Wikipedia

Talk:Reform UK#WP:FRINGE

Topics being auto archived rather than responded to for this talk page

[edit]

There seems to be a repeated pattern of requests for changes essentially being ignored to the Reform UK Wiki article.

I started a topic which highlighted recently announced policies (relating to human rights, asylum and immigration) that in my view, should all be included in the main article, however, the 2025 subheading remains the same: Reform UK#2025 2

This is not really meant as a complaint, but for some reason, it keeps happening. I don’t believe there is much effort being made to find consensus on changes, instead issues are not being properly discussed, even when relevant sources are available.

So, the main constant I notice is that very few changes are made to Reform UK article. Is it a requirement that contributors must be registered Wiki editors? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the article itself requires an account that is four days old with 10 edits or more. This was made necessary due to disruption. You are welcome to propose formal edit requests(click for instructions) on this page, that will draw attention to your requests. You may also use the edit request wizard to facilitate the process. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that auto archiving be disabled for this talk page, if possible. I believe it has led to some inertia / lack of activity, older topics are buried. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need to be disabled if no one has responded for 14 days it is likely they aren't going to respond so it hasn't lead to any lack of activity and inertia. And as said by User:331dot you can do a formal edit request and if you do then there is a good chance someone will respond. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, 14 days is not nearly long enough to properly consider new topics, especially for topics that involve developing news stories and announcements. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is enough time people can easily consider their view in 14 days it does not take that long and if people havent responded at all in 14 days they arent likely too(most discussions I see that are over 14 days old do not get any new responses.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why was auto archiving (after 14 days) introduced in the first place, for this talk page?
Was this a good decision? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely it was introduced because there was too many discussion open and the talk page became hard to navigate(though I can’t say for sure.) I think it was yes the talk page would be harder to read GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same topics have to be raised again and again.
It has stifled discussion and contributed to inertia. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has no comments for that time period then it is likely no one will respond and so the topic would probably be raised again in some form anyway. I disagree I don't think it has stifled any discussion or caused inertia. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it clearly does if the contents of an entire topic have to be repeated, and everyone brought up to speed again. It is needless duplication, and a waste of time. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the default auto-archiving time for Wikipedia pages, it is 90 days / approx. 3 months:
Template:Setup auto archiving
Why then has it been reduced to 14 days for this talk page? It doesn’t seem justifies, the amount fo traffic simply isn’t that high. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said they would likely have to be brought up again anyway if no one is responding in that time span .
As to why I don't know why 14 and not 30. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to formally request that the auto archiving interval is set to the default of 90 days, to allow for longer discussions, and to reduce unnecessary duplication of topics. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to suggest the current one is adequete and that 90 days is necessarry. GothicGolem29 (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to an extreme, the setting could be reduced to 1 day, or just a few hours. Would be a lot less posts to deal with then, I would imagine.
I think you should state what the advantages are of keeping it at 14 days, down from 90. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, the talk pages of other large UK political parties each have longer auto-archiving periods, of 40 days, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservative_Party_(UK)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liberal_Democrats_(UK) 86.3.45.251 (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a degree of reasonability that needs to be done to allow discussion hence no a day or a few hours. Less discussion on the talk page is one benefit. But the biggest reason I am opposing is 90 is not necessary discussions have plenty of time to continue within 14 days keeping the status quo doesn't cause any issues. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you know if a 14 day limit did cause any issues?
    The threads are auto-archived, and no one can respond to them anymore.
    How often do you expect that editors or newbies are likely to visit and respond to topics?
    I think it's incumbent to explain why the default of 90 days (which seems quite reasonable), is not used in this case. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the current one doesn't cause issues not that one would. I don't know but if it isn't in 14 days they most likely wont respond to that topic.
    I didn't make it so can't answer that I can only say why I don't want to change it from 14 days(and other articles also leave the 90 days format Syrian Civil war is also 14 days.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate an explanation from whoever is in charge of the policies for this talk page, about why 14 days for auto-archiving was settled on, as opposed to the default of 90 days (especially when compared to other UK political party pages).
    Reform UK (and it's associated Wiki. article) isn't a new party anymore, they have existed since November 2018 (previously called Brexit Party). 86.3.45.251 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone available, to provide clarity on why auto archiving was set to 14 days?
    I can see that i'm probably going to what to keep asking, to get a response. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't keep asking here please that won't help. I will ping the creator of the page @RevolutionizeSeven see if they know who did the archiving. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. 86.3.45.251 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any word back from @RevolutionizeSeven? 86.3.45.251 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be nice to get some more information about this, please. ~2025-32074-59 (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the revision history of the page. The auto archiving period of the present talk page was 7 days until it was set to 14 by @Shadow4dark on 3 February 2025
    I will take the bold decision to further increase it to 30 days, without prejudice and assuming no objection, so be aware that anyone is free to set it back to 14 and I would have no issue with that, and you cannot use my comment here to argue against them.
    Typically, archiving after a day if inactivity is only used on very busy pages, and I imagine that when the page was created, it was expected to be busy?
    Understanding your comments in this topic to mean that you think the talk page is so inactive that comments are left unanswered not because they don’t need answering but because they are archived before someone who might be interested even gets to see it.
    Please do understand that no one is obliged to engage with your comments. People not responding to your topic in itself is not a reason to extend the archiving window.
    Happy editing,
    Slomo666 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, it's certainly an improvement from just 14 days before a topic is auto archived.
    I believe it will make discussions on new topics easier. ~2025-32592-21 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lower sigmabot archiving permits only 7 or 14 days from 'new' users, which included me in 2018, as I had fewer than 100 edits at the time of making this page. I can't change that now. RevolutionizeSeven (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording

[edit]

In the section on climate change, there is the following text:

He stated: "We all care about the environment of the planet – we need to adapt to it. The idea that you can stop the power of the sun or volcanoes is simply ludicrous." This claim and several others Tice made are contrary to scientific consensus.

The quoted text is not contrary to scientific consensus (it is indeed impossible to "stop the power of the sun or volcanoes"). The real issue is that the quote from Tice is a strawman argument. Myhill.bob (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good point. Thank you. I'll make an edit. --Jabbi (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far-Right label.

[edit]
Currently a moratorium on this topic after multiple discussions. — Czello (music) 22:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Multiple sources describe Reform as far-right. As has been discussed, their policies are further right than the tories. They participate in the movement of the far-right. This seems obvious. ~2025-33863-11 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

British Nationalism

[edit]

Considering it’s a staunchly right-wing eurosceptic party, and exhibits a few nationalist views (i.e., immigration), I do feel as though it wouldn’t hurt to add “British nationalism” in the ideology category. ~2025-33413-48 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need sufficient reliable sources, or it needs to already be in the body. Otherwise we are doing WP:Synth Slomo666 (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For that to be added to the ideology section we would need to have reliable sources stating they are British Nationalist we cannot add that based on their Eurosceptic views and their immigration views. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There don't seem to be any for British Nationalist, but there are some for English Nationalist -
Nation.cymru, New Statesman, and The Scotsman have all called the party it and The Economist has called Farage it. Thisawful (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC) blocked sock SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Welsh and Scottish are both opinion pieces, and one by Murdo Fraser. The New Statesman is referencing or quoting something.Halbared (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might also check at UKIP#ideology for references. That article is much more fleshed out, so it adequately covers (as far as I can tell) its ideology section. Slomo666 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed there is a source in the article already for "right-wing nationalist". Can we infer from this British nationalist without it being SYNTH/OR as they're a British party? Thisawful (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC) blocked sock SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE

[edit]

[1] This is an article on Reform Uk so Reform Uks deputy leaders views on climate change are absolutely relevant here as are the IPCC views which this also covered

This is bullshit. Did you even look at WP:FRINGE? What these people say is simply wrong and needs to be either ignored or refuted immediately. The scientific consensus is not just "the IPCC views" - WP:FALSEBALANCE is also a good page for you to read.

"with signs over recent years that it is now leveling off" is also false. And what is the content of the "literally net stupid" quote? The whole section is one big violation of WP:FRINGE and must be cleaned up. Calling WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]], I think this is en0gh to say they are falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would have liked a ping as its responding to me but anyway. First of all please remember Wikipedia:Civility calling what I said BS is not civil. I do not oppose including a refutation by the IPCC or a scientific body so if you can agree to that that can be a compromise but I do oppose ignoring this as Reforms deputy views on climate change are relevant to the party so they should be included.
It is not a violation of Fringe opposing views are included throughout the section and we can include one for this view too if needed. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a scientific body to dispute their claims? They are not scientists, so why not also include other politicians' responses? Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because climate change is apart of science so including scientific bodies is relevant. However,I would not oppose also including politicians views to what Tice said as well as their views are also relevant. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why did we not use the ones in the source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what source you are referring too but if you mean the sources in the climate change section then I cannot answer that as I did not write the section I just reverted the removal of Tices comments(but if they are included in the sourced in the section I do support hem being added to the section.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using the source (in the section you re-added) that also said "Contrary to Tice’s first falsehood, reaching net zero emissions is the only way to stop climate change, according to the IPCC. Second, far from saying that net zero makes no difference to sea The IPCC says it is “unequivocal” that humans are responsible for heating the planet and that our emissions have caused 100% of recent warming.", this was why it was removed, as its puts a pro-fringe stament without adding the criticism of is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that is why it was removed as the person who reverted said the quotes don't belong here in the edit summary so while they do disagree with not adding the refutation they also thought the quotes did not belong there.But even if that is why it was removed, I still disagree with removing the quote on that basis.If refutation needs to be added then it can be added(and consensus here seems to be to add the refutation so if no one else does I will add it at the end of the discussion here and on the noticeboard)but it is important to include the quotes for the reasons I set out previously. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:05, 22 November 2025 UTC)
Err "Wikipedia is not a megaphone for anti-science wackjobs. WP:FRINGE says "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized". These paragraphs are just anti-science rhetorics without any putting them in context. ", That was why it was removed, the text did not put this into context. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can include views like what Tice has said without it being a megaphone its a relevant view to include now we can and should include opposing views but that does not mean the Tice view should be removed it is relevant to this page.The latter part I have no further comment on as my above comment still applies to this and why I strongly disagree with the removal and what you say the removal reason is and I would just be repeating myself if I said that again. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:GothicGolem29: its a relevant view to include now we can and should include opposing views These are not "views". What Tice said is false and what those who contradict him say is true. You are still in that WP:FALSEBALANCE mode of thinking. You do not understand WP:FRINGE. Either include Tice's lies and the refutation, or omit both. Those are the only options. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already agreed we should include both GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto I disagree with removing Ed Milibands view from that section it's not political posturing its an opposing view and refutation of Tices view and I think it is important to include those. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a subject expert, he is a politician with a very low position in the favourability polls, and is bitterly opposing a political opponent with a very high position. If the opponent had said the opposite, that would have been opposed too. Politically inspired 'refutation' adds nothing of encyclopaedic value to any article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I would agree on the first part the low opinion in polls seems to be the party rather than ED Miliband himself. I have seen no evidence nor is it my view that ED Miliband would oppose what Richard Tice said even if he had supported the opposite which is net zero and recognised climate change(which is ED Milibands position.) I would argue this is more based on ED Milibands beliefs than politically inspired for the reasons I set out above and given that and his position as energy secretary I see encyclopaedic value in adding that refutation. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The polls I meant were for the parties. Is Miliband a recognised expert in the science of the subject though, and if he isn't why does his 'opinion' matter. Readers will just think, as I did, that he would say that wouldn't he. And if we add it, should we then balance it with the opinions of all other politicians who have pronounced on the subject? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. He isnt and his opinon matters because he is the energy secretary and dictating policy on climate change I think that is enough to mean a refutation of the point made by Tice from Miliband is relevant and should be included. I don't think they would to be honest I think they will think he supports net zero and opposes what Tice said. We cannot include everyone the refutations included in the source of Tices comments will be sufficient in my view. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were these statements made as official Reform policy? Or should these be moved to Tice's page and Reform policy be place here instead?Halbared (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are statements made by the deputy leader of Reform and as such should be included in the climate change section. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will note Reform policy is included in the climate change section and Tice made these comments in trying to argue for his Partys policy of scrapping net zero. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add my two shillings or whatever. I think it's very reasonable to include said fringe views in the section provided they are clearly refuted. I agree that the refutation should be more clear. I'll try and find time to clarify further. I think these views are notable - they get loads of coverage. --Jabbi (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my view too. And I note that the Guardian source contains a detailed refutation of the claims and how they are contrary to the IPCC. So there's need to cite IPCC directly. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGE would apply here if this was an article about the topic of climate change. However, this is an article about Reform, and FRINGE would only apply here if climate change denial was a fringe view within Reform as well - which it isn't. Cortador (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:FRINGE. More concise: it's total bollocks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WP:FRINGESUBJECTS is explicit about this, and NPOV is non-negotiable. There is a history of WP:PROFRINGE editors trying to create 'safe spaces' for fringe-pushing by denying this policy. Bon courage (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who does that refer to above?Halbared (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]