Talk:Advance UK: Difference between revisions

Line 149: Line 149:

::Yup. No ambiguity there. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 11:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Matthew-Hopkins1981|Matthew-Hopkins1981]] I’d like to see say 5 examples of “Many other WIKI articles describe parties as (eg. “left-wing to far-right”) please. I don’t think you’ve answered questions on your talk page about any relationship with this party. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style=”color:#070″>Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advance_UK#c-CommunityNotesContributor-20251118180900-LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy-20251117215500 commented above] in reference to this; academic sourcing strongly implies far-right, but there’s not enough to support “radical right” alongside that, at least not from newsorgs. It’s only really ”[[The Conversation]]” making that connection [https://theconversation.com/inside-the-far-right-social-media-ecosystem-normalising-extremist-ideas-in-uk-politics-266948 here] and [https://theconversation.com/a-contemporary-history-of-britains-far-right-and-how-it-helps-explain-why-so-many-people-went-to-the-unite-the-kingdom-rally-in-london-265805 here], both firmly within the framework of the far-right. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 18:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, sorry, I missed that you already posted that source. [[User:St.irchley|St.irchley]] ([[User talk:St.irchley|talk]]) 18:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus is that Advance UK are described as a far right party, based on coverage in reliable sources. Please read this guideline carefully before suggesting changes.

That description needs to be removed. Centre right politics for the people by the people . DiamondGeezer68 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It doesn’t matter how many people turn up here to make the same demands. We go with what the WP:Reliable Sources say. If you have valid sources that describe the party as “centre-right” or explicitly say that they are not far-right then those can be considered but none of the kvetching on this page so far has been to any avail because there were no valid sources to support any of the claims. —DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to anyone at Wikipedia that journalists at supposed Reliable Sources get their information from Wikipedia? 92.234.167.190 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITOGEN is certainly a thing; there is no evidence of it happening here, however, as the sourcing came before the label on Wikipedia — Czello ^(music) 06:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So strange the same rules doesn’t apply to Antifa, which is clearly a far-left organisation, matching Wikipedia’s own definition of far-left. Many sources including the BBC have described Antifa as far-left, yet Wiki still says left-wing.

Advance Uk however doesn’t meet any definition of far-right that I’m aware of, including Wikipedia’s definition.

There is clearly a blatant left leaning on here, when a peaceful moderate party is branded far-right, whilst violent masked thugs in a group many Governments debate proscribing a terrorist group, are left-wing. 212.159.61.186 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to use sources to describe antifa as far-left but then not use them for describing Advance as far-right. — Czello ^(music) 06:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the IP means by many governments, but Antifa (which is not an organisation,) but Antifa is not relevant here. You should know that. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS although about AFDs is relevant here. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware; it should be clear I am not endorsing their view. — Czello ^(music) 07:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence they’re far right other than hear say and sabotage. You should either remove far right or correctly label them centre. Their goal is to restore Britain and it’s democracy….not very far right is it ~2025-33897-07 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: remove far right and correct to centre or remove the description completely as it’s inaccurate. ~2025-33897-07 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes off reliable sources that is why far right is the political position listed. For that To be changed to centre right there would have to be reliable sources calling them that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the party literally wants to deport all non-indigenous Britons, despite Ben himself being born in Pakistan, his logic for why he himself shouldn’t be deported is that he’s “half-English”, but regardless, making policies that treat people differently based on their ethnicity and deporting people born in this country who have never done anything wrong simply because of their ethnicity does seem to fall under the category of “far-right” wether it hurts your feelings or not. That’s why all reputable sources call them as such. Hope this helps. 193.115.209.76 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This it’s not correct as we have a created any policies yet 86.20.77.129 (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s that word again, “we”. That clearly indicates a Conflict of Interests. Now, I’m not going to get mad about this. It’s far better that people are honest about their COIs instead of trying to hide them. Even so, if you have a COI then you need to understand how that affects your editing on Wikipedia. It often that requires you to step away from a topic. Please read the link. It will explain it all. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an opinion not a fact. I’ve read RSPs and besides a few things on freedom of speech there are no reliable sources describing any explicit policies including what you said. Please remain professional. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew-Hopkins1981 Who are you replying to and what policies do you mean. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he say that…. You need to go and actually look at what has been said so far and not speculate or fabricate what hasn’t been said. You’re not a reliable impartial editor of the truth if you’re going to fill in the blanks with your own emotions…. ~2025-33897-07 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew-Hopkins1981 Just a notice, when an issue like the position of the party has been this contentious, consensus ideally should be established on the source page. Nor should editors stoop to ad hominem attacks on fellow editors. Nor should editors use their personal views to back up why a position should be as it is. I would suggest there has been quite a clear breach of typical process here.

Regarding the Telegraph source, which is both very recent and has never been added to the article before, I’m happy to keep it in place; the i paper comparatively, is not an RSP and the description does not come in the body of the article (these descriptions aren’t taken from headlines). I would also note the i has recently published an article directly about Advance (rather than its predecessor), labelling it ‘far-right’, so I do not believe the i source stands regardless.

Right-wing to far-right seems to potentially work given the 2 RSPs to 1, though obviously other editors are free to disagree; I would welcome any insights, especially from those who have contributed to above discussions.

Also, just a sidenote, another article has labelled it far-right (The National). Regards, Quinby (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at the moment as I have not looked close at the sources, but I removed due to WP:ONUS. Unless I misread the discussions above, there is no consensus to change the current description. —CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consensus should be established before these changes are made. I do also agree they should not resort to attacks on editors by calling some a cult.I still support calling them just far right as the majority of reliable sources call them that. Arguments I have heard about sources calling them right wing not explictly being against the far right label due to right right wing being a broad term including far right also should be considered. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume, maybe wrongly so, that their association with Tommy Robinson gets them labeled as far-right in the media more often than not. I ran into a similar issue on another Wikipedia page over the years and it is still labeled as “right-wing” instead of “conservative.” Again, I have not looked a the sources close enough so just an assumption. Since there have been so many discussions and edit warring, may I suggest a RfC to put the issue to rest? —CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree GothicGolem. As it stands a majority of RSP seem to classify it as far-right. I’d say we need to follow RSP on that, though it seems some newer editors passionate about the topic take issue with that and have been attempting to wp:rightgreatwrongs often without sourcing nor discussion often inspite of prompts for such. I understand that this can be frustraiting for newer impassioned editors, but as you say, attacks are much unneeded

If it were to change to “right-wing to far-right” would that create a wp:synth issue? I’m not too sure on how synth and position mesh, but could it be a synth risk if no source itself states right-wing to far-right? Bejakyo (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s fine to ignore synth here, it is done elsewhere Quinby (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t support changing it to that for the reasons I set out before but I would not say there is a Synth issue over changing it to that.GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should clarify I also don’t support such a change, just wanted ask Bejakyo (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Advance UK have yet to publish a detailed manifesto, any article declaring them to have any political position should be regarded with suspicion at best. There is nothing on their brief mission statement to suggest that they are far-right. I should add that far-right means Fascist. There is no continuum from conservative to Fascist – they are diametrically opposed philosophies as conservatism is about preserving the status quo and Fascism is revolutionary. Therefore right to far-right would not be an appropriate label. Frankly, Wikipedia’s approach to this article is more akin to tabloid journalism or political activism than a supposedly serious reference source. 92.234.167.190 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn’t go by what the organization says anyway. We go by what can be verified in reliable secondary sources. Again, may I suggest a RfC? —CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a big thing for wikipedia we go off that we don’t view reliable sources with suspicion just because they say state they are far right before a manifesto. If they started stating misleading things then they could be deprecated at the reliable sources noticeboard but that would require far more than just stating they are far right before a manifesto. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This ip also wrote here esrlier

” ::Has it occurred to anyone at Wikipedia that journalists at supposed Reliable Sources get their information from Wikipedia? 92.234.167.190 ([[User” Doug Weller talk 18:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do vaguely remember someone saying that didn’t realise it was this ip thanks. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew-Hopkins1981:, See the top of the talk page where consensus shows it as “far-right.” You don’t like it, change consensus. Do not edit war your preferred version. See WP:ONUS. —CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I like is irrelevant – it’s Wikipedia’s credibility that’s at stake, not mine. I’m trying to help but it looks like Wikipedia will soon be history anyway. I have ceased my donations. 92.234.167.190 (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve heard that so often from disgruntled edotors,often if not usually IPs. No reason to believe they were donating. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m neither disgruntled nor an editor. I’ve donated to Wikipedia for about twenty years. 92.234.167.190 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don’t think you can be aware of the humungous pile of dosh the WMF is currently sitting on. Even if you were donating, I doubt your contribution would cover the costs for the electricity the WMF uses in counting the loot… AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I’m rather late to the party: I have recently come back from holiday and would like to make a couple of points. One is that nobody gives money to Wikipedia. The encyclopedia could perfectly well be hosted by anyone, as its copyright is held by its authors, not the WMF who currently host it and who some people do give money to. The second is that recently-established political parties tend to prioritise getting the right content on “their” Wikipedia page, rather than recognise that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so if content is considered wrong then they should concentrate on getting such sources to describe them properly. Wikipedia will follow. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Advance Uk be described as far-right or right-wing to far-right in the infobox and lead? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants from previous discussions. @DiamondGeezer68 @User:DanielRigal @Czello @CNMall41 @Doug Weller @Matthew-Hopkins1981 @AndyTheGrump @User:Quinnnnnby GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Doug Weller I accidentally deleted Doug Wellers ping so redoing it~~ Apologies Doug for the second ping I thought I didnt see it there (I did not ping the IPs as It didn’t work when I tried.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some more previous participants @GregKaye @DyanInky69 @Ullscarf @Finlayjevans. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far right. As per the multiple previous discussions we’ve had on this, since that is what multiple sources describe it as (yes, some describe it as ‘right-wing instead, but ‘far-right’ is a subset of ‘right-wing’, rather than necessarily alternative to it). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right. This is a well sourced and coherent description. “right-wing to far-right” is a confusing and incoherent description. Right-wing includes far-right so this would be like describing a colour as “red to scarlet” or “green to emerald green”. “Right-wing” adds no clarity any more than “red” or “green” in those examples. At best, it is unnecessary. At worst, it is confusing, giving the impression that the position is less defined than it is. Our job here is to provide our readers with the most specific description that is sufficiently well sourced. We don’t need to fudge it. —DanielRigal (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right – Plenty of reliable sources for it, them also being called right wing (a broader umbrella term) does not preclude them from being far-right. Silencio x (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far-Right – Clear majority of sources, particularly reliable sources, refer to it as far-right. We afford the due weight of those that disagree with that fact in the section on political positions. Bejakyo (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they would. Advance uk is offering something others don’t offer. They don’t want the party to grow. It’s heavy centred on democracy. Which no other party offers. It also hasn’t released all of its “ideologies” so all the speculation from sources is made up. So each time you refuse to change “far right” you’re simply sabotaging them with no real evidence. How do you label a party who hasn’t related is manifesto but the news report as though they have….truthfully you should not be commenting as “sources” are not accurate. ~2025-33897-07 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend referring to WP:TRUTH; In a nutshell, Wikipedia can’t itself report only the truth because Wikipedia can’t itself establish the truth. Wikipedia attempting to establish the truth itself would be a violation of our policy against WP:Original Research.

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can only follow what reliable sources say. That does mean sometimes information will be incorrect despite it being verifiable. Even reliable sources can after all produce incorrect information too. Should sources concretely change their description in the future, we can always update the article accordingly. Bejakyo (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far right. – There is a large array of reliable sources describing the party as far-right. Additionally the party seems to be placing itself firmly to the right of Reform with their rhetoric. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to close?

The RfC has been open for 14 days now with only two comments in the last week. Sentiment seems to be pretty clear in my. As a result, per WP:RFCEND, should we conclude the RfC? Bejakyo (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close – I think we’ve got consensus – as per reasons above I think it’s safe to call it. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have added to WP:CR. CNC (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-close discussion

I’ve looked at this, and although it’s a slam dunk by just totting up the bold-face pronouncements, I have a few concerns and objections that are stopping me from doing an early close as consensus for far right at this stage. They are:

Checking this result against Wikipedia policy, I think Advance UK would be a small group for the purposes of WP:BLPGROUP. It’s proposed to call a small political party that has yet to announce any political policies, and is led by a British-Pakistani man of Muslim extraction, “Far right”. I’m not seeing the kind of source analysis that would underpin that decision. Am I missing a discussion that took place elsewhere, perhaps?
The source analysis I do see, in the talk page discussion above, is less than rigorous and contains obvious flaws that have not been challenged. For example, the Belfast Telegraph is not associated with the Daily Telegraph.
The sources in the mainspace article are, I feel, somewhat misrepresented in the discussion. The Guardian is, with apologies to Yue, definitely not an “apolitical newspaper of record” and in fact no apolitical newspaper of record exists in the United Kingdom. As GothicGolem29 rightly says, The Telegraph (which doesn’t say “far right”) is a reliable source.

Could we get more rigour please? A source assessment table would help.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few of my comments – on point 1 I feel like the fact that Habib is British-Pakistani is a little irrelevant. Anyone can promote their policies – despite their own ethnicity. While this is arguably inference as well, Advance is quite obviously aligning themselves with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who on his own page has been mostly consensused as a far-right figure. While this could be interpreted as WP:OR, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the party definitely sits towards that area of the political spectrum. For Point 2, while the source analysis grantedly hasn’t been as thorough as most likely should have been, we can see that a large portion of WP:RS are calling the party far-right, even if the sources do lean left. As for point 3, for this case I feel like there does need to be a more detailed analysis of the sources being used in this discussion – it is a valid point. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your response about point 1. I wasn’t sure if I was going to respond as point 1 seemed at best WP:TRUTH abliet without the truth, and at worst WP:OR. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it as you say, and implying that ethnicity does have anything to do with a party’s leaning is not particularly helpful

As it stands the only WP:RSP that refers to Advance as a right-wing party is The Daily Telegraph, a right-wing small c-conservative newspaper of record. The WP:RSP that describe them as ‘far-right’ is The Guardian – a centre-left newspaper of record – and The Independent – a liberal newspaper. The WP:RSP points to some editors consider the the Guardian and Telegraph biased but does not describe the thought of either being bias as a consensus view among editors. Of all the sources in the first paragraph of the Advance UK § Ideology and policy, these three are the most highly regarded papers of the sources listed.

The article in The Telegraph is centred over the dispute with Labour-run Newcastle City Council owned hotel regarding a venue for Advance UK’s launch event. In the article, the party is described as right-wing, as is Tommy Robinson who is listed as a supporter of the party. The article also quotes Habib as anti-British forces were attempting to block the event. There isn’t any analysis of the party in the article beyond that

The article in The Independent is centred on splits from Reform (both Advance and Restore Britain) and how Reform might be challanged by them. In the article, Advance UK is explicitly described as being in a crowed far-right fringe, and described as being potentially extremist. The article also highlights Habib’s comments on how those crossing the English Channel in small boats should be left to drown

The article in The Guardian is centred on the Unite The Kingdom rally. Advance and its leader arn’t the core topic of the article unlike The Independent’s article, but is one among multiple covered elements as part of the rally. The article covers the rally as a whole, describing the event as as far-right, and its key figures/backers. In the section on Habib, it describes him as leading a new far-right party The article also notes Habib’s comments on Channel drownings

Other sources include:

Nation.Cymru – a bilingual Welsh newsite, describing Advance as “far-right”. N.C has not seen a consensus on reliability and is not mentioned on WP:RSP
London Evening Standard – London tabloid newspaper, describing Advance as “far-right”. It appears to lean more Conservative, though endorsed Labour in 2024 had endorsed the Conservative Party for over a decade through three general elections. The publication is explicitly without a consnesus on reliability by Wikipedia editors. Despite this it’s seen as more reliable than other tabloid newspapers.
The National – A Scottish compact / tabloid newspaper, describing Advance as “far-right”. It describes itself explicitly as a pro-independence publication. It has has not seen a consensus on reliability and is not mentioned on WP:RSP
Huffington Post UK – The UK arm of HuffPost news website, describing Advance as “far-right”. HuffPost UK doesn’t seem to have documentation on its own right, but it’s American counterpart is described as progressive. Regarding politics, there is explicitly no consenesus on the HuffPost’s reliability among Wikipedia editors
The London Economic – a news website, describing Advance as “far-right”. I would personally describe this one as having a likely left-wing political leaning, and it’s been described in some publications as being an alternative outlet, akin to Novara Media and The Canary
Daily Mirror – a Labour-aligned tabloid newspaper, describing Advance as “hard right”, and has explitily not seen a consensus on reliability by Wikipedia editors, or if it is comperable to or more reliable than The Sun and The Daily Daily
The Spectator – a political news magazine, describing Advance as “right-wing”. The magazine is firmly conservative. On the WP:RSP is listed as primarily consisting of opinion pieces
The Belfast Telegraph – a Northern Irish newspaper, describing Advance as “right-wing”. It apparently has a British Unionist lean to it though I can’t say I know the paper well, and it is without consensus on its reliability by wikipedia editors.

Lastly I wanted to add some comment on the Financial Times, a broadsheet newspaper. While the FT article does not explicitly state right-wing or far-right, its article covers Advance UK and its relationship to Reform in detail. It describes Advance UK as being more hardline than Reform UK, and appealing to those who would consider farage too moderate. The paper leans towards the centre and centre-right, and to liberalism/liberal conservatism. The paper has endorsed whichever The FT is considered generally reliable by Wikipedia editors.

If it makes any difference, no source has described the party as “right-wing to far-right” Bejakyo (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to comment before seeing the detailed comment above, so have trimmed a bit.

Per discussion below, there’s some analysis worth reading from the peer-reviewed Ethnic and Racial Studies titled Antiracism and the current moment, see the sub-heading The “multiracial far-right” for context here. I otherwise assume the synthesis from secondary sources comes from the association with the Unite the Kingdom rally, led by Tommy Robinson, who is by far considered the most notorious far-right figure in the UK at the moment. This coupled with the falling out between Robinson and Farage, with Reform UK not considered ‘radical’ enough, followed by the partnership between Robinson and Advance UK, is enough for most media sources to run with the far-right description. That might seem like putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but I don’t think it’s our place to overlook what reliable sources are reporting if we disagree with their interpretation, even if it’s good to question these things.

The academic source above sort of concludes what I suspected; this link is more contextual rather than factual, in absence of a better way to put it. But we’re also not trying to deliver WP:TRUTH to the reader here, while the content is sourced via WP:V, and fundamentally, there still isn’t any sources reporting that the party isn’t far-right, even if it’d be nice to have some more reliable sources establishing the description as well. There is also the The Conversation article which, while ~~a bit wishy washy~~ more social science than political, does offer some insight. [1] (It’s similar to the recent IPR article from Bath Uni I noticed). The implication is that, like Reform UK, Advance UK is within the realms of radical right/far-right; and while the former is in one sense considered synonymous with the far-right, there isn’t an established presence in the UK for this political position to really be considered that notable within the context of the topic (it appears less popular in Europe), which leaves far-right being the most accurate/used term per balance of sourcing. As for The Daily Telegraph? They also described the English Defence League as “right-wing” from 2009 until 2011, before making the switch, only after consensus from other sources that the group is indeed far-right it’s worth noting, so a pinch of salt is due here.

In summary academic sourcing strongly implies the party are far-right, not within the broad spectrum of right-wing. There are reliable sources confirming this and no sources disputing it. “Radical right” is far from referenced enough (apart from the academic sources making the connection) to be considered as the main descriptor, but it would be my second choice as an addition, as a potential to consider in the future with better sourcing if that’s the way it goes ie “radical and far-right”. So unless we are to go with no descriptor, which would be useless for the reader based on MOS:FIRST, then far-right is the most accurate for now, pending more sources as well as better sources, while noting that consensus can change (especially for such a fresh topic). CNC (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the majority of sources state ‘far-right’, some say ‘right-wing’.

Now I’ve found three academic research blogs/papers on the far right and they clearly define between the “radical” (peaceful) and the “extreme” (violent) far-right.

I think to distinguish this article from that of extremist neo-fascist groups it may be an idea to incorporate this “radical right” positioning, as the term “far-right” has become too broad muchlike “right-wing”. Many other WIKI articles describe parties as (eg. “left-wing to far-right”, I understand this can be ambiguous but also takes into account some groups have factions on both sides.

What do other editors think? My point of view is that the “far-right” label has mostly come in relation to anti-Islam agitator Yaxley-Lennon joining. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research. We go by what the sources directly discussing Advance UK say, and not on your personal opinion on what academic research might theoretically have to say about the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above this would be WP:OR, if a plurality of sources refer to the party as far-right (which they do), then Wikipedia follows the sources. Silencio x (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s an academic source that directly suggests that Advance UK is far-right: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2025.2555562. St.irchley (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. No ambiguity there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew-Hopkins1981 I’d like to see say 5 examples of “Many other WIKI articles describe parties as (eg. “left-wing to far-right”) please. I don’t think you’ve answered questions on your talk page about any relationship with this party. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I commented above in reference to this; academic sourcing strongly implies far-right, but there’s not enough to support “radical right” alongside that, at least not from newsorgs. It’s only really The Conversation making that connection here and here, both firmly within the framework of the far-right. CNC (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I missed that you already posted that source. St.irchley (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to close?

Pre-close discussion

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment