the only accurate labels we can use at this time. 82.69.64.66 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Czello. The infobox is the last thing we should fill in. Get the text of the article correct and then come back to the infobox. Instead of trying to summarise an answer with one or two keywords in the infobox, let's have a paragraph or multiple paragraphs in the article about Reform UK's political position, using reliable sources. Once that's worked out, we can worry about whether that can be summarised in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Having started this section that's now generated this interesting discussion, I'd like to respond. Firstly, arguing that 'it's too early to tell' the RP position when Wikipedia seems to have agreed that it's an extension of the Brexit Party seems inconsistent. Second, the Tim Bale source states that the Brexit Party is 'Radical Right', while the Gugliemo article is titled "Anti-lockdown politics: A successful revival for Farage's right-wing populism?". These references clearly support the argument that the Party is right-wing (given that Farage is the RP leader and the RP is following his anti-lockdown policy). It's been well established that parties that are right-wing in an authoritarian, populist sense can have some 'centrist' economic policies. With regard to the difference between UKIP and the Brexit Party: Farage himself said of the Brexit Party "In terms of policy, there’s no difference [from UKIP]". As for the idea that the Brexit/ Reform Party has "a mix of people from across the political spectrum, including communists", I take it that this is a reference to Claire Fox, a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (which was in fact Trotskyist), who is now a Baroness and a libertarian. Furthermore, I don't follow the argument for not filling in the Political Position details - it's important and useful information (most Party entries in Wikipedia contain it - why should the Reform/ Brexit Party be different?). But to be quite fair and show that I agree there's a discussion to be had, there is an argument that the Reform/ Brexit party isn't simply a Right-wing party, but as Populists are also attempting to be 'Big Tent'. In the last European Parliament it was part of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, which contained mainly right-wing parties (such as the nationalist Swedish Democrats), but also the Italian Big Tent 5 Star Movement. (see also ). So if someone wanted to propose that we add a Political Position entry of 'Right Wing to Far Right'; 'Big Tent', that would seem to cover the wide range of politics involved. Well someone is going to object to the inclusion of 'Far-right' aren't they? How about 'Big Tent, Right Wing' then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobBadg (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It helps to have up-to-date (post-transition to Reform) citations, which we have in the Birmingham University piece above. That, and earlier references, support describing the party as right-wing populist. I think that means "right-wing" in the Position field and "populism" in the Ideology field?

It currently says Populism, Euroscepticism and Anti-Lockdown Politics in the Ideology field, that seems fair and supported.

I still think we should be more putting more effort into the article text and then coming back to the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Reform UK

Hi

Could you upload the Reform UK logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Panam2014. This is a complicated situation! I think that would be sensible, but some editors feel that is not appropriate while an RfC is going on. In the section immediately above, I've proposed using the new logo: feel free to add your support there. If there is sufficient support for this, we could maybe do it before the RfC resolves. Or possible the RfC will be resolved soon and we can move forward based on however that decides. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Local Councillors

Today it was announced that Reform UK now have their "first local councillor"

I checked and the Brexit Party is listed in this article as having three local councillors (obviously the Brexit Party no longer exists) but given this announcement should the number of councillors be changed to one? Guyb123321 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

A tweet by the party is not secondary and not RS, but we can use primary sources in some situations. Tracking councillors is difficult. Do we know what happened to the 3 Brexit Party councillors? Did they leave the Brexit Party before it transitioned into Reform? Did they leave the Brexit Party because it transitioned into Reform? Are they still calling themselves Brexit Party councillors? It seems entirely possible that Reform UK has simply forgotten about them! Bill Cherrington is still listed on the Sandwell Council website as Brexit Party, but such websites can be slow to be updated. Same story for Clare Aspinall and Mike Bennison. I couldn't find any 2021 coverage of any of them. I think we should stick to the secondary source given for now, so 3. Bondegezou (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

A secondary source for this is here but from looking at the Hartlepool Council website, John Tennant (politician) is still listed as a councillor for Hartlepool Indepedent Union. Interesting that all three Brexit Party councillors are also still calling themselves that on their respective council pages, despite the Brexit party not really existing anymore but probably just a case of council website being slow to update - I also can't find any other coverage so will leave it for now, have emailed the three councillors to ask what they are doing out of personal interest though! Guyb123321 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the councillors, Bill Cherrington has confirmed to me that he emailed democratic services last week to change his affiliation to Reform UK Guyb123321 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now edited to include the sum of the Brexit Party and Reform UK councillors as per the Open Council Data page - I suspect that overtime the Brexit Party councillors will switch to Reform UK Guyb123321 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait

@Bondegezou: and @Cordyceps-Zombie: - please do NOT rename the party until the RfC is closed. What you are doing is altering the status quo which affects the next commenters. For now, it doesn't look like there is a consensus for renaming - but please wait for the closing admin before you start altering the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I understand. I have returned the page to the status quo ante Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I think that's a misunderstanding of the process. The RfC is primarily about whether there should be 1 article or 2 articles. If we have one article, then secondarily there is a question about whether it should be at Brexit Party or Reform UK. The RfC is not about the content of the article (although clearly it will have implications for the content). We should continue to improve the content of the article, as we do any article. Editors and the RfC closer are able to understand that the article doesn't stay unchanged during this process. Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is about whether the Reform UK party should be dealt with in a separate article. Your edits to include Reform UK in the Brexit Party article are counterproductive to the ongoing discussion and should be avoided: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. (source). I am restoring the version prior to your controversial edits. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Best this RFC run it course before any such changes are made, if required by the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The changes made do not interfere with the RfC. The RfC is primarily about whether we have one or two articles. Czello, you started the RfC, what do you think?

We currently have one article. This article covered Reform UK before the RfC was begun. We should make the article the best article it can be, which means covering Reform UK within this article as well as we can. If the RfC concludes we should split, then, fine, we will have two articles: we will separate out the relevant parts of the current text and put them into two articles -- like we do any split. There is no reason to keep the article in an out of date form while we await for a split-or-not decision.

Kashmiri, you are coming across as wanting to make the one article form look bad because you want a two article solution. When the RfC was begun, this was what the article looked like and it talked about how the party is now called Reform UK. Tidying up that material is sensible, should be done and does not prevent normal resolution of the RfC. Bondegezou (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your view Bondegezou. The article shouldn't be "on pause" until the RfC is closed (which could take a while -- I've requested closure but there are a bunch of RfCs that are currently awaiting admin decision). I think until the RfC is concluded either way it's fair to continue updating the article. I also don't think I agree with Kashmiri's claim that altering the status quo affects other comments: I think people can make an impartial view despite the article. However, I think we should avoid any article moves until an RfC conclusion. — Czello 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've no interest in getting into any back & forth editing on this, so it's up to you both, to go that route. Either others will continually revert you or they won't. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The name of the article (or articles) is defacto a part of the RfC. When an RfC is in progress the affected elements of the article are not edited. Changes to that will and have been reverted so per WP:BRD you have to resolve them here anyway. Just be patient, it will get closed then we can move on. GoodDay what was that comment about? -----Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which one? GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Snowded, the article is at Brexit Party and none of the edits affected that. If I see this correctly, you reverted changes like moving the old logo lower down the page and having the right URL in the infobox. How are those sorts of changes interfering with the RfC? Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is about having two articles or one, and that will determine if this has Brexit Party as its name or not. You seem to lack the patience to wait for the RfC to complete -----Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: The RfC is about whether Brexit Party and Reform UK should each have their own articles, or whether we should deal with both in a single article. At the start of the RfC, there were two separate articles. Then as the RfC was under way, you redirected Reform UK and started adding content about Reform UK to Brexit Party. This amounts to interfering with the RfC and is discouraged. I suggest you closely read the RfC guideline quoted a few paragraphs earlier. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There was content about Reform UK in this article when the RfC began, as per the link I gave earlier. There was a Reform UK stub: I was uncertain what to do about that, so I redirected it here as the RfC was here and it was not a properly done split from this article. I indicated this was a WP:BOLD action and took no action when someone reverted me, nor have I touched that page since. My apologies if anyone feels that was counter-productive to the RfC. Multiple other editors have made further edits since then, to both pages, which I think indicates a degree of consensus that, while we await the RfC conclusion, we should make this article as good as it can be. However, I note the concerns you and Snowded have expressed. I look forward to a prompt RfC conclusion and will respect whatever decision is made. Bondegezou (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I was uncertain what to do about that, so I redirected it It was an article that quite a few editors were working on, your redirect was quite disruptive to be honest. it was not a properly done split from this article No, because it was not a WP:SPLIT but an entirely new article with content focusing on Reform UK. Please, let's let the RfC run its course without interference. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn’t be having a debate about, if one article is kept, it should continue to be called the Brexit Party. That would be misleading and completely false, it would be misinformation. There is a credible debate to be had on whether there should be one or two articles, but the party is called and referred to in the media as ‘Reform UK’. Continuing to call it the Brexit Party would be untrue and misinformation. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've asked in the RFC. How have the British handled re-named political parties of the past? GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

They've either renamed the article and put the info about the old name into the 'history' section or made a completely new article for the new party. They've never done neither and kept the article name the same (even though the party name has changed) without a separate article.82.69.64.66 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think, by now, there's agreement that we either have one article, called Reform UK but also covering Brexit Party history, or we have two articles, one Reform UK and one Brexit Party. The RfC is principally about which of those we do. While we await a closure to the RfC, it is felt that we shouldn't move the current article from Brexit Party to Reform UK. The current article does talk about the name change and recent events. Many of us feel we could further re-style this article to reflect the name change to Reform UK (as per edits in recent days), but some editors in the above discussion are opposed to that. By all means, do express your views on the RfC above (1 or 2 articles) or here in terms of what edits are appropriate before the RfC concludes. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Practical suggestions

I don't see a consensus as to what changes can and can't be made while we await an RfC closure. Several different editors have made changes to the article, but some above have objected/reverted. I take it we do agree not to move the article to Reform UK until there is an RfC conclusion. So, looking at recent editing, that leaves the following points of contention:

Opening paragraph of lead section: This currently begins "The Brexit Party is...", but ends noting the name change to Reform UK. Can we...

a. Put "Reform UK" in bold?

b. Reverse how we introduce the 2 names: i.e. begin "Reform UK is..." and then end with "... was called the Brexit Party"?

Infobox:

c. This is currently titled "Brexit Party". Can we change that to "Reform UK"? Or is there some other wording appropriate?

d. Currently includes the Brexit Party logo. Can we move that to lower in the article and insert the similar Reform UK logo here?

e. This lists two URLs, the one for the Brexit Party and then the one for Reform UK. Should that switch to just the Reform UK URL?

Obviously, if the RfC concludes that we should have 2 articles, we can copy over appropriate material to a new Reform UK article and have a historical perspective for what's here. If the RfC concludes 1 article, we just keep the changes made and move the article.

I suggest we should do (a), (b), (c) and (d), but not (e), so leave the 2 URLs as they are. If others would like to weigh in, maybe we can find a consensus should the RfC continue to drag out. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about what was known as Brexit Party, and an RfC is under way on whether to include content on Reform UK in the same article or keep it separate. Until the closing admin assesses the consensus, please be so kind as to refrain form changing the infobox, the opening sentence, the title, the logo, etc.

Feel free to improve content about the Brexit Party in the mean time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't start the article "Reform UK" because this article is about "(The) Brexit Party". Candidates stood with "Brexit Party" on their ballot papers. Wikipedia has those candidates next to "Brexit Party" and the designated colour. The title represents what the party was for its entire existence, up to and including the 2019 general election. What we shouldn't do is make a clear demarcation murkier than it needs to be. I remain in favour of two articles entirely to move away from a 5+-point plan on how to steer this article away from the current title and focus. When Reform candidates stand for election (and one MSP already exists as a defector remember) then the focus can be on making the Reform article better. doktorb _words^deeds 06:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

At the point the RfC started, this article already said in its opening sentence that the party is now called Reform UK, and had 3 paragraphs on the transition to the new name. If the RfC concludes we should have 2 articles, then we will do that. But the RfC is not a reason to roll back this article from where it was when the RfC began, which was an article with content on Reform UK and covering the change to Reform UK. Bondegezou (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnny3131, Nunnster, and Vabadus91: Re your recent edits that have been reverted, discussion here may be relevant in explaining why you were reverted and how to input on where the article could go next. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Website

If the results of the RfC lead to the renaming of the article to Reform UK, should the Brexit Party website remain in the infobox, or should it solely be reformparty.uk? Alextheconservative (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC regarding article split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Brexit Party recently changed their name to Reform UK.[1][2] Should Reform UK be considered its own entity, and therefore have its own article, or should this article be renamed to Reform UK? — Czello 08:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article. The Brexit Party and Reform UK are legally the same entity.[3] While I appreciate that they are likely to alter their political objective, I do not believe that means splitting the article in two. Indeed, many political parties change direction at one point in their lives; the solution is to make it clear in the article body that their focused has shifted. — Czello 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2 articles. We're not really talking about a split per WP:SPLIT but rather a new article with new content. For me the question is about what people will search for. I think people searching for the Brexit party (pre-2021) will naturally search for Brexit Party. Tammbeck^talk 13:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • True, but even if they search "Brexit Party" they'll find their way to "Reform UK", in the same way that if you type "Tory Party" into Google the first hit is Conservative Party (UK); so I'm not sure Google searches would be a factor here. — Czello 14:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article. It isn't a matter of opinion that Reform UK is the Brexit Party renamed; it's a fact. Reform UK exists because the then Brexit Party applied to the Electoral Commission for a change of name, not because the Brexit Party was dissolved and a new party founded. As such, Reform UK shouldn't have a separate page. Vabadus91 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep separate articles. We tend to start a new article when there is a fundamental change in the entity's name and objectives – see e.g. PEOPLE Party, Ecology Party and Green Party which have a separate article each irrespective of the legal continuity. By the way, we also do the same in country articles (e.g., Kingdom of Great Britain → United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland → United Kingdom). The reason is, this is much clearer to the potential reader.

Here, too, the change from a party focused on Brexit to a differently named party with an entirely different programme is significant enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia entry; the party leadership's decision to reuse the old registration doesn't change much.

Frankly, it would look odd if a reader wasn't able to find a comprehensive article about the famous Brexit Party on Wikipedia and had to read instead about a group of people wishing to reform the British parliament!

Finally, we have the WP:SIZERULE guideline, according to which the Brexit Party page, at 79kB, is already probably too long. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Green Party (UK) includes section on PEOPLE Party and Ecology Party. I think the correct response here is to formally merge PEOPLE Party and Ecology Party into Green Party (UK) given they are both short. Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep one article. It's the same party, the same legal organisation, the same people, so we should have one article that covers Reform UK/Brexit Party. Redirects solves the issue of people searching for 2 different names. What this one article should be called should be determined by WP:COMMONNAME. For now, I'd leave the article name as "Brexit Party", with the opening sentence explaining both names. It seems likely that "Reform UK" or some variant thereof will become the common name soon enough, at which point we re-name. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to keep one article, can it be named Reform UK? That is the official party name with the Electoral Commission, and what will be used when referring to the party. I very much believe we'll never hear the media refer to it as 'The Brexit Party' again. Keeping the Brexit Party as the name of the article would mislead readers, and if I'm honest going back to having a separate article would make it clearer. Reform UK is now the official and common party name. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Having surfed around recent news coverage, "Reform UK" probably satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. There is a straightforward procedure to request a change. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Seperate articles. As noted above, I feel that while it's correct that this is "technically" a renaming of the existing organisation, it is functionally a new one. It has a new name and a new focus, and this pushes it into a "successor" situation rather than a "rebrand", even if there is organisational continuity. We should focus on what the party says and does, and not on the technicalities of Electoral Commission registrations etc. In historic cases like this - eg the Green Party example above, or Protestant Unionist Party > Democratic Unionist Party, we've tended to split. We've usually only kept multiple names in the same article where the name change was purely cosmetic - eg the "Social and Liberal Democrats" becoming the Lib Dems, or all the variants Change UK went through in 2019 - and this doesn't seem to be as minor a change.

The only reason not to split, I think, would be if Reform UK turns out to be historically insignificant - if it implodes later this year and becomes no more than a footnote to the Brexit Party. If that happens, we would want to treat it as an "it later reformed as..." section in this article - but in that case, we can easily merge the new page back into this one, no harm done. Splitting still seems the best option for now. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, and I don't claim to be an expert on Northern Irish political history, the DUP was legally separate from the Protestant Unionist Party and included, at formation, people who hadn't been in the Protestant Unionist Party, so it's not a good example of a rebranding. Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Split: There are compelling arguments on both sides, but I think splitting is the best option here. Renaming means the title doesn't match the content, and will only serve to confuse readers. If the Reform UK entity never gets going, then we can merge its article back to this one (where it will be easier to accommodate two defunct parties on the same page, instead of one active and one defunct). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename Same party, just renamed. I don't think readers are stupid enough to be confused by this. Number 57 14:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Separate articles - and obviously the recent "move" needs to be reverted. The Brexit Party was a one-issue party, established on an issue which has now been resolved. While institutionally it may try to carry on by rebranding itself in order to address to different issues, in the real world it is a new party, addressing different issues. And, we should reflect the real world, not what party members wish to achieve. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the real world, it is the same party, hence why they had to apply to be renamed. Number 57 15:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • In what 'real world'? In the real world, a political party is not its registration number but its programme, its members, its MPs. You can't say they are the same. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      • They are the same, though. Its membership has been inherited (as it's the same legal entity, so BXP members are converted into RFRM members), and its politicians are the same. There is a question about their objective changing, of course, but I'd say that it's WP:TOOSOON to say they're different enough for us to split the articles. — Czello 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2 articles. Clearly only technically the same party. In an practical sense they are two separate entities with two separate purposes and agendas. Jopal22 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

All these claims that there are 2 parties seems to ignore that it's the same people: the same leader, the same leadership, the same elected representatives. Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As already pointed out, this is the same situation as the DUP and Green Party which have separate articles for their predecessor parties. These two precedents have served us well. Tammbeck^talk 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You could say the Brexit Party had same leader, the same leadership, the same elected representatives as UKIP used to. I dunno, I just expect there to be a mix of prominent people who migrate to Reform UK from the Brexit Party, and some who leave because it is a new entity (e.g. I wouldn't be surprised if Claire Fox and Ann Widdecombe etc are no longer involved). They don't really have many elected representatives now. Jopal22 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That analogy doesn't follow -- UKIP and the Brexit Party are two different entities, and always have been; the Brexit Party and Reform UK are legally the same entity, though: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/wales/2021/01/nigel-farage-s-new-reform-uk-party-unlikely-succeed-his-next-one-might — Czello 16:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The Brexit Party did not have the same leader, the same leadership or the same elected representatives as UKIP. It was founded by ex-UKIP people and lots of UKIP people joined it, but it had a different leader, different leadership and different elected representatives. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article. Reform UK is a legal continuation of The Brexit Party, it has simply been renamed. It still holds the same party registration details with the Electoral Commission. As can seen here: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP7931 Angryskies (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article . It's only the name which has changed. Flexdream (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename this article and edit to clearly explain the former name. Brexit is not the end of Euroscepticism in the UK. Nigel Farage is committed to criticizing aspects of Boris Johnson's deal. JJARichardson (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: Please remember that this is not a vote of any kind. This is a request for comments, and you are invited to present here a new take, fresh perspective, better sources, new arguments. If you only repeat the arguments that were said a few lines earlier, you may as well spare yourself the effort. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine for editors to repeat arguments to demonstrate that they agree with them. Indeed, while not a vote, it is helpful for assessing consensus for editors to do so. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support the page merge but should it not have been done the other way around? That is to say, shouldn't Reform UK be the active page and Brexit Party redirect towards it? Reform UK is the name the party will use to contest future elections and is the primary name registered with the Electoral Commission. PelicanPrize (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@PelicanPrize: If the RfC closes with a consensus to keep one article, then there will probably be another discussion on whether to keep the Brexit Party name for now, or rename it to Reform UK. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I could have made that clearer originally. The main question is whether to have one article or two -- I'm less concerned what the name of said article should be just yet. — Czello 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Split the articles into two. One called "Brexit Party", one for Reform. They are two very separate entities. And with the news that an MSP has joined the Reform party, we now have to ensure that Wikipedia articles point to Reform, with that party's name, colour, and election box metadata. "Brexit Party" is its own historic entity which existed upto the renaming/reformation into "Reform Party" The latter will have its own history, electoral history and electoral results. I suspect we're having a wobble because this is a rare event. Parties don't tend to relaunch in this way. They are separate, and the articles should remain separate. doktorb _words^deeds 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename this article. There's vast precedent of party changing names, and we just indicate it in the lead if it's only that. A party changing its name doesn't make it a separate entity, unless there's a merger or split of some sort. See for example Left Party, National Rally or Centre Party. One notable exception is The Republicans, so I guess there's precedent.--Aréat (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not only a name change - it's also an entirely different political programme and possibly an entirely new supporter base. We used to have different articles in such circumstances, not least to help the reader - see for instance PEOPLE Party, Ecology Party and Green Party. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename It's the same Party, its just been renamed following their successes. The Electoral Commission has accepted the change of name and so accordingly we should change it to the official name that the party is now registered under. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename - second choice, retain as is - the two are institutionally the same, it's simply a rename. There might be a legitimate question over whether to even rename - for precedent, Change UK never moved to The Independent Group for Change, because of the group's far larger fame under its earlier name. I think either is preferable to a split at this point. TSP (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Separate articles - having read more discussion, and looking at the state of the article at the moment, I've changed my mind. I think it would be confusing to not have an article with the current party name at the top; and would also be confusing to not have an article with the most historically significant name at the top; so the only solution seems to be to split. TSP (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait and see. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names". I've noticed that this policy is often ignored when it comes to companies, political parties, and other large organizations, with renames being immediately reflected even if they're not widely used (eg. Blackwater USA is still almost universally referred to as Blackwater in current sources despite multiple renamings, but the article was instantly retitled each time they rebranded.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The example has been given above of the PEOPLE/Ecology/Green Party being 3 separate articles when these were just name changes. I'd like to give some counter examples. The Sinn Féin article covers the party from 1905 to today despite major splits in 1923, 1970 and 1986. Sinn Féin in 1924 was very different to 1922! Yet it's all in one article. Likewise, we have one Conservative Party (UK) that covers the 1909 name change ("Conservative Party" to "Conservative and Unionist Party") and the 1912 merger with the Liberal Unionists. We cover these big histories: we can cover Brexit -> Reform. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That said, I acknowledge practice varies, so we do have different articles for Union for a Popular Movement and The Republicans (France), which was basically a re-naming AUIU. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And then the Swedish Moderate Party article goes back to its founding in 1904 as the General Electoral League (Allmänna valmansförbundet) and covers multiple name changes: The Right (Högern, 1938–1952) and Right Wing Party (Högerpartiet, 1952–1969).

Further discussion of party name changes available in this interesting academic paper. Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - How have previous political parties been handled when they change their name? Note: This doesn't include parties that have merged with other parties. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Don't move. The Brexit Party is by far the most WP:COMMONNAME for this party, which has its own ingrained reputation and history, so renaming this article to such a degree should be a non-starter at this point in time. WP:NAMECHANGES applies for a future point in time. I'm indifferent about splitting vs just adding the reform content in here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename the article While brexit itself was clearly important to the Brexit Party, they had a full manifesto (see [4] and also this article covers it) and represented many political views, including anti-lockdown views in 2020, which Reform UK's platform seems built around (see [5]). This is a rebranding, a name change with no impact on underlying structure or political philosophy, so it makes sense to just rename the article, and include the fact that the party was renamed so as not to confuse readers. Awoma (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as one article and Rename to Reform UK. I am most swayed by the arguments of Bondegezou. This is legally the same entity as the Brexit Party, and therefore per the examples from Bondegezou, should be kept as one article. Also, many major UK news outlets are calling it "Reform UK, previously known as the Brexit Party". Britishfinance (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Separate Brexit is a highly significant historical event and scholars will likely write about it for years to come, keeping the articles separate will encourage building of this article while not getting distracted or bogged down by current events, story of the day, scandal of the week, etc. Reform Party UK may not even prove to be more than a footnote to history. Slywriter (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename this article. It is basically the same party that was renamed. Idealigic (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Split or keep as Brexit The Brexit party was notable in the context of Brexit and it is still the common name. Yes it may have had a wider manifesto but in terms of notability it was clearly and without a question a single issue party. The Reform Party may or may not establish itself in the same way. I can see why Farage et al want to inherit the prior Brexit related election results and notability but I'm not sure we should go along with that. Reform Party article starts with its own history - including renaming of the former Brexit Party but then we can report on what happens to that. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Separate articles The Brexit Party and Reform UK have had different objectives, with one focused on Brexit and the other on campaigning against lockdowns. There is enough online material on Reform UK and it is written about as different from the Brexit Party, which is described in this article's lead in the past tense. They seem different enough from each other for the least confusing option for readers to be to have an article for each. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article When The Independent Group for Change rebranded as Change UK, there was not a new article made. Other users have brought up that Reform UK should be considered a different entity, however I don't think this is the case. The Brexit Party's website has, in a large font, "It's time for Reform", and links to a page titled "IT'S TIME: FROM BREXIT TO REFORM UK". The Brexit Party Twitter account also says, in the description, "The Brexit Party is now Reform UK." Thus, I believe that Reform UK is a continuation of the Brexit Party, like the Independent Group for Change and Change UK. Alextheconservative (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article There is not two separate entities, as per the Electoral Commission filing it is clear that it is a rename, and it can be seen that key people in the Brexit Party i.e. Richard Tice, Nigel Farage are continuing their roles in the renamed Reform UK. Given this, just as the Brexit Party has renamed itself I believe this page should be renamed as opposed to creating two separate articles for what is a singular entity, albeit one which has now gone by two different names. Guyb123321 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article. A renaming does not render the original party defunct. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 09:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Separate articles. The Whigs evolved into the Liberals, who evolved into the Liberal Democrats, and we have separate articles on Whigs (British political party), Liberal Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK), even though they're technically successor organizations to each other. It's right that we've done this because the Whigs' platform was not the Liberal platform which was not the Liberal Democrat platform. They have different names because they stand for different things. We can interlink the articles and describe the relationship between the two in text.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Liberal Democrats weren't just a re-naming of the Liberal Party: there was a merger with the SDP. That was a very significant change. On the other hand, the new party was originally called the Social and Liberal Democrats and then changed its name to the Liberal Democrats, and we don't have separate articles there. That said, I recognise that this isn't an easy decision and my sympathies go out to whoever has to close this RfC! Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep this article and name. "Reform UK" is not notable, and is neither is the name (yet). This article's subject is commonly known as the current title. GPinkerton (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename or split I empathise with some of the arguments given above for splitting the article and wouldn't mind that option but think that if we do keep it as one article it should definitely be under its current name on the electoral register. Llewee (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Separate articles, plenty of precedence for separate articles in other parties. Anyway the focus will be different, so it's good to have this as a separate article in the event that Reform UK goes on to be a big thing (time will tell) and this is just an article of the party at one point in time like many others. Canterbury Tail talk 03:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to make a decision about this - I've already had two people ask me about the page, saying that they are confused at to why it is still named 'Brexit Party'. To keep the page named 'Brexit Party' is factually incorrect - it is legally registered as Reform UK, the media refer to it as 'Reform UK', and it's Twitter account is now called Reform UK. Can I call for a quick decision on this? My vote would be to split the pages, as this (whilst it could be seen as 'just a renaming') is a significant party change, including a new direction and not just a focus on Euroscepticism. It's confusing for readers to keep the article named as 'Brexit Party'. If compromise is needed, at least rename the article and place the Brexit Party info later on in the article, maybe in the 'History' section? How anyone can think it's right and factually correct to keep the article's name as Brexit Party is beyond me. I am pondering whether to change the name myself 82.69.64.66 (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@82.69.64.66: I've already raised a request for closure -- we're now waiting for an uninvolved admin to make a decision. — Czello 13:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Another issue to consider by the closing admin will be the fact that there were two separate articles at the time the RfC was started, and then an editor merged the two articles mid-way[6]. Not sure whether this merge could have influenced those editors who tend to support status quo. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, it wasn't a merge. There was a separate Reform UK stub and I boldly re-directed that to here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename, organization changed name, article should reflect that. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Seperate articles. Better to preserve Brexit Party as a notable historical moment in UK politics, and suppose that Reform UK is unlikely to be as notable in the eyes of the public. Renaming would serve to confuse.StoneKommittii (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Separate articles. I completely agree with StoneKommittii. If two pages are unable to happen, a compromise would be to rename this page and rewrite the introduction so it is for Reform UK, then put all Brexit Party info in the 'history' section. Nevertheless, please can we come to a decision? I've had at least two people come to me who have been misled by the article, not being able to find one for Reform UK. We will have to make a decision soon, otherwise we're at risk of more misled people. Can a senior editor please make a decision? Wikieditor123000 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor123000:, if the RfC decides on one article, then, yes, that page will have an introduction saying "Reform UK is..." and the Brexit Party material will be put into some sort of history section. Indeed, we have been making some changes along those lines already, but debate arose over that: see and input below, Talk:Brexit_Party#Wait. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename - as this is the exact same political party, which merely changed its name. Not like Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & Canadian Alliance merging into Conservative Party of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename - no need for separate articles as yet - if WP:PAGELENGTH becomes a concern, we can split then. No need to yet, but we do need to rename, and rename soon. schetm (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename - no need for separate articles.--Dragonlord73 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rename: I made some comments about this issue in a discussion on this talk page prior to the RfC (now in the archives) which sums up my views on this pretty well. Essentially, all the RS's I've seen (minus the New Statesman one someone quoted from in that now archived discussion) treat the Brexit Party and Reform UK as the same thing, and therefore, I think that we should follow the RS's, do the same, and not have two separate articles. Also, I've not seen many RS's recently that discuss "Reform UK" in that much detail, so if there were two separate articles, it's (in my opinion) debatable whether "Reform UK" is actually notable enough for its own article. The only RS's I can see about RUK are a few that discuss the name change, the one New Statesman piece, and something about a Tory MSP joining the party. Seagull123 Φ 23:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Closure - in my opinion, a two-article solution would be best - Reform UK is indeed a rename of the Brexit Party, but it is a large digression from what the Brexit Party was (or at least it will be). It's easier on the average reader and more simple to have two pages, one for the Brexit Party and one for Reform UK. I am fine if editors reject a two-page solution, but in the case that there is one page a rename of the page is definitely needed to Reform UK, and all the Brexit Party info should be placed in the history section. However, I'm making this comment for a different reason - this has been going on for about a week now, and we need to come to a decision in order to prevent misleading readers - I've had at least one person ask me about this in the past week, confused as to why the article was still called 'Brexit Party'. May I make a suggestion that closure is brought by Monday, 25th January? I think that's a reasonable goal for a senior editor to come in and make a decision.82.69.64.66 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Closure has already been requested; I'm currently waiting for an uninvolved admin to make a decision. — Czello 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article. Same party. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article. There is not a separate party, it is the same Brexit Party, just with new branding. Nunnster (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Separate articles. It would go against the custom on Wikipedia. Spanish political parties (list of articles (375)), Israeli political parties and elsewhere are described with as much articles as they had political brands (including one-time alliances), unless the names are extremely similar -- and this, despite the legal continuity.

Now, in many democracies like these two, the practice of mergers, splits and rebranding is very frequent, whereas in the United Kingdom it is very rare, at least for the two major parties. But splitting makes sense, for a practical reason: a party's goals and platform will evolve as time goes by, and it is harder to correctly summarize them correctly, unless it fits one political school (Tory/Labour) or in the rare cases where there is literature about the policy shifts.

We have to think for the readers in the future. How sensible is it, if among the many articles on Brexit, a link to the Brexit Party leads to the article about the current "Reform Party" whose goals, judging by the name, are set to be very different in a few years' time? Already in January 2021, there are already stark differences between the two.

Although in both cases this is "Farage's party", this may be one of the few denominators – it should not be up for us to decide. Let the readers judge for themselves how different and how similar they are to each other. The continuity will be shown in the infobox, summarized in the lede and explained at the bottom and top of both articles. Kahlores (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A number of people above have claimed that Reform UK and The Brexit Party have "very different" goals. This looks like WP:OR to me and speculative. The Brexit Party had adopted anti-lockdown positions in 2020, e.g. this article. Obviously, opposition to COVID-19 restrictions wasn't a thing before 2020! The Brexit Party and Reform UK both talk about reforming voting systems and the House of Lords (see content in the article). There's no indication that Reform UK is going to suddenly start calling for the UK to re-join the EU! If the situation is "very different in a few years' time", we can decide to do something different in a few years' time.

Meanwhile, I note that we have one article for Democratic Party (United States) despite that party going from supporting segregation in the South to having the first Black President. Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point; it strikes me as WP:TOOSOON to declare what their intentions are. Good point re: the Democratic Party too. — Czello 11:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to your objections:

1. Does this quote of me looks like WP:OR-pushing? "it should not be up for us to decide. Let the readers judge for themselves how different and how similar they are to each other". Splitting is the only way to let the readers decide how similar and dissimilar they are to each other. Keeping one article would be the real WP:OR. As User:Kashmiri said, it would look odd if a reader wasn't able to find a comprehensive article about the famous Brexit Party on Wikipedia and had to read instead about a group of people wishing to reform the British parliament! What occurred on 31 January 2020 and 24 December 2020 is an objective fact, not subjective, that has made the major goal of the Brexit Party largely moot.
2. The U.S. Democratic Party is a terrible example. It is a major catch-all party, not a minor one-man party running on a handful of policy goals. Its transformation took more than a century (over 150 years if we include the state level), unlike our case here, where all it took was 11 months. And to explain that, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia such as History of the Democratic Party (United States), Political eras of the United States, Southern Democrats, etc. that cover at length the evolution of the party, leaving no chance for the (serious) reader to be confused. On the other hand, we will confuse readers if all the links towards Brexit Party point to another of Farage's creatures. We will create useless ambiguity if we lump together a party pushing for "Brexit" and its successor pushing for 'reforms'.

Kahlores (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kahlores: - But as I asked before. How has it been handled for previous British political parties which have renamed themselves? If this be the first time, we'll be setting a precedent with this RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If you read through the (lengthy) discussion above, you will see that previous British and international political parties provide examples of both approaches, with little clear pattern of why decisions were taken one way or another. When there hasn't been legal continuity (like with a merger of two equal sized parties), we generally have 2 articles. When there is legal continuity, but there has been a name change or some change in identity, then we sometimes have 1 article and we sometimes have >1 article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Successive parties with different articles (feel free to add other examples)
Greens		PEOPLE Party	1972-1975
		Ecology Party	1975-1985
		Green Party (UK)	1985-1990
		Green Party of England and Wales	1990-
		Scottish Greens
		Green Party in Northern Ireland
Ulster loyalist (Paisley)		Protestant Unionist Party	1966-1971
		Democratic Unionist Party	1971-

With all due respect, there is a clear pattern, which has been summarized by User:Andrew Gray: We've usually only kept multiple names in the same article where the name change was purely cosmetic - eg the "Social and Liberal Democrats" becoming the Lib Dems, or all the variants Change UK went through in 2019 - and this doesn't seem to be as minor a change.

Otherwise, the custom is clear. I made a table for everyone to judge.

Kahlores (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate a nicely formatted table, I refer you to the discussion above as you appear to have missed parts of it.

I accept the PEOPLE Party/Ecology Party/Green Party (UK) does fit your model. The Green Party (UK) then split into three legally separate party, a more dramatic change than Brexit->Reform. AIUI, the Democratic Unionist Party was a legally distinct entity from the Protestant Unionist Party, bringing in additional people, so a more dramatic change than Brexit->Reform.

Meanwhile, we have one Sinn Féin article that covers the party from 1905 to today despite major splits in 1923, 1970 and 1986. A faction of Sinn Féin retained the name in 1923, but was very different to the prior party. Conservative Party (UK) is one article despite a name change in 1909 and a 1912 merger with the Liberal Unionists. The former is certainly more dramatic than Brexit->Reform; the latter probably is too. Away from the UK, Swedish Moderate Party is one article despite significant changes from the General Electoral League to then become The Right, to then become the Right Wing Party, to then become the Moderate Party.

The idea that Brexit->Reform is anything more than "purely cosmetic" is speculative. It's the same organisation legally, with the same politicians and the same leadership. The Brexit Party had adopted the Reform UK policies before the name change. I don't see WP:RS supporting these claims of difference. Bondegezou (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The term dramatic change is too subjective to be used as a criterion . . . but you probably mean by that an essential, fundamental change in a party's course. But what's more fundamental, than a party reaching its goal and moving on to others? I'm not sure we could say the same of the People/Ecology parties, who also had continuity in leadership.

Splitting is not necessarily an assessment of difference (aside from the names, of course), but keeping together organizations with different names is an assessment of similarity.

And why choosing the latter, when it leads to the absurd situation where links to the Brexit Party in articles about Brexit or the year 2019, lead the reader to another party with different goals?

That's why the change from Brexit to Reform party is very different from the other examples given. Large, catch-all parties which kept their name but inevitably evolved over time, have specific pages devoted to their history and evolution. This is the case of Sinn Féin, and the Conservative Party.

The Swedish Moderaterna are lumped together with their predecessors. I didn't make that choice, but it can be argued that they are an absolute continuation in all but the name. This is not the case, by definition, of a one issue party whose main objective has become irrelevant.

Kahlores (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I know this isn't a vote, but I thought I'd see where we're at. I wondered if there was enough consensus that we could agree an outcome ourselves without waiting for closure. On review, it is apparent that the decision is fairly close. I count 23 for a single article renamed (Czello, Vabadus91, Bondegezou, Number 57, Angryskies, Flexdream, JJARichardson, PelicanPrize, The_C_of_E, Awoma, Britishfinance, Idealigic, Alextheconservative, Guyb123321, NYKTNE, Gpinkerton, B. M. L. Peters, GoodDay, schetm, Dragonlord73, Seagull123, Panam2014, Nunnster) versus 17 for two articles (Tammbeck, kashmiri, Andrew Gray, PinkPanda272, Ghmyrtle, Jopal22, doktorbuk, Aréat, Slywriter, Snowded, Andysmith248, S Marshall, Canterbury Tail, 82.69.64.66, StoneKommittii, Wikieditor123000, Kahlores). Aquillion suggests waiting. ProcrastinatingReader is neutral on 1 vs. 2 articles, but supports retaining The Brexit Party name. Llewee is neutral. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  While it looks like this RfC is leaning towards one article, I'm not sure it's enough to be declared a consensus. At least, as I'm involved I don't think I'd be comfortable making such a decision. I would be okay with someone uninvolved closing it without waiting for a mod to work through the WP:RFCL backlog. — Czello 11:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Needs to await an experienced admin to do the closure - this is politically contentious. If I was doing it I would look at the edit history of all those voting as well to check for SPAs. I suggest we just show patience -----Snowded ^TALK 15:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, makes sense. — Czello 15:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment More examples... I note that the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom changed its name following some membership changes to the Identity and Democracy Party, but we have one article. The French Front National became the National Rally as part of Marine Le Pen's re-invention of the party, but we have one article. Basque Nationalist Party covers the party's formation in 1895, its change in name and focus to the Basque Nationalist Communion, the split in the BNC and the formation of a new Basque Nationalist Party in 1921, a period of both, into the complexities of the Spanish Civil War and eventual re-emergence of a single party. For those that still think an article cannot cover the suggested divergence between The Brexit Party and Reform UK, I suggest looking at Kuomintang, which covers its formation in 1912 in Beijing, China as a party working within a democratic system, through its role in the Second Revolution (1913) and the party subsequently being dissolved, and then being resurrected in Canton in 1919 under a somewhat different name within a military junta. The article covers the party through the civil war, when it has an army and develops an aim of one-party state. That leads to the organisation fleeing mainland China to Taiwan, recently liberated from the Japanese, in 1949. The Kuomintang then rule Taiwan as a one-party state, until the introduction of multi-party democracy in 1991, when the Kuomintang transitions to being just one of several parties, and suffers splits and reunions. I realise Brexit was quite significant, but it wasn't as significant as that! Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I know these examples quite well, because I've done (for Wikipedia and myself) a number of tables summarizing each country's electoral history. Sinn Féin's countless divisions and claims of originality gave me quite a good headache (for this little sandbox table), until I read the article dedicated to its history.

So it seems to be a general rule that lumping together adds confusion. This is something we can notice on the articles of old parties that have undergone policy changes.

Kuomintang isn't a very good example here, for it kept its name throughout its century-long history. And, although banned in the mainland, it spans a large stream of the Chinese political thought starting with Sun Yat-sen, just like similar major parties elsewhere. Neither characteristics (same name and ideology) apply to the now-rebranded 'Brexit Party' of Nigel Farage.

The fact that we end up with one article for large, old, stable parties, and multiple articles for minor parties and their successors, may be considered unjust. But there is no other objective solution. As I said above, "splitting is not necessarily an assessment of difference (aside from the names, of course), but keeping together organizations with different names is an assessment of similarity".

Kahlores (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it implausible that we should interpret past practice to be that we should not split articles for major parties undergoing name changes, but that we should for minor parties undergoing name changes. That appears to be an accident of some past editing, not a policy to aim for. Given precedence is, at best, confused, we should draw on principles like WP:SPLIT. Changes/names that didn't turn out to be long-lasting or significant are often subsumed under one article because there's not much to say about them, which is concordant with WP:SPLIT. More attention to how much there is to say about different incarnations of a party seems a more useful approach than this claim that we keep major party coverage to one article, but split up minor party coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename: agreed with most of the points made in favour of renaming rather than splitting, but another point is that there's not much to say about the party since it has been renamed Reform. A defecting MSP, sure, but that's not a full article. And we can't assume anything of what will happen regarding the party in the future. — Bilorv (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason why I went for a split The Brexit Party is clearly notable, the Reform Party, maybe maybe not. It is clear that Reform Party members clearly want to inherit the Brexit Party reputation hence their active lobbying here. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would add that the number of IPs and the like changing the article before this is resolved indicates that some form of meat farm is in operation -----Snowded ^TALK 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think people come to this article, think "But it's called Reform now" and edit accordingly, without noticing any of this Talk discussion. I don't see any obvious evidence of a meat farm. I don't see that Reform supporters are actively lobbying here. I think you identified one person who identifies as such in his account page? I see a lot of editors who are familiar to me from UK politics Wikipedia editing taking part in a discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rename, Wait and Split?: I Think, for now, we should change the name of the article to the official, legal name, as otherwise, people may think the Reform party and the Brexit party are 2 different entities, rather then a simple renaming. However, if the reform party takes off under its new branding, which we won’t really know until the next major election, it might be worth splitting the article. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I've already !voted above, but I just wanted to expand on a point I made there. If we split this into two articles, I don't think that there would be either enough content to make the page any longer than about 5 short paragraphs, or - arguably - enough RS's to demonstrate notability for "Reform UK". Looking at the WP refs link at the top of this talk page for RUK and Google News, there are very few RS's that actually discuss the 'new' party - so arguably not meeting WP:GNG. Also, what is there to say about RUK beyond it's the renamed version of the Brexit Party, it's anti-lockdown, led by Farage, and has 1 MSP? I would argue that two separate articles would meet all 4 reasons to merge at WP:MERGEREASON (at least definitely #2 and #4). Some discussion here since my !vote has seemed to be about whether the party's new name (and, by extension, the 'new' party) will amount to anything 'serious' - but I would say that this is WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON - we can't tell whether RUK will be a 'serious' party or not yet; and the RS's don't seem to have even discussed this question beyond the one New Statesman piece, so I don't think we should make our own decision, but wait for the RS's to tell us if RUK is 'serious' or not yet. Seagull123 Φ 19:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: it's a different situation, but I note another small current UK political party has just changed its name, and we have kept using the same article: see Propel. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And another I came across today is Social Democratic Party (Estonia), which was the Moderates and went through some shift in politics and a name change in 2003, which we cover in a single article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article It's the same party, it's just changed its name. "Brexit Party" should be a subheading in the party's history. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Separate articles. Per Canterbury tail. JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is the closure that has supposedly been requested? At the minute this page is misleading (as it still calls the party The Brexit Party). I don’t care whether it is renamed or split, but please someone do it. Is there a way we can get an uninvolved senior editor to make a decision? Wikieditor123000 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor123000: I made it on WP:RFCL. As you can see, there's a bit of a backlog. No idea why it takes so long. — Czello 21:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We can close the RfC ourselves if we can reach a consensus. Compared to my last summary, opinion has shifted slightly more towards one article and is now 3:2 in favour. I count 26 for a single article renamed (Czello, Vabadus91, me, Number 57, Angryskies, Flexdream, JJARichardson, PelicanPrize, The_C_of_E, Awoma, Britishfinance, Idealigic, Alextheconservative, Guyb123321, NYKTNE, Gpinkerton, B. M. L. Peters, GoodDay, schetm, Dragonlord73, Seagull123, Panam2014, Nunnster, Bilorv, SnoopingAsUsual). HenryTemplo supports a renamed single article for now, with the possibility of a split later depending on events, so that's 27 for a single article now. There are 18 for two articles (Tammbeck, kashmiri, Andrew Gray, PinkPanda272, Ghmyrtle, Jopal22, doktorbuk, Aréat, Slywriter, Snowded, Andysmith248, S Marshall, Canterbury Tail, 82.69.64.66, StoneKommittii, Wikieditor123000, Kahlores, JamesVilla44). Aquillion suggests waiting. ProcrastinatingReader is neutral on 1 vs. 2 articles, but supports retaining The Brexit Party name. Llewee is neutral.

Snowded raised a concern about SPAs: nearly everyone listed is clearly not an SPA. There are 2 exceptions, one from each list. Nunnster is a new account that has only made 3 edits, 2 here and 1 to a constituency page. 82.69.64.66 has only recently made edits around this topic. So, 26 vs. 17 rather than 27 vs. 18 if you want. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was originally a SPA for the constituency edit - I noticed the image for my constituency was wrong and was under the impression that only users could edit images. I don’t know if that matters at all, but I’m not a SPA for the Brexit Party and plan to use this account in the future if I come across any mistakes. Nunnster (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nunnster. I hope we see more of you! Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and no one is going to die if we wait for an independent admin to close this -----Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, no, but it's obvious that there are arguments either way and precedents either way. So, I'd be surprised if it doesn't come down to a vote count. I know this isn't your first AfD: tell me I'm wrong. In the mean time, this AfD is holding back sensible edits to an article that's getting a fair amount of traffic.

Why don't we just let edits proceed to improve content based on a one-article solution, as that's likely to be the decision anyway. The issues have been hashed out. Requiring us to keep things like the old logo in the infobox seems quite unhelpful. If someone independent eventually closes the AfD the other way, zero harm has been done, we can split material out easily enough. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Be waiting for the results :) GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: My instinct is a single page, so that the evolution of the political movement is clear. Parties can sometimes change dramatically, even without a name change, and are usually left as one page. Leadership and election lists look better when they're all on one page. I thought I'd comment though on the Sinn Féin example cited by Bondegezou. In that case, the same page is used for several different organisations which shared the same name (1905–22, 1923–70, 1970 to present). This is also an example of a separate page for the same organisation. The Workers' Party of Ireland is organisationally the same party as Sinn Féin of 1923 onwards. It was known as Official Sinn Féin from 1970, but remained titled Sinn Féin until 1977, when it was retitled Sinn Féin – The Workers' Party, and then in 1982 became simply The Workers' Party, yet the current WP of Ireland page is used only for the party from 1970 onwards. However, this mightn't be the best comparison, because of the competing parties with the same name in the 1970s, with one of them continuing to use the name. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's compare with the drafts

Drafts of the split articles
Draft:Brexit Party	Draft:Reform UK
The Brexit Party article as of 2 January, with all the edits made since then relevant to the Brexit Party. References to Reform UK reduced to a minimum.	A new article, where everything related to "Reform UK" has been moved.

Here you can have a look at what the article would be like if it is to be split. These are public drafts. You are encouraged to edit them, if you spot an error or think that some information needs to be added. I'm confident that some of the contributors who argued against the split will re-think their position when they see how different in content the two articles already look. Kahlores (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the work in to develop those drafts. I look at the Reform UK article and I think, "This is why we shouldn't have a separate Reform UK article." It's a bit of a stub and I'd want to improve it by putting in lots about the back story, i.e. what happened before the name change. Maybe things will be different in a year's time (and of course we can re-visit any decisions taken), but right now, what I see would best be covered in a single article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely with Bondegezou here. Seeing the two articles like this really drives the point home. Indeed, if we had two articles and I'd just stumbled across them for the first time, the first thing I'd have done is start an RfC for merging them! — Czello 17:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't say that the solution to an unclosed RfC is to close in favour of one side of the argument. Please... Lobby on the admin board for a closure if you really can't wait -----Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am saying the solution to an unclosed RfC is for the editors involved to reach consensus themselves, without waiting for an external person to close the discussion. Any such consensus will have to be on one side or the other of the choice! RfC rules clearly allow and indeed encourage that. There is nothing wrong in lobbying to that effect. And, of course, there is nothing in you not agreeing with my suggestion, and I note that you do not. Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowded: I'm not sure who that was directed at but I most certainly wasn't saying that. To me these two drafts just highlights why we should have on article. — Czello 21:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Snowded's comment was aimed at me. To be fair, I do go on a lot... Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That the Reform UK draft is a stub is even further evidence WP:NAMECHANGES is not met and that the WP:COMMONNAME is "The Brexit Party". This party may well have no real political future, and its legacy in history will be as the Brexit Party and its influence in the EU referendum and last half decade. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES are met for a name change. We have the BBC, The Independent, The Times, The National, The Daily Express, The New European and City AM all calling it "Reform UK" or (less often) "Reform Party". Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They call Reform UK, Reform UK, just like they called Brexit Party, Brexit Party. You are missing the point – the question here is not how media call Reform UK but whether the two entities should be dealt with separately on Wikipedia or in a single article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rename this article, having just read through the discussion above. I accept the point that even after being renamed, 95% of this article would still focus on the party's time as 'The Brexit Party', as so far that covers almost all his notable history. But it's clear that 'Reform UK' is a continuation of the same party, not a new entity; and the drafts above convince me that a separate article for 'Reform UK' in its own right is not (yet) justified. If Reform UK goes on to play a significant role in UK politics and attracts lots of coverage, the article can always be split in future; but a split now doesn't seem necessary. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Closure - when will we have it? - is there a way we can follow up on the request for an uninvolved editor to make a decision? It's been over a month, and this closure is significant as the article as it stands is misleading. I don't mind whether the article is renamed or split, but it needs to happen soon (especially with the local elections coming up and voters looking to Wikipedia for info, the article as it stands would mislead them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor123000 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely unclear when we might get closure by an uninvolved editor. It could be today, it could be another month. We can move to a consensus ourselves and close the RfC that way, if involved editors are willing to do so. It's currently 29 for a single page vs. 18 for 2 articles. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solution - I would like to propose a solution leading to the closure of the RfC. This solution is to rename the page to 'Reform UK', and put all Brexit Party info into the history section. If there are any major disagreements please state them, but if not then I'd like to get on with shutting the RfC and renaming the article. I'll check back here tomorrow, and we could maybe set a date for when a decision should be made (as there are evidently no uninvolved editors available). This seems controlling but it has to be done, we can't just go on arguing. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

All contentious discussions should be closed by an experienced and uninvolved editor per WP:CLOSE. I share your frustration (and I'm sure many others who have made comments here do as well) about the backlog at WP:AN/RFC, but I don't think we should make any rash decisions just because we are fed up of waiting. Best, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a slight misreading of WP:CLOSE. Per WP:AN/RFC, "Many discussions do not need formal closure [...] Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." WP:CLOSE is clear that RfCs don't always need formal closing (only AfDs etc. do). We do not have to wait for an uninvolved editor to close the article if we can reach a reasonably clear consensus. I'm not saying we have reached such yet, but the discussion so far is clearly more in favour of 1 article than 2 articles. If we collectively accept that the discussion has run its course and decided on a single article (for now), then we can collectively move on without waiting for a formal close. Wikieditor123000 argued for 2 articles, but is happy to go with the majority position of 1 article, so we're now at 30 vs. 17 for a single article.

Alternatively, we could leave this RfC open, but get on with making changes to the article. Let's rename it to "Reform UK", change the logo etc. If the RfC eventually decides on a 1-article solution, fine. If the RfC eventually decides on a 2-article solution, OK, and that time we can do an article split into a "Reform UK" article and a "Brexit Party" article. But leaving this article is a poor state for weeks on end seems silly. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Yes, I'm happy with that solution and agree that the article is in a state of limbo right now that might not disappear for a while. That said, given that I'm in favour of 1 article I think we should hear from those who prefer two. @Kashmiri:, what do you think about Bondegezou's solution above? — Czello 12:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I think this is a good solution. Should I proceed with renaming? Then, if it does turn out (however unlikely) that users want two articles we can always revert. Please let me know if you think I should go ahead with this (or you if you want to), @Czello: and @Bondegezou: Wikieditor123000 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to see somewhat more support for this plan before doing anything, particularly from those who have previously been keen on a 2 article solution or opposed to changes in the article while the RfC is open. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point - any opposition to this please lodge it below, if there isn't significant dissent (I'd class significant as five, maybe six or more objections considering how many have given their view) by Friday I think that'll be a good sign to go ahead with renaming the article, with the opportunity to revert and split it at a later date if members so wish. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor123000: I personally don't have any issues with renaming, but I agree with Bondegezou's suggestion that that we should consider it as a separate matter to the RfC. Maybe we should move the discussion to the "Rename" section below to give it more prominence, and remember that there is WP:NODEADLINE, so we shouldn't be rushing to change anything. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you Hobit for the immense amount of work you've put into dissecting this RfC and forming a conclusion. Pinging Wugapodes -- would you be able to lift the move protection so that we can rename this article? (Or, better yet, make the move for us!). Cheers. — Czello 20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Administrator note: Page has been moved. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rename the article

Under the Electoral commission they are no longer the brexit party so have the brexit party era in a paragraph and make reform uk the title and name, and at least use thier actual logo. Yabio1253 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yabio1253. There is a discussion above (Talk:Brexit_Party#RfC_regarding_article_split) about how to handle the change to the Reform UK name. There is then another discussion above (Talk:Brexit_Party#Wait) about how much change we can make to the article while we wait for the first discussion to be resolved. This is stopping edits that would move this article to Reform UK and is holding up edits around the opening paragraph, infobox and logo. Feel free to dive in to those discussions with your thoughts as to what to do. Personally, I agree the situation is frustrating. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear the liberal cabal on Wiki will only fix this confusion after the May local elections... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.162 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

36.11.225.162 It's been resolved in February. doktorb _words^deeds 11:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Reform UK MS's (Senedd)

are David Rowlands and Mandy Jones still standing as Reform UK, as I don't think Independent Alliance for Reform (the grouping they've joined) is a political party, and they're still members of RUK? could someone clarify for me please as to whether or not they qualify as Senedd Members for RUK? MJ9674 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

They are Reform UK Senedd members. They sit within a larger grouping because of Senedd rules, but grouping != party. They are Reform UK members. Bondegezou (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes - from what I can see Jones is definitely standing (was announced on Twitter) and not sure about Rowlands. Still Reform UK but in a different group. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Populist political party"

Sorry, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an opinion column? Unless the Reform Party describes itself as a "populist political party", this claim is a politically biased statement, especially as it is uncited. As far as I can tell, the Reform Party is no more "populist" than any other party I am aware of. Please either correct this, or rename Wikipedia to Wikiopinion.

147.161.166.93 (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Populism is supported by reliable sources -- this isn't the opinion of any editors here. Opinions are regularly challenged and removed. — Czello 11:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Political Position

There is no 'Political Position' entry in the infobox. I would suggest an entry stating 'Right wing to Far-Right' with references including Hope Not Hate , Tim Bale and Marco Guglielmo . BobBadg (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate isn't considered a reliable source. I couldn't see far-right in the other two articles you listed: and in fact, that third article specifically states that the Brexit Party is not far-right: "establishing the Brexit Party, opening its bid to all those Eurosceptic voters who were not impressed by UKIP’s far-right stands.". Given the BXP has a mix of people from across the political spectrum, including communists, I think the political position for this article should remain blank. There's no requirement for this to be filled in, and I think doing so would just open the gates for edit warring and tendentious editing, all for no real gain. — Czello 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the previous comment, I think that it is too early to tell the political ideology of REFUK. While they are made up of the same organisers, they haven't put out official manifestoes yet. Alextheconservative (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes - it would be factually incorrect to call Reform UK 'far-right', especially as it was formed in order to get away from UKIP's new hard-right tendancies. I'd refrain from calling it 'right-wing' too - if you analyse the Brexit Party 2019 Contract with the People, their economic policy is centrist. I believe that their policies will be very similar to the 2019 Brexit ones, so I think 'Populist' and 'Anti-lockdown' would be the only accurate labels we can use at this time. 82.69.64.66 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Czello. The infobox is the last thing we should fill in. Get the text of the article correct and then come back to the infobox. Instead of trying to summarise an answer with one or two keywords in the infobox, let's have a paragraph or multiple paragraphs in the article about Reform UK's political position, using reliable sources. Once that's worked out, we can worry about whether that can be summarised in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Having started this section that's now generated this interesting discussion, I'd like to respond. Firstly, arguing that 'it's too early to tell' the RP position when Wikipedia seems to have agreed that it's an extension of the Brexit Party seems inconsistent. Second, the Tim Bale source states that the Brexit Party is 'Radical Right', while the Gugliemo article is titled "Anti-lockdown politics: A successful revival for Farage's right-wing populism?". These references clearly support the argument that the Party is right-wing (given that Farage is the RP leader and the RP is following his anti-lockdown policy). It's been well established that parties that are right-wing in an authoritarian, populist sense can have some 'centrist' economic policies. With regard to the difference between UKIP and the Brexit Party: Farage himself said of the Brexit Party "In terms of policy, there’s no difference [from UKIP]". As for the idea that the Brexit/ Reform Party has "a mix of people from across the political spectrum, including communists", I take it that this is a reference to Claire Fox, a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (which was in fact Trotskyist), who is now a Baroness and a libertarian. Furthermore, I don't follow the argument for not filling in the Political Position details - it's important and useful information (most Party entries in Wikipedia contain it - why should the Reform/ Brexit Party be different?). But to be quite fair and show that I agree there's a discussion to be had, there is an argument that the Reform/ Brexit party isn't simply a Right-wing party, but as Populists are also attempting to be 'Big Tent'. In the last European Parliament it was part of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, which contained mainly right-wing parties (such as the nationalist Swedish Democrats), but also the Italian Big Tent 5 Star Movement. (see also ). So if someone wanted to propose that we add a Political Position entry of 'Right Wing to Far Right'; 'Big Tent', that would seem to cover the wide range of politics involved. Well someone is going to object to the inclusion of 'Far-right' aren't they? How about 'Big Tent, Right Wing' then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobBadg (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It helps to have up-to-date (post-transition to Reform) citations, which we have in the Birmingham University piece above. That, and earlier references, support describing the party as right-wing populist. I think that means "right-wing" in the Position field and "populism" in the Ideology field?

It currently says Populism, Euroscepticism and Anti-Lockdown Politics in the Ideology field, that seems fair and supported.

I still think we should be more putting more effort into the article text and then coming back to the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling it 'populist' is about as tendentious as one can get.

It's literally supported by sources. — Czello 16:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was recently archived by a malfunctioning autobot (I wouldn't have guessed that I'd ever have written that 50 years ago) and as it seemed a worthwhile and still unresolved topic (there was not quite a consensus about what to put in the infobox and no one had done it yet) I've replaced it. Shall we try to come to agreement?BobBadg (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

March 2021: Do we have consensus?

Vacant0 has just removed "Right wing" from the position field in the infobox, arguing that was no consensus here on the Talk page. It kinda looks to me like we sort of have a consensus for that, but discussion did peter out. So, can we reach a definitive answer? For reasons given above, I support "Right wing". @BobBadg, Alextheconservative, and Czello: Bondegezou (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify I support adding Right-wing (with reliable citations in the lead) but this discussion which spanned for almost a month was rather short. More editors should be involved in these types of discussions so that we can reach a clear consensus when adding things. Vacant0 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It can be difficult sometimes to get more editors to engage at Talk pages. I think if we have agreement among those editors expressing an opinion, then that's fine to be getting on with. So far, we have three for "right wing" and no objections. Bondegezou (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Right wing seems to be the most neutral inclusion. As I stated above, far right is not adequately supported by sources, and I don't see any other position being supported either. However, right wing seems to be the most uncontroversial. — Czello 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - from a purely impartial view, 'far-right' would be completely incorrect. Not sure about right-wing - the party has referred to its self as 'big tent', and although their economic plan is based off low tax the point is (I believe) to get more money for public services (such as them claiming Nurses would get a 6% pay rise under it) which I'm not sure I'd describe as 'right-wing'. I think leaving it as 'Populist' for now is the best option by far, as it is wholly accurate and not even debatable. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the Guardian sources calls them 'radical right' but it's an op-ed. While prominent members of the party are clearly far-right there are no good sources that the party itself is. That said 'right wing populist' is a safe identifier given both sources and how the party generally conducts itself—blindlynx (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support right wing for the time being, since there is no information suggesting they are far-right at the moment, although this could change when they put out a manifesto. Alextheconservative (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed the position from right-wing to big tent as the party has no explicit ideology, primarily following eurscepticism and reform which appeals to those of various ideological persuasions. It also has no references for the claim, which would help if those are reliable. The far-right label should be completely left out as it is based on individual members or slanted publications' bad faith characterizations as the term has little meaning in recent years. Irreverent machines 63 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is cited in the ideologies section further down. However, I have removed one of the sources as it was an opinion piece, and so is not reliable. — Czello 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Very well, university studies are far more useful than opinion pieces which have little to no value based on bias alone. Irreverent machines 63 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a citation for the party following the ideology of right-wing populism but not a citation calling the party right-wing on the political spectrum. To say one is equal to the other is breaking WP:SYNTHESIS. Helper201 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONSENSE, right-wing populism is right-wing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is just because a party may follow one particular political ideology does not necessarily mean it encompasses its political position as a whole. It may be part of a mixed or wider political stance, such as big tent. Helper201 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I still think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. Unless there are any indications that their political position is mixed, then "right wing" is the only statement on their position, even if it's suffixed with "populism". — Czello 15:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

We have a good citation calling the party "right-wing" (as part of the phrase "right-wing populism"), so we call it "right-wing". If there's a good citation calling the party something else, e.g. "big tent", we can consider that. Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we do have consensus around 'Right-Wing'.BobBadg (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a good citation that the party is a big tent party: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/former-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-says-his-brexit-party-wont-take-money-from-arron-banks When interviewed by The Guardian, Farage stated that "We’ll be looking to take support from across the board.” The party has also never had a right wing agenda; first it was Brexit and now it is voting reform. Neither of these agendas are associated with a position on the political spectrum, but are associated with direct democracy and populism. Both major parties oppose voting reform because it would mean losing seats to smaller parties, while both major parties where split when it came to Brexit. Therefore, the Reform party agenda is markedly big-tent, non-partisan, maybe even centrist.

Change instances of "Right-wing" to "Centre-right"

Hello. I am the CTO of Reform UK and we would like the be classified as a "Centre-right" party instead of the current "Right-wing" classification. Thank you for your consideration.

Request 1

• Specific text to be added or removed: Political position Right-wing (in the sidebar)
• Replace with: Political position Left-wing
• Reason for the change: As a party we feel we represent the centre-right position, not the right-wing position.
• References supporting change: reformparty.uk

Request 2

• Specific text to be added or removed: Reform UK is a right-wing populist political party
• Replace with: Reform UK is a centre-right populist political party
• Reason for the change: As a party we feel we represent the centre-right position, not the right-wing position.
• References supporting change: reformparty.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctoreformuk (talk • contribs)

Hi, so Wikipedia operates by way of both reliable sources and independent sources. The claim of right wing is sourced reliably. However, we can't use the Reform Party's own opinion on their political position as that wouldn't be independent. — Czello 14:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia also operates a consistent left-wing bias. So support for the NHS, the Welfare State, state support for industry, opposition to foreign wars in your case are 'right wing' policies because like the old Labour Party you are opposed to the EU. Forget trying for balance. --Flexdream (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I take it you didn't actually read my last comment. Again, we go with what sources say. — Czello 19:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brexit Party.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Anti lockdown politics

it seems redundant to include anti lockdown policies in the info box ideology section, as this was a very temporary issue that isn't really discussed anymore, and, the info box implies it's still a top priority when obviously it isn't, so surely it should be removed? Ametica (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. There's also a debate about whether it even counts as an "ideology". I've removed it. — Czello 10:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

== Google search smears ==

The Google search result for this page still includes the statement that Reform UK is a "right-wing populist party", despite that term no longer being in the actual content. This is a disgraceful facist smear tactic used by the left ideologs of Google. Despite the tactic, Reform UK has got major support in the UK because the socialist Conservatives, and communist Labour Party have betrayed the native people of the four nations of the UK. 86.176.152.6 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently the party is described as right-wing populist, though someone will probably change it again soon... More importantly, though, search engines take a while catching up when webpages are changed. I very much doubt it's a deliberate smear tactic by Google—it would probably do the same thing if the webpage was changed in the other direction. Pchown (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The article still classifies the party as "right-wing populist" based on left-leaning editors claiming that left-wing biased sources are neutral, and deliberately misleading the reader by omission of indication of such bias. Any attempt to edit towards impartiality is corrected to ensure the smear remains. As a top result linked to Google it would be likely legal action could be taken if this is not changed since it is defamation. Randomacces10101010 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smear term "right-wing populist"

You rarely or never use the term "left-wing populist" or "far-left" to describe parties from the other side of the political aisle. Why such biases? How about being objective such as "Reform UK is a political party in the United Kingdom". 93.206.58.87 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think "far-right" and "right-wing populist" add information rather than just being smears. There are a lot of political views that get bundled up as "right-wing". "Right-wing" on its own, to me, tends to mean a belief in free markets and individual responsibility. The BNP was often described as "far-right" but when it expressed an opinion on something other than race, it tended to be economically left-wing. Reform doesn't have racist policies, but it does argue for stronger measures against illegal immigration, for example. That isn't related to free markets, so it's helpful to have a different term for it. "Right-wing populist" seems as good as any. I don't see why it should be taken as a smear; "right-wing-ignoring-the-public's-opinions" would be worse, surely! Pchown (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

We go with what sources say, and the sources describe them as both right wing and populist. — Czello 11:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources are biased to the left;

The Guardian, BBC, Mattia Zulianello, etc. etc.

Why is this not indicated or shown. If you are unable to identify this, why are you qualified to make edits? This is the purpose of checking sourceS Randomacces10101010 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I went through Reform UK's policies[7] and, being allergic to the far-right, honestly I could not really spot anything that would place the party in the far right area. As of today, the public debate about reducing immigration from the EU – the key postulate of the erstwhile Brexit Party and something that has placed it in the far right – has given way, in the public perception, to a desperate need of having more EU workforce. Consequently, Reform UK has dropped it from its policies, thus losing its main "right-of-centre" appeal. All their new policy asks now fall squarely in the centre or to the left of it, at times even getting it closer to the far left, such as the call for a more progressive taxation as a means of wealth redistribution, a call to introduce state control of energy generation, focus on the vulnerable social groups, etc.

I think the party in its current iteration merits a re-analysis of its position based on new sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Far-right", as far as I can see, isn't in the article anyway. That said, if there are more recent sources that describe the party's ideology, that's always a good thing. — Czello 09:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the term "right-wing populist" from the lead section. I'm leaving it in the infobox, though, as a temporary label. Recent mass media coverage is largely unreliable as regards political position (e.g., Evening Standard labelling the nationalisation of the energy market as a "right-wing" policy[8]) - it would be very helpful to find more expert sources than mass media. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The term "Right-wing populist" is regularly used to describe the party by the Daily Telegraph, a right-wing but respected source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/28/right-wing-populist-party-biggest-threat-tories-next-election/ ChrisTheLemon (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but I meant recent sources, after the current manifesto, or whatever it's called, was published. I'm no political scientist but it smells no right to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not really how any political party article works. Parties don't as a rule frequently change ideologies. For a party that's only a handful of years old, any source is recent enough, notwithstanding significant coverage in reliable sources of a change in ideology. No such coverage exists. Editors' assessments of the party's policies do not hold weight in determining article content. We follow reliable sources to construct the body of the article, where the party's ideology is discussed at length. A summary of that is included in the lead. "Right-wing populist" is a construction used in reliable sources and is a reasonable summary of the material in the body of the article covering the party's ideology. Ralbegen (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Parties don't as a rule frequently change ideologies Have you not seen the Brexit Party changing its ideology (and leaders, and logotype) every few months? They are not an association of the like-minded. This is a career vehicle for a few. In their struggle to stay relevant, their ideology in its current iteration is undoubtedly to the economic left (as this is where they smell more votes will be in 2023). — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there significant reliable source coverage of a change in the party's ideology away from right-wing populism? We shouldn't be making decisions about article content based on editors' characterisations of the party; we need to stay anchored to reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be looking out for it. "Reform Party" + "political opportunism" shouldn't be a rare term ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Nigel Farage still the president of the party?

Farage stepped down as the leader of the party in 2021, but the infobox of the article says that the president of the party is Nigel Farage. Minilammas (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Leader and president are different positions. This page, which isn't dated but the content about the Rwanda plan suggests is from 2022, refers to "our Honorary President, Nigel Farage". TSP (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was just wondering because Farage said he's getting out of party politics. Minilammas (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Populist or right-wing populist?

So there seems to have been disagreements over defining the party in the lead as populist or right-wing populist that seem to have settled on right-wing populist. My question is why then is this different in the infobox? Surely if we define the party as explicitly right-wing populist in the lead then the same should be done in the infobox? Using different ideologies in both will just lead to confusion. Helper201 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be "Right-wing populist", but I'm not sure why that was removed from the infobox. Probably lost during the multiple edit wars on this page. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 10:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User "Czello" provides evidence of political bias to the political left in self-authored article "Ideology Warrior" https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Ideology_warrior (see heading "Examples") and should be excluded from edits to this page (lack of impartiality).

User "Czello" also claims to be actively ensuring consistency from source (to further support such biases in this context).

Sources citied here are politically biased to the left and not impartial and this is inherited by Wikipedia classifying the party as "far-right". The enry should highlight left-wing bias of the sources if claiming the party to be "far-right" as suggested by such sources.

"Far-right" is a derogatory term used in the UK by left-wing biased media for the purpose of propagandising by association and its use should be heavily scrutinized since it can influence opinion thus is intrinisically highly suseptible to bias.

Wikipedia innheriting such bias from source, this then policed by biased "editors" under the guise of quoting from source (Czello in this instance) threatens the integrity of Wikipedia.

The article should just state "policial party", and sources that make the claim "far-right" should be idenfied as biased to the left. Randomacces10101010 (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Only just seen this. If you can demonstrate the sources are unreliable then please do so. Until then the description remains. — Czello 12:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Far-right and Hard Euroscepticism

I found 2 sources backing both claims:

Far-right:

https://challenge-magazine.org/2020/11/04/farages-reform-party-the-libertarian-far-right/

and

Hard Euroscepticism:

https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/hard-euroscepticism/

I think these additions would be great as Nigel Farage, the president of this party, has been in close cooperation with other far-right politicians and parties. Such as Alternative for Germany and Marine Le Pen. And wouldn't be controversial to call this party far-right when the president and founder of this party is far-right, as well as his former party UKIP being far-right (stated and sourced in the info-box of that page). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The far-right claim would be controversial enough to necessitate far more robust sourcing. Ultimately, the majority of sources don't refer to the party as far-right, that appears to be more a fringe view. Additionally, article appears to be an opinion piece, which we don't consider reliable. Labelling Farage far-right is also controversial (UKIP only got that label after he left, for example). The 2nd link doesn't mention Reform UK at all; furthermore I'd be inclined to wade into more specific labelling around Europe as since Brexit the party has been less about Europe and more broader populist ideals. — Czello 14:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps 2 footnotes could be made? Nigel Farage's work with far-right politicians and parties may suggest leaning to far-right.

Somewhat like how the United Russia page has a footnote within its info-box next to its "big tent" position. It saying "... While United Russia is not considered a far-right party, there is controversy over its support for far-right parties in Western Europe.

This page could have that in a similar manner perhaps.

And with the Eurosceptic ideology, a footnote could also be added with that as well specifying the Eurosceptic ideology of this party. As it is different from other Eurosceptic parties (as the UK has left the EU as well and overall following Brexit). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Farage working with other far-right politicians is really something for his article. Ultimately this article just has to reflect what the sources describe it has, which is right-wing populist. I'm not sure what you mean by your second point though - we already have Euroscepticism in the infobox. — Czello 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

With the Euroscepticism, I was mentioning how perhaps a footnote could be made like this:

Euroscepticism

^ A: The party has also displayed some forms of Hard Euroscepticism.
ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Define "Hard Euroscepticism". I don't see Ursula von der Leyen or Guy Verhofstadt being described as "Hard Euro-optimists". This is a deliberate attempt at left-wing motivated smear, with the implication that any question of motive or criticism is somehow bad. 81.178.232.93 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just suggesting an idea, and I believe I'm not the first to suggest adding Hard Euroscepticism into the infobox.

There is also a dedicated section in the Euroscepticism page called Hard Euroscepticism which you can read. And the Brexit Party (now called Reform UK) is named in that section as an example of Hard Euroscepticism. Thus, I made this new section in this talk page. It has been rejected but I do understand why it was rejected.

Lastly, there is a name for "Hard Euro-optimists". It's called "Pro-Europeanism" (or European Unionism). There are even dedicated pro-European parties which support "Hard Pro-Europeanism". It's called European federalism, and parties like Volt Europa support that and have parties in several European countries (including the UK). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Although I read a newspaper every day, I have to admit that the term "hard euroscepticism" was new to me. The Populism Studies people seem to be using it to distinguish people who want to reform the EU from the inside, and people who want to leave or scrap the project. That's fine and a worthwhile distinction, but if I read it in the article without having read the background, I think I'd see it as bias and an attempt to make Reform seem extreme. Pchown (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Far right! According to an opinion piece in the magazine of the Young Communist League of Britain (YCL)! Tosh and piddle. Flexdream (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Reform Derby

Given Reform Derby is its own distinct party, https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP11471 and the names get confused, should there be some kind of 'Not to be confused with'? And Reform Derby get their own page? SacroHull (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Derby Mayor is an interesting one too, candidate stood and won as Reform Derby, but only the BBC seem to be reporting him as a ReformUK mayor, Local news doesn't say he switched parties. https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/who-new-mayor-derby-walkout-8467271 SacroHull (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear they have councillors, and not ReformUK - https://democracy.derby.gov.uk/Councillors/tabid/62/ScreenMode/Alphabetical/Default.aspx SacroHull (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

2A00:23EE:1810:3E51:1D65:7606:859A:BB55 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)please justify the title 'popularist' in your opening description of the political party.

I believe this description suggests bias by the author/s. please reveiw & remove- unless you are suggesting rhe 'far left popularist' Labour Party is also a sensible description of another UK political party?

Wikipedia is better than this. thank you

 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the edits as they are, they are so biased they made me laugh out loud and obvious for anyone to see, no-one is going to edit the article because even if they do, some far left extremist will just edit it back again. AngelFlonne (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

smear term "right-wing populist"

Why not simply be objective and write an introduction without any framing or spin? 62.226.84.214 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Find sources to the contrary to that label and you can change what's been typed. doktorb _words^deeds 22:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven't made it clear what 'framing' or 'spin' you are referring to. Are you saying that the terms 'right wing' and 'populist' are smears? Surely these are quite long-standing and widely recognised ways of describing political positions. Are they derogatory terms - that depends on your point of view. Are they accurate terms - well if parties lie on a left-right spectrum 'Reform' certainly isn't left-wing, or centrist, is it? And 'populist' is defined as "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." Hard to refute that Farage and other Reform politicians have done that. BobBadg (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Reform UK is not a right wing party, it is a moderate right of centre party a party with common sense policies and values. The Party slogan is no longer “Lets Make Britian Great” this has now changed to “Let’s Save Britian”. The Party logo has now changed, it is still a roundel with Reform UK but has the addition of “The Brexit Party” in the lower part of the roundel. Contact: Reform UK for verification: +44 (0) 800 414 8525 Email: https://www.reformparty.uk/contact Billy Locks (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Reform UK is not the best source of encyclopaedic information on itself, because in principle Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the top-left corner of the website, there is a logo with "Let's Make Britain Great" and no mention of the Brexit Party. Are you sure this has changed? Pchown (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. "Let's make Britain great" is there all over the website and in the propaganda materials. That said, when looking at their manifesto[9], I don't see the usual far-right stuff (hard nationalism, social conservatism, attachment to traditional values and family model, hard capitalism, etc.) – their talk is more about reforms and appears closer to the centre politically and socially, with a mix of progressive/left-wing (investment in public services, nationalisation of energy production) and conservative ideas (coal energy, lower taxes, focus on freedom), all lavishly sprinkled with British flags.

Sure, this is all OR based on primary material – but as this small party seem to evolve, are secondary sources catching up? — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of Reform buying politicians

Why is there no mention of the allegation that Reform are offering money to Tory politicians to join them? Lee Anderson MP was caught on record claiming he had been offered "a lot of money" to join them, and Richard Tice later refuted this. This needs to be documented on Wiki but as the entry is locked I cannot personally do so. 31.124.210.69 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Private Company?

There are reports that the so-called party was set up as a private company, and there is an interview in which Richard Tice admits that:

youtu.be 1ldfpUW0cEk?si=-9fWfroC6KGvAea2&t=2376

Why is there not a single word about that in the article? --2A02:908:898:9780:B336:D3AB:22C8:DD69 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the party is set up as a private company, full name "Reform UK Party Limited" (see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875). From examining the accounts submitted to Companies House and the Electoral Commission, it is clear that it is the same entity registered with both organisations. There is nothing to prevent a private company registering as a political party. The article needs updating where it refers to the the number of members (not least because this paragraph is still referring to the "Brexit Party"). As a private company limited by shares, the only interpretation of "member" is "shareholder". According to the company's most recent Confirmation Statement with updates (dated 19 February 2020 when it was still named The Brexit Party) the current shareholders are Nigel Farage (8 shares), Richard Tice (5 shares), Mehrtash Azami (1share), Paul Oakden (1 share) (see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875/filing-history/MzI1NzY2NjcxMWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0). Note that one share carries one vote (see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875/filing-history/MzI0NTM2NjM5OWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0). The statement that party registration requires three members needs checking - the only requirement seems to be two officers fulfilling three roles (see https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-registration-and-regulation/political-party-registration/how-political-parties-are-registered). Since Reform UK Party Limited is the primary source of all of this information, I assume that Companies House and the Electoral Commission can be treated as secondary sources. 154.61.62.35 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The above comment is straying into WP:OR. Let’s stick with what reliable sources report. It is unclear to me that how the Brexit Party chooses to organise itself has much relevance. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The only sources quoted are information provided as a legal requirement to Companies House and the Electoral Commission. As to the relevance, I am only updating information currently in the article, and making it clear to IP user 2A02:908:898:9780:B336:D3AB:22C8:DD69 that, although Reform UK is a private company, it can also be a political party - something others may be confused about. Are you suggesting that the section on Funding and Structure should be removed? Similar sections appear in articles about other political parties. Could we also be clear about the current name of the party, please? 154.61.62.35 (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

Based on previous issue on certain aspects the Ideology section need to be changed from "Right-Wing to Far-Right" 86.27.230.222 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 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. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just the usual far left fascist Wikipdia insults

This is not a grown-up encyclopaedia article but a shrieking adolescent hatchet job and hate speech. Reform is not 'far right' and is not 'populist' (which is just a meaningless far left childish insult). Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.84.208 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's own entry on "Populism"... "The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties and movements since that time, often as a pejorative" and the Wikipedia definition of pejorative is "a word or grammatical form expressing a negative or a disrespectful connotation, a low opinion, or a lack of respect toward someone or something." Wikipedia has an anecdotal reputation for far left bias, give a fool a piece of rope long enough. 2A01:4B00:F626:5900:EC6A:FA09:17A1:E1C9 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thurrock Independents?

This is a new addition from what I gather but is there any evidence that Reform “split” from Thurrock Independents? DontForgetJeff (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I searched everywhere and there does not appear to be any source that would discuss the relationship between Reform UK and Thurrock Independents. The closest I got is this article from The Telegraph [10], which states: "Ukip, which is now led by the former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton, once had 17 councillors in Thurrock but all of these left the party in 2018 to sit as the Thurrock Independents group."

But not only does this refer to UKIP and not Reform UK, but it also describes the opposite process where UKIP councillors split to JOIN Thurrock Independents. All in all, it seems that someone put it there mistakenly - I will remove it. Brat Forelli🦊 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The first paragraph states 'it began campaigning on broader right-wing populist themes'

'Right-wing' means different things to different people - e.g. Americans vs UK - but has also come to mean 'stuff I don't like'. A 'dog-whistle' is, I think, the American term. So please change that line to 'it began campaigning on broader populist themes'. AgingDisgracefully (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The party's position must be from right to extreme right since there are endless references that call the party extreme right.

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 Monito rapido (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And there are so much more. Monito rapido (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Just because opponents call them far-right doesn't mean they are. And different peoples are on different places on the political spectrum. AgingDisgracefully (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources call them right-wing. If you wish to contribute, offer some sources calling them centrist or left-wing or something else. Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say this source would be WP:UNDUE weight. The majority of sources don't use the term far-right to describe them (it seems to be a somewhat fringe view), and given that this is a French source I don't think it should take priority over domestic sources. — Czello ^(music) 10:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

you are telling me that lemonde is an unbiased source. It is one of the most prestigious media here on Wikipedia. The party's position must be from right to extreme right with references. Monito rapido (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think a single foreign source should trump the other domestic sources. — Czello ^(music) 22:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I second that. I see hardly anything in Reform's agenda that would be characteristic of far-right politics: aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views. Reform UK does not advocate for authoritarianism (they're ok with the current democratic system), theocracy (they don't mention religion), or ultra-nationalism (some nationalistic overtones are present, though, although it's far from "ultra" IMO). They are not particularly racist, chauvinist, or xenophobic – other than standard British flag waving, their political programme makes no particular references to other countries, races, nationalities, or societies. They are certainly not homophobic or transphobic, either.

In short, I could not find in their programme all those typical far-right features that are so prominent in the programmes of, say, British National Party or Patriotic Alternative. Damn, in some aspects the Conservatives appear further to the right in their reactionary politics than Reform. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Those parties you are naming are fascist. The extreme right does not necessarily have to be fascist. For example, see the argentinian Libertarian Parry, it is neither a Nazi nor a fascist party, but it is an extreme right-wing party. One of the characteristics of the far right is populism, and the Brexit Party is it. Monito rapido (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Fascism" is a virtually meaningless term these days – see Fascism#Definitions for a very informative discussion – so I'd be cautious with the term. But BNP and PA are definitely far to the right, and are in a stark contrast to Reform UK who, very evidently, attempts to appeal to centre-right electorate. Once again: the LA (Argentina) is very far to the right e.g. in its economic policies. I see nothing comparable in Reform UK. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

But you just gave me examples of fascist parties, which are not clearly related to the Brexit party. But equally Wikipedia is not a forum, and does not accept individual analogies, so if the media calls the party extreme right and not center-right, our duty is to call it extreme right. Monito rapido (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I think it's WP:UNDUE weight to include such a contentious source based on a single foreign source. I think we'd need more robust (and consistent) sourcing to include "far-right" for Reform UK. — Czello ^(music) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of quality references that relate the party to the extreme right:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-reform-uk-tories-celebrity-b2461303.html

https://www.fes.de/internationale-politikanalyse/monitor-soziale-demokratie/strategiedebatten-global/strategiedebatten-italien-1-2-1-4

https://www.csis.org/programs/europe-russia-and-eurasia-program/european-election-watch/united-kingdom

https://newrepublic.com/article/153994/brexits-lowest-moment-yet

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2024/01/the-tory-media-wars:

In any case, it is something that sooner or later will end up being added. Monito rapido (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It might be that consensus lands on “right-wing to far-right” but it’s too soon to change for now. JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That should be the consensus but why would it be soon? Monito rapido (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This should have been the consensus since the creation of the page, but I don't know why it was decided to hide that the party has a far-right bias. Monito rapido (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't need sources on UKIP or Brexit Party as the ones you posted. We need sources on the political position of Reform UK. They are different parties with different agendas, different leadership, and different electorate. We just lumped them together in one article mainly because Reform reused the registration number of Brexit Party as a bureaucratic shortcut (so, strictly legally, they were considered the same entity). — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources that I publish are from the Brexit Party and Reform UK. As you said, they are grouped in the same article, therefore references from both parties should be added LIKE I DID. But if you only need references from Reform UK I can provide them to you. Monito rapido (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are two bibliographic books that describe the Reform UK party as far right:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Imagining_Far_right_Terrorism.html?hl=es&id=snxTEAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Reform%20Uk%22%22far-right%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books/about/Outspoken.html?hl=es&id=bM-dEAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Reform%20Uk%22%22far-right%22&f=false

And one article:

https://scholar.umw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1503&context=student_research Monito rapido (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Google Books search box, "Reform UK" only received a single passing mention in the first book (on page 2020), while the second book only mentions Reform UK when mentioning Farage (and doesn't call it "far right"). The third link is a student dissertation. Your references do not even resemble a solid evidence of a political position. If anything, they prove that "far right" is not a term commonly used for Reform UK.

I suggest to end this thread here, as it leads us nowhere. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The references say that it is a far-right party. The book groups it together with other far-right parties in Europe such as the Afd. Even in the one that you say does not mention extreme right, it gives the party the classification of alt-right, which is a synonym for extreme right (or is even more extreme). The only thing you are doing is evading sources. Monito rapido (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is ANOTHER book that groups you together with other far-right groups:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Communicating_COVID_19.html?hl=es&id=y-w-EAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Reform%20Uk%22%22far-right%22&f=false Monito rapido (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Another:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Drums_In_The_Distance.html?hl=es&id=s9EwEAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Reform%20Uk%22%22far-right%22&f=false Monito rapido (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-conservatives-starmer-sunak-election-poll-b2484767.html Monito rapido (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

https://repositorio.comillas.edu/xmlui/handle/11531/55776 Monito rapido (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that specialists use the term extreme right to define the party, whether you don't like it or find it inaccurate is another thing, but the sources abound. Monito rapido (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the limitations of using the search function on Google books I haven't bought, but searching "Reform UK" on the first two links doesn't turn up far-right for me. The independent link goes to "hard right" (not the same – I think conflating "hard" "far" and "extreme" is sketchy territory). The 4th link says "ultra" right which strikes me as vague. — Czello ^(music) 08:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are ignoring a lot of references, which although some say synonyms for far-right are of good quality. You are making excuses for not placing it and the truth is that your excuses seem vague and simplistic to me. Monito rapido (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

hard right is The same as far-right, look at the dictionaries that I sent or you can search anywhere and it will tell you that they are synonyms, just like ultra-right, extreme-right, etc. Monito rapido (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Far right" being synonymous with "hard right" is something that's been debated on Wikipedia before and hasn't really seen a solid conclusion. In short, it's disputed – so we do need to be more specific with labelling rather than rely on arguable synonyms. — Czello ^(music) 14:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The references are there, I propose putting Right-wing to far-right. Monito rapido (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

When you get the chance to answer me about my references, I would like to know your opinion. Monito rapido (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you want to do? Monito rapido (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

In the UK, Channel 4, the Economist, The Guardian, The Telegraph, the Financial Times, The Evening Standard and Reuters are all examples of sources considering Reform as right wing JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

By-election results section

Should a section briefly summarising the party's by election performances be added or at least a mention of the Wellingborough and Kingswood by-elections due to Reform's more significant result in these ones? DontForgetJeff (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Far right

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/far-right-shift-reform-uk-receives-record-breaking-votes-in-by-elections/ar-BB1inEv7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=b845245e9dd747c98cf2eaea4fa0fcea&ei=6 194.120.133.1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had. But to reply to your source, the article is quite lacking and the term "Far-right" is only used in the title of the article. It doesn't refer to Reform UK itself as Far-right and in-fact twice calls it "Right-wing" if anything this source backs the status quo of the article. DontForgetJeff (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Spoiler

It shoulg be mentioned that this party is a huge spoiler against the Tories. --95.24.65.189 (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest some material we can cite? Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I got an article from The Guardian that mentions this, ‘Done with Labour and the Tories’: Reform UK attracts angry voters by Luke Tryl. Gonna make a mention on the basis of it. Brat Forelli🦊 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent Page Modification

The most recent page modification seems to contain politically charged language and may possibly be in violation of NPOV and possibly OR. Assertions that the party is far right (by whom?) despite the label being rejected for usage when it has been suggested in the past for this article, and claims that Reform UK wishes to return Britain to “19th Century Victorian values”, oppose “the accepted norms of society” and believes its views “should be enforced throughout society” (have they said this? Where?) without adequate citations to support these claims. I do not mean to assume bad faith, but it does seem to take the least charitable interpretation of the policies, and seems to be specifically designed to “nudge” the reader to think or to perceive the party in a particular way. The only citations provided for these are Reform’s manifesto. Citing the manifesto when making claims like these is fundamentally inadequate evidence.

If there is evidence to back up these claims, that isn’t just an interpretation of the manifesto, this should be cited in the article. 2A00:23EE:1080:BDF0:21C2:4DDD:1BA0:E1BF (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing populist in the opening of the article?

The article opens with "Reform UK is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom." as the characterization of the party. I find the use of the term "Populism" to be inconsistent with articles on other political parties in the UK or elsewhere, like the UK's Labour party or the US's Democratic and Republican party, which would fit the description for Left-wing populist or right-wing populist, and yet it is not mentioned in their wikipages' opening. I'm not sure how to approach this issue, whether the issue is with this wikipage or a broader issue with the term populism and its appropriation to different political parties. Removing the term populist from this article will make it consistent with other articles of political parties, but it will disregard the fact that there are clear populist elements to the party. Perhaps a change in phrasing along the lines of "Reform UK is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom." but including the party's populist aspect later on in the article would be the best solution? In-fact i'm not sure it is reasonable to characterize any party, right or left, as a populist party in the opening description of that party's article, though it is important to reference in the article. Casual readers will only read the first, opening paragraph and will characterize the party accordingly. Thewildshoe (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you think this party fits the definition of a populist party doesn't matter. What reliable sources describe the party as does. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. Thewildshoe (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What we say on Wikipedia has to be based on what reliable sources say. If you want to suggest changes to this or other articles of this nature, you need to show how the weight of reliable sources supports your position. Populism is a standard term in political science. We have reliable sources routinely describing Reform UK as populist. I’ve not seen lots of reliable sources describing Labour or the Democrats in the US as populist. If you think there are reliable sources we’re overlooking, please suggest them here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic. I suggest you try reading the topic again and the clarification I just added. Thewildshoe (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: I'll repeat what i've said, since the 2 commentators have misunderstood what I wrote. The issue is not about whether or not Reform UK are right-wing populists. I've said that they clearly have right-wing populist elements.

The issue is about consistency with other articles, particularly about describing them as populists in the opening of the article, as is clearly written in the title of the topic I've started. I've explicitly suggested to simply move the their description as populists to other parts of the article.

Please try to keep the replies relevant to the topic I've started. Thewildshoe (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't routinely describe republicans/democrats as right/left wing populists. It might be an opinion shared by some but unlike with Reform UK, it's nowhere near agreement.

If you agree with the description of Reform as populist but the problem is that other parties you believe to be populist are not described that way, that is something to raise on the talk pages of said parties. Amberkitten (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Far-right

Reference: 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 83.100.131.250 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC apologised for calling ReformUK ‘far-right’. [11] Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s the consensus that Reform is not a “far-right” party due to numerous articles to the contrary and the policies expressed by the party. DontForgetJeff (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

House of Commons seat

Is there a reason why in the infobox REF is listed as 0 HoC seats when Lee Anderson is a current REF MP for Ashfield? REF has 1 seat on the HoC wiki page: House of Commons of the United Kingdom LGHend (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

When parliament is dissolved there are no longer any MPs, so technically no party has any MPs at all right now. However there's been some edit warring and inconsistencies across a number of Wikipedia pages about what we should display. — Czello ^(music) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Setting all of these to 0 for every party seems like over-the-top pedantry to me. Leave it as 1 until election day would be my suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, and I'm also opposed to similar changes on individual MP pages. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, good explanation. Seems as if some alignment is needed on these pages. LGHend (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverts 3 May 2024

@Galdrack: I deleted the material because I could not find it in the ‘Our contract with You’. Please direct me to the actual webpage/s and wording/s which you are relying on. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 depends on which revert you mean?

For the "Make Britain Great" slogan it's seen in the first link: "https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3247196/make-britain-great-right-wing-upstarts-threaten-uk-tories" but a cursory search will show it frequently appearing in campaign material as an example: "https://reformuk.nationbuilder.com/"

The second paragraph is much more about wording than the claims being made, just to isolate them the claims are "promotion of military, celebration of flags and symbols, patriotic language, usage of British values as a phrase, government invervention of nationalised organisations".

From the linked page and their "contract with you" https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1708781032/Reform_UK_Contract_With_The_People.pdf?1708781032

"usage of British values as a phrase": Variations on "British Culture/British Values/Christian Values" or otherwise appear numerous times throughout the document.

"Government intervention of nationalised organisations": Ok well this one is pretty clear as they frequently make reference to "woke" ideologies destroying education systems or otherwise and make direct reference to a "ban on transgender ideology" and "ban on critical race theory" in schools. Along with reforming the civil service by essentially privatising the jobs.

"promotion of military": Well there's two sections dedicated to this between "Defence" and "Veterans" where they promote the military and bemoan the army having the "smallest size in 300 years" which isn't true but on top of this list increasing the military funding etc as an urgent action required within the first 100 days (which is rather extreme). The Veterans section directly promotes prioritising veterans in the army for every public service and even for public jobs, on top of this many of the other sections (police and Justice) also former military personel being prioritised in some of these functions.

"Patriotic language" and "Celebration of flags and symbols": Frankly I think the phrasings above fall into this category, the contract is pretty heavy on jingoism though this is a section that I think needs better clarification than straight up deletion really. Galdrack (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

{1) Make Britain Great

a) The scmp source is not available to me

b) I don’t know the scmp source, and I am not convinced that it is reliable

c) The section of our article where the material appears is Our contract with you so, even if this was soundly sourced, it is not appropriate to have it in this section.

d) The reformuk.nationbuilder source does mention the slogan. But I cannot find it the party’s web page for ‘Our contract with You’. So I don’t see how it could be correct to say that the party uses it as a slogan. Also, the material in our article is under the section ‘Our contract with You’. So even if it was justified, it should not be in this section.

2) In its manifesto it supports military might and military action, celebration of flags and symbols, is in favour of patriotic language and what it describes as traditional British values.

a) You do not mention any wording which would support military might and military action, . I have looked through the ‘Contract’ , and also the webpage you linked to, and I cannot find anything which could support this.

b) Similarly, I can’t find anything about ‘celebration of flags and symbols

3) "usage of British values as a phrase":

You commented: Variations on "British Culture/British Values/Christian Values" or otherwise appear numerous times throughout the document.

Surely all political parties maintain that they are in favour of ‘British values’ ? e.g. the Labour party have been using the Union Jack (flag) in its election material. This is not significant enough to be highlighted in our article.

4) government intervention in independent organisations such as the BBC, National Trust, schools and universities to ensure that views with which it agrees are given prominence and views which it opposes are blocked.

a) Please provide the exact wording you are relying on. For instance, I found a statement that they are in favour of abolishing the BBC licence fee, but nothing which would justify the material in our article.

b)Regarding education: I found material saying Reform is opposed to CRT (Critical Race Theory) and the idea that there are more than 2 sexes or genders. But not anything that would justify the present wording.

5|) Other policies

I also found, reading the ‘Contract’, that Reform is in favour of (i) proportional representation (ii) reforming the House of Lords (iii) leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Do you agree that these policies should be mentioned in this section?

Sorry this is so long. Happy reading!

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on ‘Our contract with You’? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Make Britain Great

So SCMP is listed under reliable sources for Wiki and as the second link I provided shows it's widely used in campaigning material (or was at least), so calling it a slogan is pretty much on board as it's not required for the party to confirm or deny it as a slogan. That said in terms or location within this article sure it could be moved to somewhere more appropriate, that's fine but deleting it would be wrong as it's likely to be missed in later edits. I'm considering this point closed now as it's clearly supported by reliable sources.

Military Might

I guess direct support for the military is more clear and jingoistic fervor? Either way I did list direct references towards militarism within the contract in my comment above, so again editing rather than deletion would be the option here.

usage of British values as a phrase

Let's not be facetious and pretend inclusion of the flag is equivalent to repeated usage of phrases like "British values/British Culture/Christian Values" in a party statement, particularly for a party that has barely had a consistent presence in British politics. The phrasing in this sentence is pretty on-point.

government intervention in independent organisations such as the BBC, National Trust, schools and universities to ensure that views with which it agrees are given prominence and views which it opposes are blocked

In terms of the part on Education alone, you mentioned you found the paragraph's I referenced which explicitly support the statement above as they reference themselves in the "contract with you". Page 30 on the "comprehensive free speech bill" very clearly lists their motivations are based on interfering with views they oppose. The section the BBC is referenced in also (again) makes explicit statements of "woke ideology" which is another buzzword.

These entries are pretty clearly supported by the text in their document as far as I can see, I think it needs re-wording or editing which is something I'd do if I had time but given they're supported in the pages provided deletion isn't needed here.

Other Policies

Sure I don't have an issue with the additional ones being added though (i) and (ii) are already listed under the same section but in an upper paragraph. I don't see (iii) there though.

No worries about the length sorry for taking so long to get back here. Galdrack (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

1) Make Britain Great

Yes, I see that SCMP is listed as a reliable source, though I think it’s odd to use the South China Morning Post as a source for UK politics. But since it is not in the ‘Contract’, I think we agree that this should not be in the ‘Contract’ section. And it appears to have been abandoned, as it is not in the ‘Contract’. So I think this should come under ‘2020–present as Reform UK’ and it should be in the past tense: It has used the slogan ‘Make Britain Great’ which is similar to that used by Donald Trump, for whom its leaders have expressed support.

2) military might and military action, celebration of flags and symbols, patriotic language

I don’t see any justification for this wording in our article. I don’t know what you mean by I guess direct support for the military is more clear and jingoistic fervor? I can’t find anything in the ‘Contract’ about this. There is some mention of support for military veterans – this is not support for ‘military might’ or ‘military action’. I also don’t see anything which could be described as ‘celebration of flags and symbols’.

3) traditional British values

I’m not convinced that there is enough in the ‘Contract’ to justify a mention of this in the ‘Contract’ section.

4) government intervention in independent organisations

The current wording is not supported by anything in the ‘Contract’ and I don’t understand why you think it is. Unless you can provide a suitable alternative wording, this whole wording should be deleted.

5) Other policies

Since these policies are actually mentioned in the ‘Contract’, I think it is worthwhile to include them in the ‘Contract’ section, along with their intention to abolish the BBC licence fee.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I think that's fine, though it was used as recently as 2023 which makes it hard to tell if it's something they'll continue to use or not considering they have used it for a while.

2/3) Yea in terms of "military might and military action" that's fine by me but patriotic language is rife within the doc particularly the leanings on values etc, I don't see it's removal as being appropriate. The document makes mention of "British values" or variants there of more than 5 times with a basic search and it appears in several of their key sections. This is rather excessive for a contract for a political party and they're some of the most used phrases in the document I don't see the removal of reference to "British values" or "Patriotic language" as being appropriate here tbh.

4) There's direct reference to it in the opening passage when they state: "Multiculturalism has imported separate communities that reject our way of life. ‘Woke’ ideology has captured our public institutions", on page 11 under the paragraph "Common sense policing not Woke Policing", page 15 under education with both referenced Trans and CRT bans and again on page 30 under "Reclaiming Britain".

In terms of re-wording I could say "They support authoritative restrictions on education systems by banning "X/Y/Z" due to unsubstatiated claims made within the document" though I think that's even more personal/aggressive. As it stands they want to make significant changes to curricula of these instutitons based on their personal perspectives on these topics which is authoritarian in nature though calling it authoritarian might sound too aggressive for this page. What else would be suitable for such an approach?

5) Not if they're already listed under the same broad chapter though, if these sections I mentioned above are also already on the page then the "contract with you" section itself could just be re-edited to say "Many of the mentioned topics are included in their "contract with you"" or something to that effect? Galdrack (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am having major trouble with my keyboard and I can’t give you a proper reply at present.Sweet6970 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries this doesn't need to be urgent, I just replied quickly as I was available. Galdrack (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My keyboard seems to be working today.

I propose that the sub-section heading Our Contract with You be deleted, and instead, we have a paragraph about the Contract:

The party has issued Our Contract with You, which they describe as a ‘working draft’. As at May 2024, this expressed their support for British values, and their intention to support military veterans. It included commitments to proportional representation, reforming the House of Lords, leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, and abolishing the BBC licence fee. It mentions the party’s opposition to Critical Race Theory, and to the idea that there are more than 2 sexes or genders.

This would be followed by a separate paragraph: The party has used the slogan ‘Make Britain Great’ which is similar to that used by Donald Trump, for whom its leaders have expressed support.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I have now made the changes. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, sorry I didn't see and get back to your last comment but yea all good by me, Galdrack (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me that when the party slogan "Make Britain Great" is mentioned in the article text it is required to in the same breath be described as similar to Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again", when although that is true it is fairly obviously a play on the words of the country name "Great Britain". Great Britain.. .. Make Britain Great. Boscaswell talk 04:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2024

Under political positions, change 'opposes measures to combat climate change' to 'opposes Net Zero'. The party supports efforts to stop climate change but believes in doing it a different way. 2A0A:EF40:EE1:1D01:6D06:9642:D88C:7AB6 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

Reform U.K. is more Specifically a Centre Right Party. (Important to say that and be specific with all the accusations that fly about currently.) 78.149.180.44 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We should cross reference Open Council Data and Reform Derby

We should add reform derby councilors to the total as they are generally accepted as members of both parties. Local council seats seem to be out of place for example Councilor Alan Graves the Leader of Reform Derby is a member of both parties and is not added to the list on http://opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors.php?p=459&y=0 the ones missing are all of the Reform Derby Members and they are current members of the Derby council

For example on May 24th Alan Graves stood as the Reform UK candidate for the East Midlands Mayor (https://www.reformderby.uk/may-24-elections/)

I think we should mark them down similarly to how the Co-op/Labor councilors are marked

I'll monitor this as it updates and once the parties make there affiliation more clear - AbledAtol

I made an edit a few hours ago in which the Derby situation (they’re members of both) isn’t stated precisely but is taken as read. This followed another editor's addition which pointed out the Reform Derby connection. Boscaswell talk 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

yes that was me, Additionally if any TUV or SDP members get elected under the joint ticket what do you think would be best to mark them as AbledAtol (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversed Minor Edit?

Hello,

In the "elections" section I added "see also" sections for the 2019 and 2024 general elections, but this has been removed.

If there is a "see also" section for the 2019 EP election, why can't there be for these other elections? BrendonJH (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Clacton

Hey, just a day or so ago four members of the Tendring District Council joined Reform UK according to the Times video entitled "LIVE: Nigel Farage Meets Voters in Clacton" I was hoping the article could be updated to reflect this change. 96.70.106.102 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

which council are they so i can update it AbledAtol (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Tendring District Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that this is a fairly local/minor issue - then why should it be mentioned in an article relating to the national Reform Party? 91.110.75.11 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

In the first line of the txt it states that Reform Party are a right wing political party. It should just read that Reform are a political Party. No need for right wing. 2A02:C7E:3088:8B00:59CE:C8A3:A4CF:F11C (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 15:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Controversy section missing?

Is it appropriate to add something about the ongoing controversy surrounding comments made by several pf their candidates or is that not done for political parties? I'm referring to this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727xz2kkgjo. ISleep8Hours (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Spoiler

This party is a typical spoiler party. This should be pointed out right at the top. --95.24.79.236 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a highly ideologically motivated position. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Members or donors?

Per an archived discussion, Reform UK Party Limited is a private company with - currently - four members, all shareholders. This is why it could change leader so quickly in 2024: the person with 8 of the 15 shares decided he wanted to be leader and could vote himself into the role. The company's documents seem to be the only source of what a member of Reform UK Party is, because while the ReformParty.UK site invites people to pay them £25/year, there is nothing on it that I can find that says what that gets you, apart from being slightly poorer. Should they be called 'donors' instead? Lovingboth (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What does a lawyer get you, apart from being slightly poorer?

It's a service, members can choose if the company is doing them good by their money by pushing policy Eloymtf (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ghost candidates

Should we write anything on the accusations of Reform running ghost candidates in multiple constituencies such as Mark Matlock in Clapham and Brixton Hill or the candidate in Leeds North East? Reference here Locked101 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Right now there's simply not enough information on this and it's a just a conspiracy theory. It could even be a BLP violation (assuming Mark Matlock is, in fact, real). If the electoral commission discovers something it might then become notable. — Czello ^(music) 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Following on from this, it now appears to have been confirmed that he's real. — Czello ^(music) 20:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Election Section needs work, Add: Election Results section

The Elections section really needs some work. Every other UK political party has an Election Results section that just displays tables of the results. This page has the 2024 table buried under 3 paragraphs of text. It should be in the same place as the 2019 table. And it should indicate an increase in vote share, etc. Look at any UK political party, and indeed most European political party wikipedia pages and get this one up to that standard. Thank you. 2600:1700:8C30:1350:F4DC:E0B1:EFEA:B306 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

2019 platform

This is already a long article, is there any point in having the old platform in the article? Doug Weller talk 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would we not have it? Information is not removed simply because it's old. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Keeper of Albion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see what it adds to the article. And the longer the article the less likely people will keep reading it. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2019 platform is just a few bullet points - it’s easy to scan and pass over. Readers are going to skip certain sections anyway, aren’t they? Boscaswell talk 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the article for the third-most-voted-for political party in a country that once ruled the world. It's a fair assumption that there will be readers who are interested in its platform from 2019. Those who are not will likely opt not to read that section. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Farage has said he will put the consittution before the conference

That was on 5 July. What conference and what constitution? An old one is discussed in the archives with some news sources and I presume that one is still the legal one. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably this - the Articles of Association of the company. In the Indie article referenced in the Limited company discussion above, it says "Mr Farage claimed Reform UK would “democratise over time” after he was accused of running a “one-man dictatorship” by broadcasters." Perhaps the two statements are in alignment. Boscaswell talk 20:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If that link to the Articles of Association doesn’t work, click on the pdf from here. It’s about half way down, "Resolution of Adoption of Articles of Assication", 7 pages. Boscaswell talk 21:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the article really needs a bit of a rewrite the funding and party structure, which is at least unusual if not unique, which I think it is in the UK. I'd suggest breaking that into two sections for easier reading. We would need to include the new sources such as this which mentions Habib.

The present section also starts a bit abruptly I think and the first sentence could be rewritten, eg "When the Brexit party was created/formed it was limited company" because as it stands it says it only had three members and then says it decided to have no members, which makes no sense if you know nothing about it.

I think that the first sentence should say "and limited company" - it's succinct and accurate and follows our NPOV policy.

Even with that, the lead needs to say more about its structure, as it doesn't follow our guideline at WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Another source:[12]. By the way, Bylinetimes is not a good source.

Thinking about the lead a bit more, although I think structure and finances should be separate sections, summarizing them together in one para for the lead should work. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll have a go at a re-write of that section soon. I've been busy with other stuff… Boscaswell talk 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I know busy. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Limited company/FT source

Reform UK is mentioned as being "unusual" for a political party, but when I read the wiki article on political parties I couldn't see how the structure differs. The FT times is behind a paywall/registration; is that a suitable source? The Guardian just repeats the party has unusual structure, without explaining why.Halbared (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We use paywalled sources, and for some reason I was able to read it anyway. I can't now. The Guardian says "Farage owns a majority of shares in Reform UK Party Ltd, which is registered with Companies House." Our general article on political parties is irrelevant. There are no political groups in the UK owned by shareholders other than this one that I know of, certainly none with MPs. There are of course other sources stating the same thing, also stating who owns the other shares. Also note that Farage is quoted in the article: "He saw the Brexit Party doing the same kind of thing and "running a company, not a political party, hence our model of registered supporters" " Reform is just the new name for the Brexit Party. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Paywalled sources are not very good if they can't be accessed, and the Guardian didn't answer my question, though you did here, thank you for that. I found a good source as to why Reform is different from other parties. Prominence is given to Reform being a limited company which raised my pondering on how other parties are 'set-up.' I wanted to know the structure of how a political party should work, which I expected to find on the political party page, which is why I mentioned it. I found a rather good source anyway on what makes Reform unusual from the other, older parties. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-nigel-farage-election-b2556355.html.Halbared (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Good source. I could find the quote "Mr Farage claimed Reform UK would “democratise over time” after he was accused of running a “one-man dictatorship” by broadcasters." Also here[13] which is interesting as he says their constatation (which is where?) allows 2/3rd of the membership to kick him out. Note that he stonewalls on whether the company sill stay. See also [14] and [15]. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m putting up here because although another editor saw fit to exclude this information from the lede, with the edit summary "Major British political parties have companies associated with them. Take it to the talk-page." it has just been plonked into para. 1 of the lede. I have reverted that edit for the following reasons. Even if it is established that this information should be included in the lede, it should not be prioritised above all the other information therein, which is what the latest edit did. Is the fact that it is a limited company more important than the facts that it is a political party, which has innumerable policies, which gained 14% of the vote at the general election? Of course not. Boscaswell talk 20:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Boscaswell But it is. No other political party is controlled by shareholders. And are you suggesting that there is a party membership that can elect the party leader and help set its policies. As an aside, paywalled sources are fine. And there are others. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Having a company associated with a party is in no way equivalent with a party being a limited company, how can you possibly think it is? Doug Weller talk 20:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, any source that is reliable and in the public domain is acceptable. Including a hardback book that costs £25 to buy. Although, as it happens, you can usually access FT content for free by googling the article title and using an alternative source. On the topic, so long as Farage is in sole charge of everything his ‘party’ does, including its name, branding, leader, candidate selection and policies, it is significantly different from other parties, which have democratic structures (of course, one can argue about the extent to which they are democratic in practice - cf. the power Starmer has accumulated over his party, in practice, despite its internal democracy). It will be interesting to see whether, now it has a group of MPs, there will be pressure on its one-man decision-making model; it was such pressure within UKIP that led Farage to walk away from it. MapReader (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader@Halbared@Boscaswell See Talk:Nigel Farage where this information is being called a BLP violation despite the tact that everyone of their websites clearly states "Promoted by Paul Oakden - Copyright © 2024 Reform UK Party Limited

Company number 11694875 | Registered in England & Wales". Plus a multitude of sources. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional ideologies

Thoughts on adding these ideologies to the infobox?

• Anti-immigration, probably worth noting the party themselves reject this label but that comment could be considered undue.
• British nationalism and / or national conservatism, didn't find too much sourcing off a quick look but it has been talked of before.

Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOX, "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article". That means we need the article to conclude somewhere in the main body what the party's ideologies are, so we need some discussion on these to appear in the article body first, then we can consider adding them to the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Reform UK tracked private user information without consent

See [16]. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Facebook pixel is a common web analytics tool, half of websites use it. Nothing to do here IMO, at least for an encyclopaedia, — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV lead

Despite having a section in the article, the fact that Reform is a legal company and its shareholders is not in the lead. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that the funding model isn't one the most important aspects of the topic of this article, it doesn't really belong in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, it has its own section. It is extremely unusual, so far as I know unique. Many people don't read more than the lead, it shouldn't be left out. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't reply to your post below, did you read the sources in my first post? There are a lot. Including of course their websites. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As the balance of the sources don't seem to give much/any weight to it, then neither should we. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that Nigel Garage’s name appears so frequently in the article, it is, IMHO, important to state somewhere in the lead that the Reform Party is structured as a limited liability company with Farage as its principal shareholder. Any reader who has a modicum of intelligence will realise then that while the party faithful we’re able to depose Corbyn, Johnson and many other political party leaders, Farage’s position within the party is safe. As such, the structure of the Reform Party is so fundamentally different to that of any other party, it needs to be highlighted in ok s early as possible- in my view in the first paragraph of the lead. 2A00:23C8:1DAE:2401:C89D:8D6F:8D1B:649D (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Reform UK is unique in its model and this should be reflected in the lead. It is a structured more like a company than as a political party. DWMemories (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Today’s Times reported that Farage has taken over Oakden’s share, giving him 60% of the share capital. This reinforces the need that the lead shows that Reform UK is not an ordinary party, but Farage’s “plaything”. 2A00:23C8:1DAE:2401:C5A4:766C:84AD:48C5 (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ben Habib isn't happy at all about this. [17] @' "But, you know , you can't stand for a democratic entity that is the United Kingdom, celebrate and champion that democracy, if the party through which you wish to do it, isn't itself democratic ." an "He owns the majority of the shares, and in a private limited company, he who owns the majority has absolute control, if that structure isn't changed, then it won't be truly democratised. And I fear for the future of Reform UK, if it isn't properly democratised"

So yes, needs to be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also The Express.[18]. I can't read the Times.

Anything about shares needs changing now. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller Just an FYI, The Express is considered a generally unreliable source and should not be used as a source for factual claims. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 good point. You did look for more sources, right? Or are you arguing this should not be included? Doug Weller talk 08:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Also [19] Doug Weller talk 13:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller I wasn't making any comment on the wider discussion, just pointing out the source isn't deemed a reliable one for citations regarding factual claims. Helper201 (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Not having looked at the article for a while, I was shocked to see that someone had thrown the "Neutrality disputed!" tag over it. Huh!? What was that about? And then I found that the only reason for that being there was that there is this fight going on about whether or not the share ownership (60% in Farage's name) was mentioned in the lede. It’s in the article, but not in the lede, but apparently, the omission from the lede meant that it had to be suggested that the neutrality of the whole article should be questioned. A massive over-reaction, IMO. But rather than add to this "handbags at dawn" affair that has been going on, I took it upon myself to slip in a mention of Farage's 60% ownership in the lede. Howzaboutthathen! Totally unexpected, I imagine. (The reason I made this edit without further consultation is: I figured that if someone (me) who might have been expected to argue that it shouldn’t be there actually says ok, let’s go with it, then the argument is over, since the yays will immediately outweigh the nays.) I have *not* been added it to the first paragraph, though, and putting it there I would strongly object to. But this kills two birds with one stone. One, this spat is finished, and two, the "neutrality disputed!" tag has no justification. (It didn’t anyway, but my making the edit I neatly sidestep the argument.)
It may interest people to know that a major revision to the constitution is in the winds. Zia Yusuf, chairman, has said so, and the Telegraph headline here about it indicates that with the change, Farage would be able to be removed. So the change will be major, and then we’ll be able to take the mention of his ownership out of the lede again. I’m sure that in time there’ll be other stuff to get over-excited about, and with that in mind I’d like to ask that if another dispute comes up, editors think very hard, please, before taking any action which many other editors will consider a severe over-reaction, such as throwing a "neutrality disputed!" tag over the article. Thank you, and I wish everyone a good day. *Everyone*! Boscaswell talk 06:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boscaswell although I think there was a pov issue, I guess there is a tag for leads that would have covered that. Anyway, thanks. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good balance. I agree in the first paragraph would be WP:UNDUE, but where you've inserted it seems to fit quite naturally. I'm content with this edit. — Czello ^(music) 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A deft edit, the constitution of the party is interesting: I wasn't sure where I fell in the current brouhaha. A slick sidestep worthy of a diplomat himself... :D Halbared (talk) 09:41, 28 August 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 ([20] [21] 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