Talk:Reform UK/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orange

What is the source for this being the party colour? JJARichardson (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Voter base section source

I have used a source which is only a few months old from the Institute for Government. Surely this is a perfectly suitable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FB03:5900:568:49F:8ECA:E5D9 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That comment above is by 2a00:23c5:fb03:5900:cd19:e6ec:ae79:3ff6, who has added a section entitled "Voter base", initially with no citation. When I deleted it, s/he returned it with a 2017 citation. A 2017 citation can clearly not evidence a statement about a party formed in 2019. I removed again. 2a00:23c5:fb03:5900:cd19:e6ec:ae79:3ff6 returned it again with a 2018 citation. This is equally nonsensical. I removed again. 2a00:23c5:fb03:5900:cd19:e6ec:ae79:3ff6 has restored. Can we have some more editors' eyes on this? Looks like clear WP:OR to me. Bondegezou (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I was genuinely trying to be constructive through multiple attempts to find the best source possible. Sorry for even trying. I'll show myself out. Thanks for the warm welcome..... 2A00:23C5:FB03:5900:568:49F:8ECA:E5D9 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the "Brexit Party". I could not see any mention in your source to the "Brexit Party"; it seems more general material about Brexit-related issues. This article is for things that the "Brexit Party" did and said (or others did and said about the "Brexit Party"). Material that is about general Brexit-related issues will get deleted. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

^ Sorry :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FB03:5900:568:49F:8ECA:E5D9 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A common mistake often made. WP articles must follow the subject topic (which itself must pass notability, as this article did in the WP:AfD process). There is going to be lots written and said about this party over the next few weeks in quality sources (per WP:RS), as I see even the Financial Times recognized it yesterday. Going to be very interesting and all the contributions gratefully welcome. Trust me, if May does not get an agreement through in March and we do have EU elections in the UK in May which the Brexit Party contest, this article will be re-written several times over in the next few months. Britishfinance (talk)

Farage

Is Farage really the leader, or has he just spoken out in support? Jopal22 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Jopal22 - No. Farage is quoted as saying, "So let’s see. I mean there is an application that has gone in for a new party called the Brexit Party, which strikes me as quite a good name, but we are in the hands of the Electoral Commission." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Article updated for 8 February 2019 article by Farage in Telegraph (and repeated in the FT and Reuters) that Farage will run for The Brexit Party in any future EU elections. Britishfinance (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede

I added to the lede Nigel Farage's involvement in the party. Do a Google News search and the only images that come up for the party are Farage. The party is being referred to as "Farage's". His involvement is the most significant fact about this party and should be in the lede, but 2a00:23c5:fb03:5900:cd19:e6ec:ae79:3ff6, an IP WP:SPA, keeps reverting. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. Without Farage's support, this article would unlikely have survived AfD. In addition, the article contains quotes from its founder CB, stating that without Farage, the party could not progress. Britishfinance (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Updated lede to reflect body text of the article, including Farage's support. Britishfinance (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Woolfe etc.

As per this prior edit, Steven Woolfe MEP is also supporting the party. I also note that the article has returned to claiming that they have 200 candidates for the Euro-elections. There are only 73 seats contested at the Euro-elections, so that doesn't make sense. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is only stating what they explicitly said in The Telegraph re fielding 200 candidates. I will add the Steven Woofle facts as his clip on Newsnight is now searchable. Britishfinance (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

What does the Telegraph say? I previously changed the article to say they've got 200 candidates, but I separated that explicitly from the Euro-elections. However, that edit was reverted. I presume they also mean candidates for the local elections. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue you were having; have changed the sentence to reflect more precisely what she said which hopefully clears things up. Britishfinance (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Name is "The Brexit Party"

I can see on their 5 February 2019 approval by the Electoral Commission (as referenced in the article), that their name is "The Brexit Party" and not "Brexit Party". We should move this article to the new name (e.g. include "The"). Britishfinance (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The Brexit Party is the formal name. Britishfinance (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:THE. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 February 2019

Name correction (again):

Name is 'The Brexit Party', not 'Brexit Party'. Seems to me remainers are going to come into this a lot and try and mess with this entry to affect google searches. Name on the website is clearly 'The Brexit Party': https://www.thebrexitparty.org/. Ditto for it's domain name: https://www.thebrexitparty.org/. It's also registered with the Electoral Commission as 'The Brexit Party'. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-registration/pending-registration-applications/current-applications.

Please change the entry name from 'Brexit Party' to 'The Brexit Party' accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.1.89 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 9-FEB-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The matter was previously settled today by the administrator Timrollpickering who cited WP:THE as the reason.
• Unless the requesting IP makes the claim of being closely involved with the day to day workings of this party, there is no COI with regards to political parties and supporters in general — meaning the use of the {{request edit}} template is not necessary in this case.

Regards,  Spintendo  18:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party or The Brexit Party

Does the name of this party include the word "The" in its title? In other words, is it the Brexit Party or The Brexit Party? Going with the article title and the name of other parties in the UK I've gone with the former and removed "The" from the infobox and unbolded the word in the lede. Please feel free to revert these changes, and of course move the article, if that is wrong. This is Paul (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I missed the above discussion before I made this post. Guess clicking "new section" before reading the headings isn't always the right move, so Brexit Party it is. This is Paul (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 February 2019

The name is 'The Brexit Party'. And again: it is clearly 'The Brexit Party', not 'Brexit Party'. There were valid and impartial sources to back that assertion up, including the actual naming convention the party itself has used for its own domain name, and electoral commission registration. Assumptions about 'conflict of interest' have no rational basis whatsoever, and are irrelevant anyway. Clearly, remainers are editing and attempting to affect the search results. So, fine. Don't change it. I'll just contact the party themselves and let them know to monitor Wikipedia for obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:5704:5d00:20ab:57f7:e6d8:95cb (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that both the Conservative and Labour Party websites style the parties as "The Conservative Party" and "The Labour Party", and our articles on both of these emit the word "The" (see Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK)). Media sources are referring to this party the "Brexit Party" rather than "The Brexit Party" so that is the term we should use. I really doubt that emitting the "The" from this article will make much of a difference to the results generated from performing a Google search. There is only one party of this name after all. This is Paul (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 February 2019

Sorry, I'm not a wiki editor, etc. I thought this was supposed to be open to anyone to add their knowledge, etc. (which I did by including clear and verifiable objective sources), but sure if you want to make it all corporate, fine by me. As I said, it's affecting search results. In terms of the person responding to me, the Conservatives and Labour both have domain registrations with no 'the' present. It seems obvious to me, therefore (and contrary to nonsense insults that I've got some kind of 'interest', when, in fact, I just care about truth and fairness) that the purpose of those registering the name was to include 'the' as it's quite obviously in the domain registration, AND the Electoral Commission registration. Again, reason and logic point to the obvious fact that resisting something so blatantly clear are nothing more than an attempt to diminish, interfere with, subvert, and create confusion. In fact, if you google 'Brexit party' or 'the Brexit party', the first result that comes up is a for the 'renew' party - a remainer party. So, two obstacles for those who would be interested in finding out information about this entity (isn't that what Wikipedia is for?) - one with the google algorithm, and now with Wikipedia. Pretty disgraceful. Like I say - don't change it, do whatever you like, but I've let them know it's clearly a case of bias, and that they should monitor you and this entry accordingly. Have a nice life in your little bubble of distortion and manipulation of facts. Utterly shameful.

I am struggling to understand why the (apparently) missing "the" is so important. It's not biased against anybody to have indexing policies. It's not biased against anybody to host an article on the internet about the Brexit Party, which is what we have here. doktorb _words^deeds 05:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And as I stated above, there is only one party of this name. The Electoral Commission wouldn't allow a situation where we had a Brexit Party and a The Brexit Party since it would lead to confusion for voters, so the argument that emitting the "The" is an obstacle for those wishing to find out more about this party is a moot point. I really don't see what the issue is either. Searching for Brexit Party brings up a selection of news stories about them, with no trace of the Renew Party. In order to get to that I had to Google www.brexitparty.org, where Renew Party is the second result (incidentally, the same thing happens when searching for www.thebrexitparty.org). The one obstacle it does seem to have at the moment is their website not appearing on the first page of a straightforward search for Brexit Party and The Brexit Party (largely, I suspect, due to the volume of news articles about them), but no doubt time and publicity will change that. This is Paul (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In response to the anonymous IP:

1). You are repeatedly posting with Template:Request edit which actually says "The user below has requested that an edit be made to this article for which that user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest." If you don't actually have a COI, don't keep using a template that says you do.

2). People who post screaming bias exists if they don't get their way generally don't get their way. Those kind of posts do not encourage editors to listen. And this article has been edited by people who supported both Leave and Remain.

3). There is a long existing convention on Wikipedia about when to include the definitive article in titles regardless of an institution or organisation's current style - see WP:THE. In general the principle is not to use it and only do so when it is standard to use "The" (capitalised) in third party sources. That's not "bias", that's a standard style guide. So far it is not standard to use "The Brexit Party" in running text - here, for example, is a piece by that well known biased remainer Nigel Farage which includes "the Brexit Party" seven times and "The Brexit Party" not at all.

4). Having just done a quick Google for both "Brexit Party" and "the Brexit Party" with and without quote marks, this article comes up on the first page of all search results and is even linked to from a summary box. As for the party website, it's not down to Wikipedia to sort out an organisation's SEO for them.

5). It is not remotely clear why not having "The" in the article title makes a difference. We don't do it for other parties, even when they have appeared on the ballot paper with "The" in it (in at least one election it meant they appeared in the wrong place on an alphabetised list) and it's just not clear why this is such a big thing.

6). Don't keep opening new threads on this matter every time you post and especially don't keep posting the same formal request again and again. Keep the discussion in one single place. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Twitter Account

The party doesn't have a Twitter account, clearly stated on the party's website, yet one is linked under External Links. https://www.thebrexitparty.org/

Not in the present version. This is Paul (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Official Twitter

This link has been added as the party's official twitter account, but since the account has been registered since December 2017 and the Brexit Party wasn't founded till January 2019 I'm wondering if it actually is theirs. There's even a shout out to Wikipedia for adding the link shortly after it was added. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Now somebody's changed it to this one. Will the real Brexit Party twitter feed please stand up. This is Paul (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The party's official website says that's the official Twitter, so I believe we can go with that. I don't think it's necessarily too much of a surprise that this was registered a while ago. There was clearly some planning behind all this. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, which link is the official one, as both claim to be. This is Paul (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The band's official website [1] list @brexitparty_uk, which is the one you've linked to twice...? Bondegezou (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, the first link should have been https://twitter.com/BrexitPartyGB which was a site that was linked to in an earlier version of this article, and from which I saw the shout out to Wikipedia. This was the one that had been around since December 2017, but it appears to have been deleted as it is no longer accessible. I obviously copied the wrong url, and its disappearance has clearly answered my question. This is Paul (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How many MEPs

How many MEPs does the Brexit Party have? We have in the article RS citations supporting that 3 (independent, ex-UKIP) MEPs support the party and say they will stand as Brexit Party candidates in the event of a delayed Brexit and the European elections happening. A recent edit claimed the party has 5 MEPs, but I don't know who the other two are meant to be.

I can see some logic in saying the Party has 3 MEPs. However, there's a bit of vagueness in what they've all said. They've said they will stand. None of them has quite, as far as I can tell, said that they have joined the party or that they are currently Brexit Party MEPs. I've not seen a change in how they're described on the European Parliament website yet. I don't see a party structure that Farage, Gill and Woolfe are part of. So... what should we do? For now, I suggest leaving the infobox silent on the topic and letting the article prose speak for itself. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, ignore all that. The Euro Parl website now showing 7 MEPs as Brexit Party. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

... although Woolfe is still listed there as an independent. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Split?

A different topic... a number of editors have use the infobox to describe the Brexit Party as a split from UKIP. I understand their reasoning, but I suggest it is wrong. No MEP has gone from UKIP to Brexit Party. They've all been something else in between. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Of the 7 now listed as Brexit Party, 5 were independent, 1 was Thurrock Independents and 1 Libertarian. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's entirely fair to avoid describing the party as a split from Ukip—though perhaps there's scope to note in the lead that the party was established and is represented by former UKIP figures. Ralbegen (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, although maybe could be worded better. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Populism

Populism not Conservative Populism= Nigel Farage JoeOwensLiverpool (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an example of some sources describing the party in those terms? Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Membership figure

I removed the source for the Membership figure per WP:QUESTIONED and I'm considering removing the membership line entirely until a reliable source is given.

I was wondering what other editors thought of this? Should the number remain with a citation needed marker, be removed, or should the sources previously given by editors be used regardless of WP:QUESTIONED?

Thanks :)

The number does not appear to be members in the normal sense: see [2]. I'd just remove and leave blank. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Just looping in RobinHammon on this discussion by mention as they are active on the article - BTW the standard source you just sent doesn't appear to be working, please fix [[3]], thanks. - Ethanmayersweet

Brexit Party or The Brexit Party (part 2)

What do we think of the most recent style change? I'm inclined to think we should either go for one or the other. I personally favour keeping the present name, but would support adopting The Brexit Party rather than the Brexit Party if that is the name registered with the Electoral Commission. We have done this for newspapers (eg, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, etc). I fear having one title while using another in the text could lead to inconsistency. We should think of any article created as having the potential to make FA status, and the use of the name is an issue they would pick up on if this article were to reach the stage where it could be put forward for FAN. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that we are right to use "Brexit Party" as it aligns with our use of "Labour Party", "Conservative Party" and so on. The logo and opening lede shows the 'formal' name, and the Election box metadata reduces it to "Brexit Party" because no party in election boxes has 'the' included for clarity. Newspapers are slightly different beasts and the Wikipedia article naming rules are different for those. doktorb _words^deeds 11:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ok I've reverted it back because I tend to agree with you. This is Paul (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I will just note that now we have The Independent Group rather than the Independent Group, so I guess The Brexit Party is a feasible title. This is Paul (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There's precedent in reliable sources for the styling of "The Independent Group". Part of the issue here is that the precedent isn't there for "The Brexit Party". The Independent Group is also a natural disambiguation from Independent Group that Brexit Party doesn't require. Ralbegen (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I also note that that articles name has changed several times today, so I'm not certain the current form is necessarily a final consensus! Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Nuttall

I notice Paul Nuttall is mentioned as having joined the Brexit Party. I've just done a quick news search and I can't find mention of Nuttall joining this party. There's plenty of coverage of him leaving UKIP, but nothing specifically stating he joined the Brexit Party. I can't see why he wouldn't join it, but we shouldn't add him unless there's something specifically stating that he's joined as a member. This is Paul (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Here Ralbegen (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That should be added as a source even though sadly it doesn't provide a timeline of when he joined them. One could hope there would be some kind of press release. The former leader of a political party joining another political party is a fairly big deal after all. This is Paul (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Blaiklock and anti-Muslim views

I added a sentence to the article, most recently in this form:

After the party's launch, Blaiklock attracted criticism for prior comments described as Islamophobic.

Britishfinance has twice removed it, saying latterly that "the article is about her and her comments which are carried on her own seperate WP article, it is not about the Brexit Party and all the comments pre-date the creation of the Party". The piece is, yes, cited in her own Wikipedia article and the comments ascribed to her mostly pre-date the creation of The Brexit Party (although there are some recent comments quoted, post creation of the party). However, I dispute that this has nothing to with The Brexit Party. This renewed interest in Blaiklock is because of The Brexit Party's fame. The article is titled, "The Founder Of Nigel Farage's New Brexit Party Has A History Of Anti-Muslim Comments". The article opens:

The founder of Nigel Farage’s new Brexit party has a long history of making inflammatory comments about Muslims, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

When he resigned from UKIP in December last year, Farage explained his decision by warning that his former party was “turning a blind eye to extremist politics” and had become “obsessed with Islam”.

But Farage has now thrown his “full support” behind a new party founded by former UKIP candidate Catherine Blaiklock, who has herself repeatedly made anti-Muslim comments and promoted online material attacking Muslims.

That lays it out very clear. The matter is notable, and has been noted by the press, because of the context, Blaiklock as leader of a party whose high-profile members left UKIP over the party's increasing anti-Muslim views.

We must follow WP:BALANCE. The Catherine Blaiklock has 5 articles cited on this topic. While it should receive more attention on her Wikipedia article than here, it is -- according to these reliable sources -- directly relevant to The Brexit Party. Indeed, it's the main reporting I've seen about The Brexit Party. I'm not bothered about the wording, but I think it is appropriate to say something about this here.

Could some other editors input? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. There are two issues with the above:

1. Firstly, this article is about the Brexit Party, not about what Catherine B said before she founded the party. We have a new Catherine B BLP to cover this (which you Bondegezou tagged with a "notability issue"), to capture her views. Every politician who joins the Brexit Party will have a colorful past of comments (these are not uncontroversial characters), and therefore, they will all have articles on their joining the party of their past comments with "Brexit Party" in the title. For the same reason why we don't have Nigel Farage's past comments on anything in this article (because they are not Brexit Party policy), we don't have Catherine B's past comments. If Catherine B (or other BP member) make comments as being Brexit Party policy/view, then it will get included here.

2. Secondly, these particular references you want to include are not "unbiased articles" about Catherine B. Buzzfeed is borderline suitable for WP. I included the Buzzfeed reference on Catherine B's article (along with others), but tried to balance the language, but expect that other editors may delete it; I like to give more refs in these situations and let editors adjust them. The reference itself is a particular view (which could be construed as a biased view) of her blogs. I don't personally agree with her, but I see that many of her blogs have been "selectively quoted". It was you Bondegezou who deleted the CNN article (one of the world's largest news networks) here, even though it's claim that Farage would run the party is probably true, on a similar basis.

This article must be about the Brexit Party did and said, and what other major players said and did about the party. We have BLPs for the historical views of individual members. But until those views are Brexit Party policy/views, they are for the BLP articles, not the Brexit Party article. We get this with all these types of parties, and often a period of a few months needs to pass before an experienced editor goes through and rips out all the WP:SYN / and tangential subject matter they get packed with. Maybe this time we can limit this as we go along.

Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A couple of issues you raise there are tangential to the question at hand, so I will pass over them.

We should follow what reliable sources say. Several articles -- not limited to Buzzfeed, if you are concerned about Buzzfeed -- have discussed Blaiklock's views in the context of the Brexit Party and her role in it. If those articles are reliable enough for the Catherine Blaiklock article, they are reliable here too. They included responses from her made since she became leader of The Brexit Party. As per WP:BALANCE, we should follow what reliable sources are doing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems entirely appropriate to me to include this material in this article, given that it has been linked to the party in reliable sources. Buzzfeed News is a "generally reliable" source per WP:RSP (the same description given to broadsheet newspapers on that page), so I really don't see why it should be problematic here. It's not synthesis if a reliable source has linked the subjects.

Perhaps extending the passage to make the link between Blaiklock's inflammatory comments about Islam and race with Brexit Party MEPs' reasons for leaving Ukip would make the material's relevance to the article subject clearer. Either way the relevance is there. Ralbegen (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of further comment, it's 2:1 in favour, so I'll re-add the sentence for starters. Further input welcome on whether to include this and/or how to revise it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Diane James MEP

Diane James MEP Member of the European Parliament for The Brexit Party representing the South East of England. http://www.thebrexitparty.org @DianeJamesMEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whotovote19 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Farage Leader

BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47668067 BrexitLions (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a report of Farage appearing on Today yesterday morning. The headline does not match the content. On that programme he said quite clearly that he "will" be the leader, not that he is. The exact quote (check it on BBC Sounds) is: "We haven't even launched.... I will take over as the leader of the Brexit Party and I will lead this party into the European election..." (my emphasis). Emeraude (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that quote is also in the BBC News article anyway. But I have checked on Sounds and Farage does not say that he is the leader, only that he will be. The first line of the BBC New report ("Nigel Farage is returning to frontline politics in the UK as leader of the newly established Brexit Party.") also is referring to the future. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you're splitting hairs here. The BBC News article, which is more recent than the Today appearance, is titled, "Nigel Farage back in frontline politics as Brexit Party leader". That's present tense.

You cite the text saying he "is returning to [...] as leader". That's present continuous, which can be used for the present or the future. In context here, it describes an ongoing or imminent process. Given the headline, I am happy to interpret that as present tense.

I don't feel Wikipedia is being made better by the subtle distinction you are making. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The BBC News article headline is plainly wrong. The article itself is a report of what Farage said in interview on Today, nothing more. It contains nothing that was not on Today. Listen to the programme - it is explicitly clear that Farage will be the leader, but he isn't yet. There is no source that Farage has been made leader (indeed, on Today he implied that he would make himself leader). I concede that it is highly likely that he will be leader at some point, and I'm sure there will be a well-attended and reported press conference to announce it, but it hasn't happened yet. It may be worth though, within the text of the article, adding a sentence or two to the effect that NF intends to be leader, with the Today programme as a reliable source. Emeraude (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't know that the BBC News article is only based on what we can hear in the Today interview. That is supposition. I am uneasy about second guessing a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Headlines however are not reliable sources. They're meant to catch your eye. We've discussed this before at WP:RS (Fun fact, I used to write them for a major US paper but I was never a journalist). Doug Weller talk 13:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This new article explicitly describes him as the Brexit Party leader. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

But it's Twitter feed doesn't.[4] We need more than a Sky news video. Does he call himself the new leader? When their Twitter feed does, or he does, or the news explains how it took place, that will be the time. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely the party or Farage saying something would be a primary source? A news source is secondary, which we prefer. Ralbegen (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Secondary sources trump WP:PRIMARY sources. Sky News >> the party's Twitter. Bondegezou (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources perhaps. One news story, no. Particularly when there's no question that he's "a" leader, which can cause ambiguity. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's another, and another. There's also a Daily Mail piece, but that's not RS.

I do not understand where the resistance is coming from to this. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Really? It's a simple question of accuracy. Neither Farage nor the Party say that he is The Leader and they realy ought to know before anyone else, including the Nottingham Post. As for Sky News, other than the caption there is nothing to say that NF is the leader, yet one of our editors has edited as such with the comment: "Just confirmed by Nigel on Sky News". BUT IT WASN'T. He said nothing of the sort. So Sky make up a caption, a Wikipedia editor believes it at face value, and then misrepresents the source in their edit summary. It's unbelievable. Emeraude (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The Nottingham Post is there, with Farage, on his March, and have twice said he is the party's self-appointed leader. That reporting is more recent than the Today programme (which I presume you are using to claim Farage does not say he is leader). You cannot dismiss the Nottingham Post articles as being just a headline or a caption.

Sky News is a reliable source with editorial standards of accuracy and fact-checking. When you say, "Sky make up a caption", I presume you meant to say, "Sky carefully write a caption based on their analysis."

Wikipedia policy is explicit that secondary sources trump primary sources. They also trump editors' attempts to analyse a situation. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

And that includes writing "Just confirmed by Nigel on Sky News" when he didn't? Actually, I don't think Sky did carefully write a caption: the caption writer just assumed and it's sloppy. Where and when has Nigel Farage (who should know) said that he IS leader? No primary source. No secondary source. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement for there to be a quotation from Farage. We have secondary sources saying he is leader. You don't like one of these (Sky News). You interpret the BBC one differently. OK, were we to accept your criticisms, that still leaves two other citations. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

So answer me this from reliable sources. When did Corbyn become leader of the Labour Party? When did May become leader of the Conservative Party? When did Cable become leader of the Liberal Democrats? (An aside, one reliable media source recently captioned Tim Farron as leader.) When did Farage become leader of the Brexit party? Emeraude (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that the Brexit Party is, for now, in a very different situation to the Conservatives, LibDems and Labour. It is without a party membership. It is a grouping based around Farage. There's no reason that they have to change leader in a similar manner to the Conservatives, LibDems and Labour.

However, the more appropriate answer is that you are going down a path of WP:SYNTH. If you want to become a political journalist, go ahead and ask those questions. But on Wikipedia, we follow what reliable, secondary sources say. We don't get to invent requirements, be that for a direct quote from Farage, for a specified date or for an official tweet. If RS say he's leader, we say he's leader. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Bondegzou brings up a good point. As Farage says here[5] it's a virtual party, just a website. He also says ""Let's be clear, I will take over as leader of the Brexit Party and I will lead the party into European elections." That isn't reflected in the lead and should be. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a "virtual party" quote in the main text, but not in the lede. I've revised the lede a little, but haven't inserted that quote yet. It may be appropriate there too. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source must have had a reliable primary source from which to make its statement. There isn't one. And we've just, again, quoted a source quoting Farage saying "I will take over." No one has him saying "I have taken over," or anyone else saying "Farage has taken over." Not even the (virtual) party's website says that! He is going to be leader, that is practically beyond doubt, and when he becomes leader he will say so. But in all the coverage of the past week or so there has been no such announcement and the reliable sources have reported no such announcement. Emeraude (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source won't necessarily say what their primary source is. The Nottingham Post was there with Farage: Farage may have said something to them, they may have checked with his publicist what it's appropriate to say. We don't know. More importantly, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to investigate such things. We report what reliable (secondary) sources say. There are four, although you interpret one (BBC) differently and feel a caption is insufficient for another (Sky). (And I'm not even counting the Daily Mail piece as it's the Daily Mail.)

What your argument boils down to is that you know better than a journalist for the Nottingham Post. This may be true, but Wikipedia policy is clear that we go with what the journalist for the Nottingham Post says, not what a Wikipedian says. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's another piece, in the Express, calling Farage "Brexit Party leader". On the subject of being a virtual party, I note this Evening Standard piece that refers to "Nigel Farage's planned Brexit party". Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Nigel Farage has returned to frontline politics as leader of the Brexit Party" says BBC article. Can we take this as settled now? Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you linked to the right article! But seeing as the particular article you intended was part of the earlier discussion, bringing it up now as something entirely new is a nonsense. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am confused by your comment. I am linking to this, [6], a 27 March article not previously discussed on this Talk page. It contains the line, "Nigel Farage has returned to frontline politics as leader of the Brexit Party". Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought you were referring to the link ("Nigel Farage back as Brexit Party leader") in that article back to the original. However, "returned to frontline politics" is just a repeat of that previous report of NF's appearance on Today in which he did not say he is leader. And he still has not said he is leader. Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Their web address

Just a note to say that yesterday I reverted a change of this party's web address from thebrexitparty.org to thebrexitparty.com. At the time I wasn't aware of the anti-Brexit campaign group's use of the latter address, but now I've read through the article again and picked that up I thought it was worth making a note of it here. This is Paul (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The other Brexit party website

Seems to have garnered some coverage, see [7] Doug Weller talk 16:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

New section needed about Nigel Farage

There needs to be a new section here about the exceptional leadership qualities of Nigel Farage. This article would benefit from a "Nigel Farage" section detailing Nigel's impressive track record of building a party that acheived the most spectacular election results and how he brought about and won the Brexit referendum. There needs to be something here about Nigel's years of hard work, his dynamic personality and his years of lively passionate (and I dare say exciting) campaigning that is libarating us from the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishiness Spotter (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to say that the party is led by Nigel Farage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishiness Spotter (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh my, hard work and dynamic personality and whatnot. Please save that for a Facebook post. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Political categorisation

@Bondegezou: How can the party be effectively categorised as "Right-Wing", "Right-wing Populist" and "Conservative" etc when it has no manifesto, no policies and nothing else beyond it being Pro-Brexit? Where is the justification for this? Alssa1 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If Farage is the leader, one would think that his 2015 UKIP policies would have an input to the parties policies. If the leader is a right wing populist, chances are the party will be too Freddied056 (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Freddied056: probably but these need reliable secondary sources so I've deleted both. The infobox should match the article. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether a party has a manifesto. We follow RS. If there's RS to support a categorisation, it's in. If not, it's out. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What reliable source declares it a "Conservative", "Right-Wing" and/or "Right-wing Populist" party? Alssa1 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

None. Until there are clear reliable sources on the party being Right wing populist etc, this must not be included. The party has put forward former labour voters and former conservative voters to stand at the next elections. As it is the the party's only clear ideology as far as I can see is being pro-business. On the face of it the party is chiefly libertarian. Reaper7 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Reaper7: would you accept the removal of the statements in the 'Ideology' section (except for removing the Eurosceptic part) until we have some sources to actually justify apply the labels to this party? Alssa1 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Reaper7 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Alssa1 Article has been vandalised to include right wing populism again... Reaper7 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Original leader and treasurer resigning - NPOV issue

There's some edit-warring going on as to whether this should be in the lede. Let's discuss rather than editing!

I'd leave it in the text, but I suggest it shouldn't be in the lede. It hasn't got much coverage in RS. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Until about a week ago, it was practically the only coverage and it is was almost the only reliably sourced content in the article. It was deleted without explanation on 11 April andhas now been restored. Emeraude (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And removed again. It should be in the lead to comply with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. As I've added the NPOV tag for this reason, I've changed the section heading so that no one says there's no discussion of the NPOV issue. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain why "it should be in the lead to comply with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV"? Neither states it should. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Bondegezou, it's perfectly fine to keep this point in the main text as it currently is, but it's undue weight for the lead for something most RS do not comment on when mentioning the party. Besides the removed line did not use encyclopedic language anyway and would fall foul of WP:NPOV itself. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I would contest the statement that it was "practically the only coverage and it is was almost the only reliably sourced content in the article" until a week ago. A week ago, the article had 20 reliable, secondary sources. Four were about Blaiklock resigning and one about the treasurer resigning. The treasurer received almost no coverage. While there was some substantial coverage of Blaiklock and her sins, there was plenty of coverage more generally about the party that didn't mention that. Moreover, it's a bit irrelevant what the situation was a week ago. What matters is the current situation and the party has had extensive coverage around its launch, most of which hasn't mentioned these events. Absolutely, keep the material in the article, but still doesn't seem lede worthy to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm ok with changing the wording. For Blaiklock I find [8][9][10][11][12] For McGough[13][14][15] I can't see the text in this Telegraph article[16] but the Google news excerpt has "forced to quit after posting anti-Semitic messages on his social media accounts. Michael McGough referred to Ed and David Miliband and Peter ..." Hm, is it possible that The Times isn't listed by Google news? Looks like it, I don't find anything from the London Times on the Notre Dame fire, just the NYTimes and the LATImes. That's actually relevant as it cuts down what we can find for British news. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I can find more (over 14 articles) about Jacob Rees-Mogg's sister standing for the Brexit Party, so do we put that in the lede, or do we leave out the sentence about Blaiklock and the treasurer? Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it important that the lead is balanced, ie also shows criticism? And if the Times has mentioned it, would that make a difference? I found a few more articles than I mentioned, by the way, I only listed the major ones. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no criticism in the ledes for Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats (UK), The Independent Group, Democratic Unionist Party &c.. Review of the ledes of those articles gives one a good idea of what the lede of this article should be. Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

UKIP however.... Doug Weller talk 20:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD asks us to introduce the article and summarise its most important contents. I don't think that a lack of criticism in the leads of some other parties is a compelling argument by precedent. Certainly I don't think that the resignation of the treasurer is important enough for the lead, though it should stay in the body. Treasurer is one of the three national officers parties are required to have by law, and it did receive coverage. I think there's a stronger case to mention Blaiklock and the reason for her departure in the lead, as the initial leader. A significant proportion of the coverage the party got was about her, and she was the party's initial leader. I'm not sure that the passage who announced he would stand as a candidate for the party in any future European Parliament elections, in the event the UK had not left the European Union is that useful for the lead. I'd advocate for a lead more like: The Brexit Party is a pro-Brexit Eurosceptic political party in the United Kingdom. It was formed in 2019 by Catherine Blaiklock with support from former UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader and member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage. The party is represented by twelve members of the European Parliament, all of whom were originally elected as UKIP candidates. Farage replaced Blaiklock as leader of the party in March 2019 following criticism over anti-Islam comments she had made in the past. Ralbegen (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good first draft. I'm still not convinced about mentioning Blaiklock: I'd be more swayed if her leadership had been less notional. The party was always seen as a Farage vehicle and while I think Farage is deliberately downplaying her role when he says things like, "I set the party up, she was the administrator that got it set up", I don't think that's far from the truth. She wasn't the leader in much of a meaningful sense.

What I think should be in the lede is more on how the party arose, as a Faragist split from UKIP driven by disagreements with Batten's leadership and in the context of a delayed Brexit requiring the UK's participation in the 2019 elections. Bondegezou (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Doug Weller isn't the neutrality tag a bit over the top? There's no disagreement about content. We're all agreed about what material should be in the article. We just disagree on the lede. Bondegezou (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't that say "We're all agreed about what material should be in the article. Some of us just disagree on the lede."? Emeraude (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Given a binary option (in or out of lede) and more than two editors, yes, simple logic tells us that some people must agree on what to do. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, running out of time. @Bondegezou: if you want to put a npov tag just on the lead, fine. The lead is inadequate in any case. I'd still like comment about whether if the Times mentioned it that would sway you. It's a shame that the Times has such a strict paywall, the Telegraph at least shows a bit and lets you have a few free articles. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think every editing dispute needs a tag.

No, a Times article would not sway me. Why would it? There are dozens of Times articles every day. Clearly they don't all get into article ledes. Blaiklock's contemptible behaviour was not as widely reported as many other things about the Brexit Party, including Annunziata Rees-Mogg's candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I definitely think some material about how the party came about would fit in the lead. I still think that Blaiklock is relevant—Farage downplaying her makes sense with her as a placeholder, but would also make sense if she had to leave early because it's embarrassing to leave a party over tolerance of extremism and anti-Islam sentiments to find corresponding issues in the your new party.

@Doug Weller: For your curiosity, Blaiklock is mentioned three times in the Times. Once during her leadership over [an AirBnB review controversy https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nigel-farage-s-brexit-party-trolled-on-tripadvisor-over-b-b-t2t28rfr8] that I don't think is worth including in the encyclopedia. She's also mentioned twice in very similar articles about the party's launch here and here, where she is described as the initial leader who had to lose over far-right retweets and racist posts. But both focus more on Rees-Mogg and Farage—and I don't think Annunziata Rees-Mogg would be worth discussing in the lead of this article. Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Farage admits he set up the Brexit Party and even coined the name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9O24l73uWo

Begins from 55 seconds in. This is the most recent description of the founding of the party and this speech is from the 12th of April 2019. He said he set up the party November/December 2018 and even coined the name. Seems Catherine Blaiklock's role therefore was secretarial at best. This corresponds with what Blaiklock stated herself after the Guardian exposed her racist tweets: After the Guardian asked Blaiklock about the messages, she said her role “was only ever supposed to be temporary”, and involved mainly helping Farage set up the party and get it registered with the Electoral Commission. So we have now both Farage and Blaiklock stating this party was set up by Farage. Her role helping should be mentioned and that she was the first party leader, but to say the party was founded by her is inaccurate and should be removed from the infobox. Reaper7 (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Ideology and political positions need sources in the article

This of course isn't optional although a lot of people seem to assume it is. Please someone fix this before I remove anything unsourced. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The party has no manifesto, it is filled with former labour, ukip and conservative members. There is no political ideology until a manifesto is put out and RS reflect that manifesto. All attempts to vandalise the article with 'right wing populism' and such need deletion. Reaper7 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No. If RS talk about the party's ideology and political position, then we have material we can use. There is no need to wait for a manifesto. Bondegezou (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Without a manifesto - an ideology cannot be assumed. The Guardian or Independent for example calling the party 'right wing populist' is as valuable as toilet paper. The only pre-manifesto ideology that is indisputable is 'euroscepticism' and that as the article stands is currently correctly listed as the only ideology. Reaper7 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Drawing an ideology from a manifesto would be original research. Using descriptions used in reliable sources is exactly what we can do and ought to do. It's reasonable to disagree with including descriptions of the party as right-wing populist, but I feel like it's straying away from assuming good faith by describing the inclusion as vandalism. I've not seen compelling sources to include that sort of description yet—The Economist uses the description in a headline but not in the body of the article—but if reliable sources are describing the party as right-wing, so should we. Ralbegen (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes yes, very nice, but no one is suggesting an editor draw an ideology from their forthcoming manifesto. What is being asked for and what is perfectly reasonable, is that journalists and political commentators draw a political ideology from the forthcoming manifesto once it is published and the article reflect that... rather than allowing journalists to guess at what the Brexit party is ideologically pre-manifesto. As stated repeatedly, candidates include former labour, ukip and conservatives and the immigration policy is one of equal global rights, rather than giving EU citizens preferential immigration treatment. Finally, I am afraid constant editing including unsourced 'right wing populism' is vandalism. If someone was to put 'left wing populism' unsourced constantly under the Labour Party's ideology in their infobox, it would also be considered vandalism. Reaper7 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism Ralbegen (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Who an earth is saying that continually editing the article to state the party's ideology is 'right wing populism' is being done in good faith?? Do you know the editors doing this personally? If so, please state and we can take it from there. Also, the article you quoted is WikiProject_Video_games/Visual_novels - I think however this is more relevant: WP:Vandalism Reaper7 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Reaper7, we don't need the proof you call for. It is basic Wikipedia policy that we assume good faith: see WP:AGF. If you can't follow basic policy, don't start shouting "vandalism" about other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, Bondegezou, incorrect. To quote directly:

Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism).

Repeated revision of the article with the same unsourced material, by the same editors we can no longer assume good faith hence my previous statement and identification of vandalism. If you can't follow basic policy, don't start shouting at other editors without reading the policy you are quoting at them first. Please attempt to remain civil and calm as per policy. Reaper7 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I see no "obvious evidence". Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I can't see any users repeatedly adding the same material. Looking over the history of the political position infobox parameter, I find that the description "right-wing" was added first on 10 February, removed on the same day, added again on 28 February, removed on 12 April, restored the same day before being deleted the next day. It was added again yesterday and deleted this evening. Every time the description was added was by a different person. There was less movement in terms of the description "right-wing populism".

Reliable sources don't establish either description yet to my satisfaction, but that doesn't mean that there's any reason to suspend our assumption of good faith on the part of any of the editors whose revisions I've linked. Please can we table this conversation until there are reliable sources discussing the ideology of the party? Ralbegen (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Diane James joining date

Our text asserts "Later in February, they were joined by Paul Nuttall and, by March, Diane James." giving as a reference simply a link to her Twitter account (not any particular tweet). However, her Twitter account contains this tweet on February 12, saying "The Brexit Party led by true Brexiteers and Leavers can be trusted to deliver"; while official data at the European Parliament has her joining on the 5th of February, making her the group's first MEP by over a week. Can anyone clarify? TSP (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I can help a little bit, here. When I've added names of MEPs to the list in this article, I've used the Europarl website; it seems to be the most official source albeit not the most accurate or up to date. I & other contributors, I assume, kept checking the site over the last few weeks and updating this article when the registered party of the MEPs changed, which does not appear to have been the most timely on that site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBFCPresident (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We have seen errors on the europarl.europa.eu site and it counts as a WP:PRIMARY source. However, it says what it says. In the absence of a formal dated statement or news report, I'd keep text vague as to exactly when things happened. We could tweak the current text to note everyone up to Nuttall and James who as having joined by the end of Feb. Bondegezou (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

described the Brexit Party as supporting a national populism

Bondegezou, here's the entirety of the only paragraph that mentions the BP in the NS article: "The League [Party, in Italy] supporter, or the dug-in former Ukip foot-soldier who attends rallies and marches and will now turn out for the Brexit Party, is also driven by identity. The identity of the dispossessed member of the national majority, driven by a profound sense that something has changed for the worse, and that this can be rectified by an ill-defined collective national project." How does that justify the claim that the article "described the Brexit Party as supporting a national populism"? It doesn't say anything about what BP supports; it merely speculates about what might motivate a hypothetical (former) UKIP supporter. And the article from The Economist that you added doesn't mention 'national populism'; in fact, 'populism' is mentioned only in the headline (I assume you're referring only to what's available without a subscription), which shouldn't be used as the basis for adding content to Wikipedia. EddieHugh (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The NS piece is not speculating: it is describing, based on the author's analysis. It is not writing about an actual individual, it is using a rhetorical flourish to describe a party.

The Economist piece refers to right-wing populism, a synonym for national populism. It is a very short piece, an infographic, but it is clear in its description of the Brexit Party and UKIP.

If you have some reliable sources describing the Brexit Party as something else, please do share them. We have discussed a large number of sources recently on this Talk page. Again and again, they say populism, with a subset saying national populism or right-wing populism. None offer alternative ideologies. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I've given the entirety of the NS article's content on the Brexit Party; nowhere does it mention that the party 'supports national populism', which is what the reader of this Wikipedia article would expect.

Only The Economist's headline uses "Right-wing populist"; headlines (as I said) shouldn't be used.

I'm just asking for how those sources "described the Brexit Party as supporting a national populism". If there are lots of alternative sources clearly stating 'BP supports national populism', then let's use them; these ones are OR-synthy. EddieHugh (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have expanded the text to include more citations and to use articles' own language more directly. I have omitted the NS piece. The Economist piece use "right" in the article proper. Bondegezou (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you have gone ahead in desperation without WP-Seeking consensus and labelled the Brexit Party's ideology as 'National Populism.' I cannot find one RS that uses that term to describe the party and what you have done is a clear violation OR-synthy as stated above.Reaper7 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree. Furthermore, what exactly makes TRT World a reliable source? Has anyone here actually watched or read their output? --RaviC (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

TRT is a Turkish Government controlled news outlet.. it is clear Bondegezou was desperately scrapping for any source he could find to fit the agenda that this manifesto-less party is national populist/ right wing..Reaper7 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just highlighted more problems with the sourcing. I've also seen the physical newspaper version of the Goodwin article. I don't see the term "national populism" anywhere in it, except "Matthew Goodwin is author of 'National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy' (Pelican)". But based solely on this article (apparently), "National populism" has been added not only to the main text, but also to the infobox. EddieHugh (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ralbegen suggested the TRT citation, but I note Reaper7's description of it. TRT is not mentioned at WP:RSP. It's own Wikipedia article doesn't give much indication either way. I have thus removed it for now. If anyone has further thoughts on its reliability, I am all ears.

You are right that I misread the Goodwin Telegraph piece. Mea culpa. I've changed the text to Goodwin just calling them populist. This leaves The Economist piece that calls them right-wing populist.

The National piece is talking about the Brexit Party and has Simon Underwood of the University of Surrey describing them as populist. I've removed the tag on that citation.

The infobox reflects what's in the article text. AIUI, myself, Ralbegen and EddieHugh all appear to accept there are RS citations saying the party is populist. Article text referring to the party as populist has remained in the article for about 60 hours, so presumably other editors are happy with it. I will return populism to the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There's another Matthew Goodwin piece that does describe them as "national populists", but it's in The Sun. So, reliable author, but in an unreliable newspaper.

I've added two more citations (The Observer, The Sunday Times) for just 'populist'. Bondegezou (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not so good, but there's an opinion piece in The National on 24 April, "There's much more to the case for independence than economics", saying, "we see the grinning mug of Nigel Farage and his right-wing populism constantly being touted by the BBC." Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding TRT World, I had been unfamiliar with it prior to the article I've pointed to before. Before suggesting it I checked how trusted British broadsheets hedged it. The Guardian either refers to it without qualification or as the Turkish state broadcaster. Based on this FT article I wouldn't use it for claims about Turkey or the Turkish government, but the Brexit Party isn't either of those things. There's a current discussion at WP:RSN which doesn't have many contributions yet. Happy to see it deprecated here until that discussion resolves one way or another. I think "populism" is well-supported, but "national populism" isn't right now. The latter seems to be a term that's been mainly popularised by Goodwin over the last few months? Ralbegen (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This Guardian podcast is interesting (from about halfway through), with Goodwin calling UKIP now "extreme right", but noting the difference with the Brexit Party (he describes Farage as "radical" but firmly rejects far right comparisons). Bondegezou (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Does The Economist article use "right-wing populist" anywhere except in the headline? If not, we can't use it to support that assertion. EddieHugh (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It uses "right" in the text, as I said above, nor am I aware of any blanket injunction against headlines in Wikipedia guidelines. This is a short infographic: characterising it as a headline, I suggest, is unhelpful. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Guardian article "Nigel Farage under fire over 'antisemitic tropes' on far-right US talkshow "

[17] - it's Alex Jones' talk show. "repeatedly uses words and phrases such as “globalists” and “new world order”, which regularly feature in antisemitic ideas.

In the interviews, Farage also says:

Members of the annual Bilderberg gathering of political and business leaders are plotting a global government.

The banking and political systems are working “hand in glove” in an attempt to disband nation states.

“Globalists” are trying to engineer a world war as a means to introduce a worldwide government.

Climate change is a “scam” intended to push forward this transnational government."

Doug Weller talk 18:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely that information belongs in his article rather than here. Having said that though I would be cautious of adding it. The Guardian (and The Independent for that matter) are known for their anti-Brexit anti-Farage stance. If it got some wider coverage in other journals it may be worth considering. Incidentally, this caused some minor controversy a while back. This is Paul (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We consider The Guardian reliable. We do not consider The Express reliable. So, I support adding the material Doug Weller suggested, but as per This is Paul, it seems more appropriate to add it to the Nigel Farage article. While the article does repeatedly refer to Farage as the Brexit Party leader, the interviews were all before the Brexit Party was formed. If the story develops further, we can re-think. Bondegezou (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Any addition, either to this article or Farage's own article, would have to be carefully worded, as reading the Guardian article makes it apparent that nobody has accused Farage of being anti-semitic, rather it's that some people have questioned his wisdom in appearing on and using certain terms on that particular show. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It happened more than a year ago (here's an article from the time of the 2018 interview). I don't dispute The Guardian as a reliable source, but that story could be somewhat misleading, because at first glance the reader could be forgiven for thinking it's referring to a current or recent event. The 2018 interview shouldn't be mentioned in this article, because it has nothing to do with the Brexit Party, which was founded a long time after that interview took place, and when Farage probably had no plans to return to British politics. As for his earlier appearances and whether there would be a case for mentioning them in the UKIP article, again I'd say probably not. My mention of the Express article was to highlight my concern at adding such information without due consideration. But as long as the events are placed into the context of when they happened there shouldn't be a problem. This is Paul (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I was really just posting here for information. It might become relevant in the future, but I agree not now. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The same paper which has used the same term itself? A slightly crackpot article in The Guardian claims that the word “globalists” regularly features in antisemitic ideas. Guido put the word into The Guardian website’s own search box. It came up 4,060 times and the top result is a Guardian story about the sacking of Steve Bannon from the Whitehouse being a “win for the globalists”, in particular Jared Kushner, who is Jewish Random Redshirt (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to enter into debate with reliable sources... and order-order.com is not a reliable source, so we shouldn't be basing anything on it! Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clear the Guardian is deeply flawed as an RS, but sadly, it is still used non-stop as often it fits a certain agenda. I noticed you are also very active on the Change UK party page Bondegezou. Would you like to help me add 'populist' to the Labour Party info box - like I explained before and even displayed the RSs for you, there are far more RS calling Labour and Corbyn Populist - than the Brexit Party. What say you? Up for equality in editing? Could use your relentless energy. Let me know. Will be a lot easier too - all solid RSs like CNN - you wont need to trawl the darkness of Turkish media and other unheard of outlets this time like you did to make the Brexit Party 'Populist.' Would love your help. Reaper7 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The consensus of the Wikipedia community is that The Guardian is generally a reliable source.

If you want to edit the Labour Party page, go edit the Labour Party change. I don't know why you keep discussing it here.

This article now has multiple reliable sources describing the Brexit Party as populist: the article currently cites UnHerd, The Daily Telegraph, The National, Business Insider, The Guardian, and The Sunday Times. Now, you might describe the first as "unheard", but that hardly describes the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Sunday Times, does it? Bondegezou (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Third-party sources on political position?

RaviC took off the various right-wing labels and re-designated the party as "big tent", on the basis of a candidate, Claire Fox, declared by the party to be "from the left" - a designation I'm not sure would be universally agreed with (our article calls her 'libertarian'; she's part of Spiked Online which our article calls 'libertarian "with a moderate right wing bias"'). I'm not convinced the party's own self-designation of one of its candidates is sufficient to earn it an encyclopedic label of being a big tent party.

Farage has said there is ""no difference between the Brexit party and Ukip in terms of policy"; and we designate Ukip, with sources, as "Right-wing to far-right".

I've taken off the designation entirely for now. Do we have any good third-party sources on how the party's political position is assessed by others? TSP (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be fair to say that at the moment it is a single issue party. It would be standing with aim of bringing Brexit to completion. Until it stands in an election and has a manifesto that covers things other than Brexit I think it would be unfair to catergorise it (Brexit itself is neither left or right wing in essence). The only thing is if you left the catergorisation as blank, people will come in and assign a catergory.....hence why I think "Big Tent" was used. I think I'd catergorise it as a "Single Issue" party. Is that a valid option? Jopal22 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is incorrect and perhaps dangerous to think the only left leaning candidate for the Brexit Party is Claire Fox. Another Brexit Party candidate for example, Dr Alka Seghal Cuthbert, is a hard left former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Her father was a local labour candidate too. So I am afraid, big tent and Euroscepticism are both currently the best descriptions of the party and should be used until journalists get to see a manifesto. Reaper7 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't have RS descriptions of the party's position yet, so this discussion feels a bit moot. The only thing I can find is the New York Times calling it single-issue. Reliable sources are what's important rather than editors' views of the party's position or the nature of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Ralbegen (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Careful with editor's views fallacy. The nature of the Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978) is far left as described in the wiki article on the very party. Editor's views do not come into it. If you would like to challenge the idea that the 'nature' (as you put it..) of the Revolutionary Communist Party is not far left, now is the point to explain why your views as an editor trump the article's description of the party. Remember, it is not just one Brexit Party candidate who was formerly a member of this Trotskyist 'far left' party.. Reaper7 (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Reaper7: We entirely agree. I wasn't making a claim about the RCP. I was saying that what I think about the Revolutionary Communist Party shouldn't affect my or anybody else's judgement about how the Brexit Party is described in this article. Just what reliable sources say, and as the point better made by Bondegezou says below, what reliable sources say about the party rather than about its individual figures. Ralbegen (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reread 'the point better made by Bondegezou' below again and carefully. Half his sources are about Farage, not the Party. This is exactly what needs to stop. The party has candidates from various backgrounds and various political ideologies - this is indisputable, what unites them and goes beyond their left/right divides is Eurocepticism. Reaper7 (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We cannot make deductions based on candidates' backgrounds: that's WP:SYNTH. We follow what RS say about the party as a whole.

I think we're all fine with having "Euroscepticism" in the infobox. This opinion piece (so doesn't carry as much weight as straight news reporting) appears to put them as "national populist". This news piece says: "The latest opinion polls put the Brexit Party, a new party formed by the populist and hardline Brexiter Nigel Farage". This Economist piece refers to the Brexit Party and UKIP as "right-wing populist parties". This Express piece says, "Nigel Farage has vowed to fly the populist flag for Britain by standing for his new Brexit Party." That looks plenty to me for populism to be included in the infobox, and enough to be more specific and say right-wing populism. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, as an editor you need to separate out Farage and how he is described from the Brexit Party. There are many articles describing Corbyn as a populist too - from more robust sources, FT, Guardian, and indeed calling his party populist: NewStatesman, CNN. However, left wing populism is not mentioned in Labour's infobox on its wiki article page for the same reason right wing populism should not be mentioned here. Reaper7 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I'm not sure we're there yet. I think the NS piece isn't a straight opinion piece, though it has a point of view. However, I think its association of national populism is there, but more implicit than I'd personally prefer. The Deccan Chronicle talks about Farage's politics rather than the party's. The Economist I think is the strongest, but the description is in the headline and not the body of the article, so I remain cautious about it. There are actually a few tabloid articles that are more bold in ascribing a position to the party, but I don't think that the Express is a source we should really be using. WP:RSP describes it as 'generally unreliable'. There's also the Sun but that paper is deprecated as a source. I think we just need to wait for more RS coverage of the party's position and ideology as broadsheet caution fades. Ralbegen (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a nice, explicit reference to the party being populist from a highly reliable source: https://www.businessinsider.com/chuka-umunna-interview-tension-at-the-heart-of-change-uks-anti-brexit-campaign-2019-4 Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The party may indeed be populist, but I agree with Reaper7 that the big-tent label is probably the only realistic one that works. As regards to Clare Fox's "self-designation" on the left, her political position is confirmed in this BBC article; since she has been a regular contributor on Question Time, I'm sure the BBC editorial team are aware of her views. --RaviC (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a single reliable source saying it's a big tent. TSP (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We cannot WP:SYNTHesise an ideology for the party based on the ideology of individual candidates. Fox is a complete red herring here. We need to look at RS commentary about the party.

I have presented a number of sources describing the party as populist. Ralbegen suggests the Deccan Chronicle citation is not helpful here as it describes Farage as "populist", but I would argue that it is doing so within a clear context of the establishment of the Brexit Party. Ralbegen also notes concerns with the reliability of the Express, which surprises me, but if WP:RSP have so ruled, so be it. Nevertheless, leaving those aside, we have The Economist and Business Insider saying populist. Ergo, the infobox should say "populism". I accept that we could do with more clarity about whether "right-wing populism" is appropriate. We all agree on Eurosceptic, so that stays in too. I do not see RS supporting anything else. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly - Business Insider that you describe as 'highly reliable' is described in its own Wiki article as: 'prioritizing publishing speed over accuracy' amongst other criticisms.. Secondly, you stating 'Fox is a complete red herring here' is dangerous POV. As stated and now to be repeated, the Brexit Party has other candidates who describe themselves as left/ hard left and are also former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party - such as Brexit party candidate Dr Alka Seghal Cuthbert. Finally and to repeat again.. I have presented you with (stronger RS's than your Express, Business insider and Deccan Chronicle??) describing Corbyn and the Labour party as Populists. However Labour is a broad church so this 'populism' label has not been used in Labour's infobox despite Corbyn and the party being described as such by RS's including the Guardian, New Statesman, FT and CNN to mention just a few. Reaper7 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right to caution me on Business Insider. WP:RSP is ambivalent about it. I still feel we have enough between it, The Economist and other sources.

We cannot make deductions about a party's ideology based on the former affiliations of a small number of candidates. That clearly violates WP:SYNTH. It is a complete red herring. We look at articles talking about the Brexit Party. Feel free to bring more examples of articles about the Brexit Party to the discussion.

I suggest you take your comments about the Labour Party to the Talk page for that article. If you feel that article's infobox should say "populism", go forth and make that argument. I have not looked into the matter myself and have no opinions on it at this time. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not talking about former affiliations, the two examples given (Fox and Dr Alka Seghal Cuthbert) - describe themselves currently of the left - not formerly. Their roots in the Revolutionary Communist Party simply cement their history deep in the ideology - one very very far from populism or the right. Thank you for at least acknowledging the deluge of quality RS's calling Corbyn and the Labour Party - populists. My point was not that I believe their infobox should say 'populism' - my point is that the reason it doesn't matches the reason the word should not be used concerning the Brexit party. Reaper7 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I must admit i'm quite confused over this argument since the political position parameter is meant for 1-D left-right alignment, however populism tends to be viewed as an ideology. What we have here is a single-issue party where the political position parameter isn't really that applicable. Indeed the articles for many other single, or limited issue, parties (pirate parties, animal welfare parties etc) don't use the political position parameter. I suggest it's left blank for now. Now if people want to discuss putting populism in the ideology section then fine, though it's arguably not a useful label as adversarial politics is used by a huge range of parties. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am talking about adding populism to the infobox in the Ideology field. "Populism" has a specific meaning which isn't just about trying to be popular: see the article for details. We have some evidence that "right-wing populism" is the better descriptor. If that is accepted, then that would support "right-wing" in the Position field. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have access to a newspaper database, including material paywalled or not otherwise available freely online. Searching that, I found...

• Western Daily Press, 22 Apr 2019. "Farage on course to 'sweep the board' at EU election" by David Hughes. "Mr Corbyn insisted Labour was not worried about Mr Farage, dismissing his platform as "simple populism"." (The comments of a political rival are not as useful, but do support the case being made.)
• The Telegraph, 22 Apr 2019. "2019 will be Nigel Farage's year - and the Tories' annus horribilis" by Matthew Goodwin. This is a sustained argument by the leading academic in the field that the Brexit Party is populist, and indeed represents "national populism". This trumps anything else I've seen.
• The National, 22 Mar 2019. "Brexit poster boy Nigel Farage back in politics to try and save the day" by Jamie Prentis. Talking about the Brexit Party: "With Britain suffering from "declining levels of trust in politics and politicians, the environment is conducive to populist parties getting more support," says Simon Underwood of the University of Surrey, a researcher into the EU and Euroscepticism."

I say we add national populism to the ideology field. That also supports adding "right-wing" to the Position field. Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose As per detailed responses above. Reaper7 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per my comment above; furthermore in response to TSP's point: the party's description calling itself "beyond left and right" is essentially a synonym of big-tent. In this regard, the party has clearly taken a leaf from its' EFDD ally M5S, which has fashioned its political position in a linguistically comparative manner. Until we see fiscal policies etc from this party, we should take their self-identified political position at face value, as we have done with the Change UK article. --RaviC (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reaper7 and RaviC, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I feel it would be helpful if you reviewed how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia summarises reliable, secondary sources (WP:RS). We, as editors, do not get to interpret: we follow what trusted sources say.

Reaper7, you are asking us to ignore what sources say about the party and to instead draw conclusions from the self-identification of 2 out of 70 candidates in a particular election. That is original research or a WP:SYNTHesis of selected materials. That is not accepted on Wikipedia. You've made lengthy comments about Labour, which is what we call an 'other stuff exists' argument and doesn't help here.

RaviC, you are calling for us to prioritise the party's self-identification. No, WP:PRIMARY is very clear that we focus on what secondary sources say over what the subject of an article says about itself. We can mention how a party describes itself in the article text, but the bottom line is determined by reliable, secondary sources. (And that's what we do on the Change UK article.)

Neither of your "oppose"s has any basis in Wikipedia policy. This isn't a vote. Arguments have to be based on something, on Wikipedia's 5 Pillars and the various editing guidelines.

What do reliable, secondary sources say about the Brexit Party? They say it is a party of national populism. Bondegezou (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat a summary of my ideas as you seem to have skipped them probably by accident. 1/ The party currently has no manifesto and your RS's - many of which were from unreliable sources despite your claims each time that they were highly reliable.... talk more of Farage and his politics than that of this new party. Therefore, I suggest we wait for a manifesto - rather than the national populism label you have been pushing extremely hard. Once the manifesto is released, journalists will have a chance to judge the party and not individual members - some of whom are of the left, some of whom of the centre and some of whom are of the right. Let us wait and see what the party decides as its ethos. Articles evolve on Wikipedia - this one must be allowed to do the same. 2/ This isn't a vote, but unfortunately for your arguments - written in the 4th pillar of Wikipedia is to WP-SEEK CONSENSUS. You have been unable to find a consensus for your national populism angle. We do have a consensus against your proposal however as documented in detail above by myself and users such as RaviC, Ralbegen, Jopal22 and Alssa1 and instead remaining with Euroscepticism. I suggest you respect the rules of Wikipedia. 3/ The 5th pillar of this magnificent Wikipedia project states there are no firm rules. We currently have a single issue party with no manifesto. Desperately scrabbling for an ideology that may better describe the leader of the party than the actual party itself is not acceptable. The main ideology of the party in total is - euroscepticism. To force another ideology onto this manifestoless party is reckless - and I need not remind you that the glorious 5th pillar of Wikipedia states: Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. This article needs time to evolve and we must be cautious as articles external to Wikipedia were already referencing wikipedia concerning The Brexit Party's ideology. We will include what we do know and wont guess at what we don't. Reaper7 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the party has a manifesto. We've never waited for a manifesto on other articles about parties.

There's a fair number of different citations in the discussion above. They include pieces in The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, The New Statesman and The National: no-one is questioning the reliability of those. All of those are clearly talking about the party rather than just about Farage.

I am seeking consensus. I am here, having a discussion on a Talk page.

A local consensus cannot override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so the discussion here, as always, has to respect those. Namely, that we summarise what reliable, secondary sources say. You list four names, but you and RaviC have offered arguments clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy that, I'm afraid, carry zero weight. Others have not expressed an opinion on the fuller list of sources now under discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou is entirely right that we should follow reliable sources. Personally I think that the Matthew Goodwin source in the Telegraph is a solid case to describe the party as populist. This Independent article which I hadn't come across before seems like enough for me to describe the party as "right-wing populist" and "right-wing". This TRT World article also supports describing the party as "right-wing". I think this discussion has shown that there's a lot of RS coverage that can be used to improve this article beyond a few words in the infobox. I'd like the infobox descriptions we settle on to be justified in the prose using the sources that we've brought up in this conversation. Ralbegen (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia. So I have a genuine question around this. I would expect the infobox to generally state facts, i.e. a classification that is generally backed up by independent sources and by the party members itself. If we just go on reliable sources, aren't they just stating an opinion? If we just go with RS, what is to stop someone changing Labour Party's ideology to "Anti-Semitism", as there are plenty of sources to back that up? Jopal22 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: The infobox should state facts. The question is what is the best source of facts. Wikipedia's answer, as described at WP:RS, is that it is reliable, secondary sources. We consider those more reliable than what a party says about itself. WP:V talks about why we prefer independent sources to what a person or a party says about themselves. WP:OR explains why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. (In the case of Labour, while there are reliable sources discussing questions of anti-Semitism in Labour, I can't think of any that would say that Labour's ideology is anti-Semitism. Moreover, we can see that there is a debate with different sources saying a variety of things. We do have a whole article at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party discussing these in depth.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

As per Ralbegen's sensible request, I have expanded the Policies section to include three of the citations under discussion that identify the party as following national populism. This could be expanded further. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate have this which uses the descriptions "populist" and "radical right". WP:RSP asks us to assess HNH on a case-by-case basis, and I think a report on the European elections based on a poll they commissioned is sufficient as a reliable source, perhaps with in-text attribution. (The full report probably also a good source for other articles?) Ralbegen (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate is a political action group that urges the Labour and Conservative parties to work to prevent the Brexit Party doing well in the European Elections - this is hardly a neutral source on the political position of the BP. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be neutral (who is?). They have to be reliable, and Hope not Hate is. Emeraude (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Political position is a subjective issue and thus the neutrality of sources must be taken into account. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope not Hate are subject matter experts on the hard right and extreme right. They're best-placed to judge this sort of thing. All British newspapers have points of view, and most of them would share antifascism with Hope not Hate. I don't think that's disqualifying. In the same way, the Times or the Telegraph describing the Green Party as left wing or Change UK as centrist would still be fine. Reliability is what's important, and Hope not Hate meets that requirement. Ralbegen (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Who says they are "subject matter experts" who are "best-placed to judge"? If they are such experts, and if the Brexit Party are so extreme right as to warrant campaigning against by HNH, why is former Revolutionary Communist Party member Claire Fox standing for election as a Brexit Party MEP, why has George Galloway stated that "for one-time only I will be supporting @Nigel_Farage in the next months elections. @TheBrexitParty", and why does the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Great Britain consider that "a one-time-only vote for the Brexit party in the upcoming European elections is the best way for workers to repeat their demand that Brexit actually be delivered"?[18] PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That type of argument is what on wikipedia is called original research

No it is not. It is questioning the reliability of a source. Please sign your post. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The unsigned comment is correct: that's WP:SYNTH because you are deducing a conclusion based on bits of primary evidence. What we should do is look at what secondary sources say. In that respect, what HNH say is in line with what others say. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I am questioning the suitability of a source, not proposing text synthesized from different sources. Where is it agreed that HNH are "subject matter experts" and "best-placed to judge"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Given HNH are not currently cited in the article, the point is moot for now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

They have the most complete description of the Brexit Party's ideology. I think it's appropriate to use them as a source for that. The description comes from a short report by the group rather than a blogpost. There's more information in the memo about voters' attitudes to the party that I think is worth including in our article also. Based on WP:RSP's recommendation to assess HNH on a case-by-case basis I thought I'd raise it here before including any material in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

'Hard Eurosceptic' party??

I would say a 'hard eurosceptic' party would want nothing to do with Europe. This party is happy to trade freely and work openly with Europe on all fronts, but not be answerable politically to the EU. How is that 'hard euroscepticism'? Reaper7 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Our choice of words here should follow what reliable sources do. We shouldn't be trying to make that decision ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. Will delete the term until we find a reliable source saying it. Reaper7 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, as far as I can see of the few sources using the term most themselves are just referencing the current Wikipedia article's definition so are not reliable. I have returned it to "Eurosceptic" until such time the term is common to reliable sources. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent ChiZeroOne, watch the page because there will be those wishing to revert the next few hours and days. Reaper7 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

'Eurosceptic' as a term has nothing to do with a country's outside relationship with EU or other European countries. A Eurosceptic is sceptical of the EU as an institution, and generally in a British context a Eurosceptic wants to leave the EU. The Brexit Party is 'hard Eurosceptic' by virtue of wanting the UK to leave the EU ASAP. Their marketing terminology about "wanting a relationship with Europe" has nothing to do with it. JackWilfred (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JackWilfred, the party is hard Eurosceptic. As seen in the link here hard Euroscepticism is an ideology that advocates a country's withdrawal of membership from the EU, which is exactly what the Brexit Party stands for. Euroscepticism is criticism and/or scepticism for the EU, this party's ideology clearly goes beyond that. Helper201 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

'Hard' and 'soft' are labels that come with considerable loading and controversy (even over their utility, as the Wikipedia article describes). There's no disagreement that I'm aware of that the party is 'Eurosceptic', so that label is accurate and unproblematic. EddieHugh (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

EddieHugh, can you please set out what this 'considerable loading and controversy' is exactly? Both the introduction of the Euroscepticism page and the hard Euroscepticism section clearly set out that hard Euroscepticism is advocating that a country should leave the EU, which is exactly what the Brexit Party stands for. I see no controversy here. If anything there is more controversey simply stating Euroscepticism as it is far more ambiguous and open ended. Euroscepticism on its own often refers to being critical or sceptical of the EU, which this party clearly goes beyond that by advocating UK withdrawal from the EU. Helper201 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion. The terminology section goes on to 'Criticism of terms 'soft' and 'hard' Euroscepticism' and 'Other terms'. 'Hard' has won out over 'clean' in the mainstream media Brexit vocabulary war, probably because it sounds more abrupt, severe, dangerous, etc. But they're different labels for the same thing. Those nuances carry over into labels for political position: 'hard' comes with the same connotations; 'soft' is gentle, pleasant, mild.... If all/a clear majority of sources label the BP as 'hard Eurosceptic', then that's what we're obliged to go with, irrespective of the merits of my linguistic argument. But we're not at that point (yet): we can wait for the BP to state some policies or create a manifesto (as mentioned in a talk page section below), then see how the group is described. For now, we know that 'Eurosceptic' is accurate. EddieHugh (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed the term 'hard eurosceptism' is redundant here. One day there is a chance a majority of sources will describe the party as such. We are not there now and may never be - so we will have to show restraint, no matter our personal feelings.Reaper7 (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It should not be controversial to describe the Brexit party as "hard Eurosceptic". Euroscepticism is by definition being sceptical about the EU as a project, not sceptical about Europe itself. "Hard" in political terminology is to the extreme wing of an ideology. The Brexit party wants to end membership of the EU, that's literally as hard Euroscepticism can get. NATCEN's sociological research on the matter (British social attitudes study "BSA", published annually since the 80s) describes Eurosceptics as those who would like to leave and those who would like powers returned. Leave = hard, customs union = soft. It's not an insult, Euroscepticism is ideology, hard is the level.

While I generally agree with the above comment, it is important to note that staying in the customs union is not soft Euroscepticism. Please read the paragraph on Wikipedia regarding soft Euroscepticism by clicking this link. Soft Euroscepticism is essentially being critical about certain aspects of the European Union but supporting retaining membership and reforming it from within. Helper201 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Single-issue party

Cordyceps-Zombie added to the first sentence of the lede that the Brexit Party are a single-issue party. I reverted. Snowded re-added. ChiZeroOne re-deleted.

I think this is inappropriate. Yes, in the current European Parliament election campaign, the party is focusing on a single issue, wanting a no-deal Brexit, but that's a campaigning choice. The Liberal Democrats are almost exclusively focusing on opposing Brexit in these elections, but we wouldn't call them a single issue party. Farage may not be publishing a manifesto yet, but he has said the party will present a full policy slate after the elections and that he intends the party to be around in the long term, including contesting the next general election. Reports from Brexit Party rallies point to a broader agenda or narrative than just Brexit. Ergo, it seems to me that Farage clearly intends the party not to be a single issue party, but that he is choosing to focus on a single issue in the current campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What he intends is not really relevant - at the moment there is no manifesto or intent to have one, THere is no policy other than to get a hard Brexit. At the moment the party is clearly a single issue one - if that changes after the campaign then, and only then, should it change.-----Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly an intent to have a manifesto or equivalent. I gave a citation showing that intent. A single-issue party, I suggest, is a party that only ever exists for one issue and we know that that does not apply to the Brexit Party. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Lib Dem/Brexit Party analogy quite works. The Lib Dems clearly have a whole platform of policies, and have had for over thirty years, even if they are emphasizing one particular policy in this particular election. The Brexit Party only seems to have one single policy; and they make that very clear in their name. I think the most obvious comparison are with the Referendum Party of the 1990s, which were decidedly single-issue. So I do think that they are single-issue, however it is important that we have reliable sources from political scientists or other pundits before we can state it is the case in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It just got described as a "single-issue party" on BBC Newsnight, if that means anything. It might indicate other press sources would do the same. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I just watched that as well. I wonder if it's possible to cite the edition in the short term (who said it and at what point during the programme, etc), then find a printed source as a longer term solution. This is Paul (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well firstly it is obviously false since their whole spiel is that the campaign isn't just about Brexit but about democratic accountability. But anyway a contentious label does not belong in the lead. I have no problem with a statement within the body of the article to the effect that "X" claims it to be single-issue party. ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

And today in The Guardian: "...the Brexit party is a single-issue party". Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We can cite last night's Newsnight and Emily Maitlis, presenting, explicitly did say they are a single issue party. However, I did note that the clips following had Farage saying the party was about more than just Brexit. As ChiZeroOne says, the spiel is about democratic accountability and bringing down a political elite. Farage explicitly wants to replace the current main two parties. That is quite different from the Referendum Party. Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to take what Farage and others say with a pinch of salt here. The "we're not just about Brexit" line may reflect a desire to attract voters who don't see Brexit as the big issue for them rather than genuinely reflecting a broader political platform. Moreover, the talk about "democratic accountability" could easily just be rhetoric to bolster their Brexit argument (had the 2016 referendum gone the other way, Farage and co would probably be using the "democratic accountability" line to argue for a second referendum). I'm probably verging into original thought here, but there is perhaps a distinction to be drawn with officially' single-issue parties and de facto single-issue parties. At present, I'd say the Brexit Party definitely fits the latter category, if not the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Legalised?

Wazzock1 added to the infobox a field "Legalised" based on the date of the party's registration with the Electoral Commission. Emeraude removed this. Wazzock1 pretty much immediately re-added, and I then re-removed. Later that day, DeFacto re-added. Etc.

I, and I understand Emeraude's position to be the same, oppose the use of this field. Registration with the Electoral Commission does not make a party legal: it means the party can stand in formal elections. Read the Electoral Commission article and there is nothing about the EC legalising a party. You can have a party and legally exist without registration: you can contest other sorts of contests (e.g. Trades Union elections) or lobby for policies, etc. We thus support the alternate presentation, which is giving the date with a parenthetic note. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

'Legalised' does look strange, and in the full template it comes next to 'Banned', suggesting that it is intended to be used for groups that are/were linked to illegality. But The Independent Group or whatever it's called now has the same thing. I support the parenthetic note principle, as removing potential confusion for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put a note on the Change UK/TIG Talk page to notify people of the discussion here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Parentheses in the "founded" field are fine. "Legalised" implies that it was previously illegal, which it wasn't. Ralbegen (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

By registering they are legalised in the sense that they become entitled to field candidates in elections, which would be illegal otherwise, so it is appropriate here. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Surely fielding candidates when not registered would be impossible, not illegal as such? A party can exist in a legal sense (the Independent Group is a private company registered with Companies House, for instance) without being entitled to field candidates (which requires being registered with the Electoral Commission). EddieHugh (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto, can you show us any reliable sources using this language? Bondegezou (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree the current terminology in the template isn't optimised for UK usage, but the point of templates is to separate the various attributes into parameters - rather than shoehorning several into one. That way the data can be more easily parsed and automatically processed. Perhaps we should rename the parameter, make the label customisable or add a new parameter to the template. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, so let's not use the "Legalised" field until it has been improved. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Been awy, so sorry to be late to the discussion. Agree with Bondegezou. It is possible to be a candidate without being registered, as an independent. Registration is most definitely not required of any political party in the UK if it is not contesting elections. And the whole issue makes a nonsense of the history of the Conservative, Labour, etc parties which must have been illegal for 100 years until the Electoral Commission was founded to make them legal!!! Registration is not legalisation, which has no meaning in UK law for political parties. Emeraude (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Emeraude: sure independents can stand for elections without registering a party, and a party doesn't have to register if it isn't going to contest any elections, but a party must register to field candidates in an election in their name - and that is the whole point of that field in my view, whatever it is called. And as registration has only been mandatory for about 20 years, it wasn't relevant before then, but has been mandatory for all parties fielding candidates since it was introduced. And yes, since the late 1990a it has been illegal to field a candidate if your party isn't registered. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It is illegal to drive without a driving license. If you try to field a candidate for a party that isn't registered, then the nomination will be rejected, but no-one has committed an illegal act. You can stand a candidate who is listed as just "independent" or with no description, and then plaster the electoral district with posters saying they are the candidate of your party: entirely allowed. You can contest a trade union election or a student union election, and it doesn't matter whether you're registered with the EC.

"Illegal" or "legalised" is not the right word. More to the point, no RS use it. We have to follow what RS say. Ergo, we can't use a field saying "legalised". Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A 'Registered' field has now been added to the political party infobox, so I have updated this page and Change UK to use it. 17:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A bit late but to clarify on all this, registration is about being able to use a party name on the ballot paper and a mechanism for scrutinising the legality of party funding. There are political parties that aren't registered for one reason or another, the main ones appear to be various Irish republican groups and some far left entities, and members have stood in elections as independents or no description, some successfully. In the current European elections there are a bunch of independent candidates standing for the "Climate & Ecological Independents" which is clearly a party but not a registered one so the name doesn't appear on the ballot paper. The registered field is unnecessary for most parties. There's often a lag between someone announcing the formation of a party and the completion of the paperwork but this detail is not encyclopedic. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Local Government and Lords

I know that 4 AMs joined, but I'd like to see evidence for the 2 lords and 109 local government. Unless there is a citation I think this needs to be removed Wikieditor123000 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

New lede

In reply to Bondegezou. I agree, looking at various articles the consistency is a bit of a mess. I was trying to find some guidance in wikipedia help as to general rules around this but there doesn't seem to be any. Possibly because most users are in the US where they only have 2 parties. Anyway, to throw a couple of more in the mix, the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy is termed hard eurosceptic, the SDP (which has the same policy as BP) is termed eurosceptic, and the featured article Referendum Party has eurosceptic. I still have the same opinion around "hard Eurosceptic", I think eurosceptic is clear enough (we never for instance use the term soft Eurosceptic), and using the term "hard" does nothing but imply the party is "extreme" which is verging to much into opinion for me.

As for right-wing political party. I can't really find consistent reliable sources that describe it as that, with articles often describing them as trying to transcend the left right divide https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/19/nigel-farage-brexit-party-on-the-road-populism. I agree that a lot of their most prominent candidates are ex tory's e.g. Farage, Widdecombe, Rees Moog, but they also have candidate like Claire Fox standing who is as left wing as they come, and people like George Galloway voting for them. Plus they only currently have one policy, which has neither left or right wing implications.

Looking into this, I think I can improve the article quite a bit. Especially the article needs to talk about Five Star, and Farage's plan to build a party based upon their model. I have put together what I think I think the lede paragraphs should be. Let me know your thoughts. I have references but will add them later if agreed.

The Brexit Party is a newly formed Eurosceptic political party in the United Kingdom. It currently campaigns for the single-issue “that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty”. The party advocates trading with the EU on standard World Trade Organization terms until a new trade deal can be agreed. It is planning to unveil additional policies after the 2019 European Parliament elections.

The party was formed in January 2019, and has been led by former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, since March of the same year. The party currently has fourteen Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), and four Welsh Assembly members, all of whom were elected as UKIP candidates. Most of the currently elected members, including Farage, cite UKIPs move to the "hard right" as the reason for leaving and forming a new party.

Farage has described his admiration for how fellow Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy members, Italy's Five Star Movement, have managed to grow from a protest group into the country's largest political party in both houses of the Italian Parliament. He has described the Brexit Party as doing the same kind of thing and "running a company, not a political party, hence our model of registered supporters" and building a base using an online platform. Like the M5S, the Brexit party is often described as populist, and trying to transcend the left-right political spectrum.

Currently the Brexit Party leads the polls going into the 2019 European Parliament elections with around 30% of the vote. Despite the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union falling under the legislative remit of MPs rather than MEPs, the party's electoral leaflets position the party as "fighting back" against the "betrayal" of the government and MPs to implement the outcome 2016 referendum, where the majority voted in favour of leaving the European Union. Talking about the direction of the party in the future Farage has framed the party as counter to the frustration "about the way the establishment has behaved".

Useful articles:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/12/nigel-farage-interview-end-campaign-brexit-party-will-lot-bigger/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/23/former-communist-claire-fox-standing-as-mep-for-farages-brexit-party

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/13/brexit-party-policies-eu-elections-farage

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/19/nigel-farage-brexit-party-on-the-road-populism

Jopal22 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead summarises the main text, so step 1 would be to add relevant sourced material to the body (WP:LEAD). And it's best to avoid relative time terms such as "currently"; they inevitably date and readers don't know when they were written: see MOS:RELTIME. EddieHugh (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair challenge. That's what I would normally do, I suppose because we have an election soon I was trying to take a shortcut, given people are likely to look at the page leading to this. Also given how new the party is, the page is likely to change a reasonable amount after the election. Jopal22 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur with EddieHugh's suggestions. There's material there, particularly on the M5S comparison, that can go into the body of the article right now. However, the M5S stuff hasn't received extensive coverage, so I wouldn't mention it in the lead section at all. I also support talking in the lead section about how the Brexit Party grew out of a schism in UKIP. Other parts of the text, e.g. on polling, are too focused on the current situation. I don't think the lead should draw so much on what Farage and the party say -- I'd not use all those quotations -- but we should instead focus on what reliable, secondary sources say. Those reliable secondary sources all say this is a populist party (some saying right-wing populist). So, instead of "Like the M5S, the Brexit party is often described as populist, and trying to transcend the left-right political spectrum." I'd just say, "The Brexit party is often described as populist." We don't need the M5S reference in the lead section, and there isn't much RS supporting the "transcend the left-right political spectrum" phrase. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Constitution

I know I have just made a long post. But I have just found the party's constitution released by under the freedom of information request. At the moment it is very difficult to write about the Brexit Party because it has no policies bar one, but if you look at the constitution, it has a raft of information which can be used to improve this article.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/255134/FOI-015-19.pdf

On the back of this, it is clearly a right wing party based upon its stated policies to seek to diminish the role of the State; and lower the burden of taxation on individuals and businesses. We just need RS's to back this up so its not original research.

Jopal22 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a Politico.eu report about the constitution, so that's 1 RS.

I concur that this adds weight to a right-wing label. We already have other RS calling the party right-wing or right-wing populist. Some editors who were objecting to an ideological label argued we should say nothing in the absence of a manifesto or equivalent: well, we've now got something.

Snowded has just removed a summary of the constitution that I took from that piece, complaining it was incomplete. Snowded also removed a Farage quote about the party not being left or right-wing. Both seem well-sourced and relevant to me. I'd favour both being returned. Or Snowded is free to add their own summary of the constitution (based on reliable secondary sources). Bondegezou (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The summary was very partial and its an FOI release not a full manifesto. So I think its safer to link and people can form their own conclusion. Farage says many things as do other politicians and we shouldn't allow their quotes to form the article. That is a political line that he wants to run and yes its referenced, but without a third party source which says its important we would not usually include such statements -----Snowded ^TALK 08:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Snowded, the summary was taken from the Politico article. We are meant to draw on secondary sources. If you have another wording, or if anyone can see more secondary sources on this issue, then happy to consider other text. But it seems good to say something.

(I note other coverage of the constitution has focused more on the power it gives Farage, e.g. [19] and [20].)

While we should lead with secondary sources, some reporting of what Farage/the party say is appropriate. I entirely agree that we shouldn't have an article of quotations, but one sentence in a paragraph seems fine. Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou that both the constitution summary and the Farage quote should be reinstated as there are information "straight from the horses mouth", so to speak. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Politico is not the best of sources and has its own controversies. The source itself says that the best we can get are 'clues' as it is simoply a memoradum item. With that qualification I'd be happy with free individuals, families and businesses from excessive government interference.” in some form. But we don't just quote political leaders unless a secondary source says its significant -----Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Politico is considered generally reliable (at least for US politics). Its article's focus also seems to be Farage's power rather than the ideological principles of the constitution. I can see that there's a case to include some summary of it but I don't have a particularly strong view either way. Long quotes of its constitution should be avoided for such a small article without any particular weight established. I think it's right to be very wary of including quotes from Farage, particularly woolier ones about the party being "beyond left and right". You can look over the article as it stands now, and how much of it is just reporting things that Farage has said. There are ten times where Farage is attributed to a quote or paragraph in what's still a fairly short article. We have He also said that the party aimed to attract support "across the board", including from former UKIP voters and from Conservative and Labour voters who supported Brexit which is a paraphrase of something Farage has said. It's something that means something similar to his line about "transcending left and right" but is more substantial, so I think we can keep that but avoid adding "beyond left and right". Ralbegen (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Populism in lede

I've just added yet another citation calling the Brexit Party "populist". That's seven citations calling them "populist". I don't see any secondary sources calling them anything else. Can't the lede be simplified to just call them a populist party? Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I would advocate using the Five Star Movement (the party's partner in the European Parliament) wiki page as a guide to the structuring of this page. In the initial paragraph it does not use any label, and then it starts the second paragraph with "The M5S is variously considered as xxxxxx" with citations next to each. I prefer the phasing of "considered as" rather than labelling as factual, as political identity is always going to be subjective to some extent Jopal22 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Five Star Movement article is pretty messy, I wouldn't jump to using that as a model. Thematically closer to this article would be the UK Independence Party article, or the (FA-rated) Referendum Party article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not precious about the exact wording: second paragraph and "considered as" work fine. Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We should always avoid using weasel words. If reliable sources are describing the party as "populist", so should we. They are, so we should. I won't rush to add these to the article because I think the current citations make it clear enough for me, but there are also descriptions of the party as populist in the Guardian] and [GQ]. I've looked for other descriptions of it, but nothing really comes close in RS usage. Ralbegen (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, just to clarify, I should have just said structure in having a first paragraph that leaves out political labels, and a second one that starts with "The Brexit Party is variously considered as xxxxxxx" as the first paragraph should be short and punchy and I think it is better to have a more descriptive narrative around ideology/labels. That was the only aspect of the 5 star page I meant to advocate to follow. I like the Referendum Party article but that was a unambiguously clear one issue party which made things simpler. Jopal22 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In terms of weasel words, I see your argument, but we also should take into account that populism is noted on wikipedia as Few politicians or political groups describe themselves as "populist" and the term is often applied to others pejoratively. Therefore we should take into account WP:LABEL and use in-text attribution. Jopal22 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I know I replied a few times, and am in danger of talking to myself. But I think this paper is good for citing discussions around populism and Brexit, which looks into Was the outcome of the United Kingdom’s ‘Brexit’ referendum to leave the European Union a visible and consequential manifestation of right-wing populism?https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168018773964. Although it is about "Brexit" and not the "Brexit Party", the fact that the Brexit party is about a clearly populist cause (Brexit), I think it can be de facto used. So I'd suggest saying the Brexit Party has been described as populist by various publications....and then discussing populist characteristics they possess to back up the assertion. Jopal22 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is for terms that are a lot more pointed than "populist", surely? Calling an organisation a cult is a value-laden label in a different way and on a different scale. I can't see the need to hedge against calling a populist party that's consistently described in reliable sources as a populist party, a populist party. Ralbegen (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the UKIP page only includes populism in the third paragraph and uses "characterised by political scientists as a right-wing populist party" and "use of populist rhetoric, including describing its supporters as the "People's Army"." This has come after a lot of historical discussions around populism on the talk page. I would suggest the wording at the second paragraph of the Brexit Party page should be:

Given the party's self defined raison d'être is that they represent the popular will of the people against the betrayal of the government and MPs to deliver brexit, it is usually referred to as populist by the media. (Citations to be added)Jopal22 (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the lede: it doesn't need to go into detail of why they're called populist.

The rationale you give there, I don't see many citations saying that. Most citations just call them populist. Goodwin goes into more detail as to why, but doesn't say what you're saying... similar, but not the same. Bondegezou (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Such labels are clearly subjective, and so we cannot assert them as fact when are are simply opinion. If some, even a majority, of commentators use that label we still need to be careful how we word it and how we correctly attribute and weight that opinion in the body and in the lead (it's not meant to be a "lede"). -- DeFacto (talk). 07:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all articles for political parties assert ideological positions in the opening paragraphs. We do that by summarising what reliable sources say. Reliable sources describe the Brexit Party as "populist". (Some say "right-wing populist".) This is not rocket science: reliable sources say X, so the Wikipedia article says X.

As far as I can see, everyone else in this latest discussion above supports saying "populist" somewhere in the lede, but there is some disagreement over how that should be phrased. The softest version of the text supported by the discussion above would be something like, "The party is considered as populist." in the second paragraph, along the lines initially suggested by Jopal22. That could vary: "characterised as", "referred to as" &c. being alternate wordings. Jopal22 has also suggested adding some explanatory text after that. The hardest version of the text, along the lines I think Ralbegen is suggesting, would be something like the opening sentence saying: "The Brexit Party is a populist, Eurosceptic political party". (We haven't discussed whether we should switch to "national populist" or "right-wing populist", as used by a subset of citations.)

Given that, I propose we restore the minimum, softest wording for now ("The party is considered as populist." in second para.), while discussion continues on whether to expand on that or to harden that phrasing. I favour myself having the opening sentence say: "The Brexit Party is a right-wing populist, Eurosceptic political party". Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now I think the best options are "The Brexit Party is a populist Eurosceptic political party" or "The Brexit Party is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom". (The second description is used in full in this [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/noise-from-the-far-right-distracts-us-from-return-of-traditional-socialists-qjvxcg9td Times comment piece, but its components are both used in multiple independent reliable sources with no frequent alternative that I've seen). Ralbegen (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:WIKIVOICE opinion cannot be stated as fact, even if it is the predominant opinion amongst political journalists, and should be attributed to its sources. For those reasons I favour the lead summary being something like: "The party is considered as populist by some political commentators." We certainly cannot assert that "The Brexit Party is a populist Eurosceptic political party", or anything else based on opinions only. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Saying "The Brexit Party is an evil Eurosceptic political party" (to use the example in WP:WIKIVOICE) or "The Brexit Party is the best Eurosceptic political party" (to use the example in WP:SUBSTANTIATE) would be putting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. The comparison doesn't really stand up, in my view. It's populist in the same way that it's Eurosceptic, which is different both to the way in which it's logo is blue or whether it's good. Ralbegen (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me set out my position in a more structured way

a) As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we should be aware that newspapers write information that may be subjective in nature, and wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity. So for instance, after today's FA Cup Final there could conceivably be headlines that say "Lucky Watford beat favourites Manchester City". I would back the term favourites being used in an opening of an article as it could be objective (betting odds etc). Saying that a team is lucky is subjective, and it doesn't matter how many sources there are to back this up, we should not say they are lucky in wikipedia without explanation and context. This to me is similar to the distinction between populism and eurosceptic (i.e. subjective v objective)...hence my issue is not with the amount of newspaper sources stating populism.

b) Therefore I have to back up that "populism" is subjective. In wikipedia's own article on populism it says within political science and other social sciences, various different definitions of populism have been used; some scholars propose rejecting the term altogether. There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time. Few politicians or political groups describe themselves as "populist" and the term is often applied to others pejoratively. Therefore it is saying populism is not a clearly defined term which some scholars reject should be used, and is often pejorative. How can it be objective to refer to something as populist, when the definition is not clearly defined?

c) This is why for populism I favour the phasing of "the media often refer to them as populist for reasons x,y,z etc". I would also say a lot of readers of Wikipedia won't intuitively know what populism means, whereas eurosceptic is self explanatory, hence it makes sense to add context.

d) My approach would be similar to other articles on parties referred to as populist, e.g. UKIP, Five Star Movement, British National Party etc. None of which use populist in the opening lines. I also refer to the Donald Trump article which doesn't say "his political positions is populist, protectionist, and nationalist", it uses the phasing "commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist." Also note that if you put in the word "populist" to define the party in a factual way without any context or phasing it to be clear the it is a subjective judgment of commentators, then this article will continually be changed by editors who disagree and it will continually be reopened and discussed on the talk page, as you can see happened on the UKIP page Jopal22 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If the balance of references change we can look at it again - Boradsheet newspapers are a reliable source in wikipedia and there is no reason for qualification -----Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A lot of time and energy is being wasted on trying to agree on what labels to apply when we could use sources to describe the BP instead. The problem in particular with the label 'populist', as Jopal22 points out, is that it has become almost meaningless except for adding a whiff of disreputableness. Without attribution and explanation, using a meaningless/ambiguous label doesn't help the reader. This problem can be avoided by describing what it is that makes some sources say 'populist': so, describe, don't label. EddieHugh (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Journalists, commentators and political scientists use the term "populism" frequently with a clear and consistent sense of what it means, so the characterisation of the term by EddieHugh here seems a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. We have reliable secondary sources saying this, so we should say the same. Attribution -- eight citations now, I think -- is given in the main article and is not needed in the lead section. I am all for expanding the text under "Policies and Ideology" along the lines suggested, but the lead section is a summary and shouldn't go into such detail. Given the vast majority of lead sections for articles about political parties do label them, and given the infobox to this article has said "populism" for a while, I don't see the problem that EddieHugh is suggesting exists. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not (just) me pointing out the problem: read the first paragraph of Populism (or read Jopal22's point b, above, which quotes it). We don't describe Usain Bolt as "fast"; we use the numbers that describe how fast. We don't label Willis Tower as "high"; we tell readers how high. Why label as "populist", when we can say 'it presents itself as anti-establishment', 'it targets voters who are dissatisfied with MPs not delivering Brexit', 'its leader says voters have been betrayed by elite career politicians', etc (all of which are clear to the reader)? And if we have to put simplistic/unclear labels in the infobox, then do that too. EddieHugh (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Populism does note that there are issues with the term, but there are then another 96 paragraphs discussing it with references to reliable sources. So, sure, we use the term with care, but we don't have to avoid it. What we do have to do, as basic Wikipedia policy, is follow what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say the Brexit Party are populist, so the Wikipedia article should say that. And then, in the body of the article, we can expand on why that is and all the description you suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jopal22, you mention three articles on other political parties: UKIP, Five Star Movement, and the British National Party. The UKIP article's opening sentence says it is a "hard Eurosceptic, right-wing to far-right political party": I would be happy for this article to say in its opening sentence that the Brexit Party is a "hard Eurosceptic, right-wing political party". Would you support that?

There appears to be less RS describing the Five Star Movement as "populist"...? They are a somewhat different case. The article for the BNP has an opening sentence saying there are "a far-right, fascist political party": that seems how best to describe them, as that is how RS usually refer to them, rather than as populist. Meanwhile, I would note that the National Rally (France) article does use "populist" in the opening sentence ("a right-wing populist[26] and nationalist[27] political party"). You get much the same for the Party for Freedom or Pauline Hanson's One Nation. So, some Wikipedia articles are happy with using "populist" in the opening sentence. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the label 'populist' has no clear meaning - and as it tends to be used as a pejorative, has no place here. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, it doesn't matter what you think about the term. Your dismissal of the term is WP:OR. We follow RS. RS use the term: journalists, commentators and political scientists use it. Matthew Goodwin has a whole book on the subject. If political scientists through to analysts and journalists all think the term has a clear meaning, then Wikipedia thinks it has a clear meaning. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Farage & Banks money

I had added the following text:

It was reported during the European Parliament elections that Farage had received nearly £450,000 from Banks since the Brexit referendum, which he had not declared on the European Parliament's register of interests. Farage has not commented on the amount claimed, but has said any support was "purely on a personal basis". European Parliamentary authorities are investigating.

It was removed on the grounds that it's about Farage, and the money does pre-date the Brexit Party, so it should be on the Farage page. I have now added the text there. However, the matter has arisen now because of the rise of the Brexit Party and is being discussed in the context of the Brexit Party and its funding, so I suggest something could be said here too. Is there any support or opposition to that? Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

From glancing over the coverage of the Farage-Banks story, it seems to me that the Brexit Party is mentioned only to give context to the Farage element rather than vice versa. At the moment, I'd say that it deserves coverage in Farage's article but not here. Ralbegen (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that although it might be appropriate on Farage's page, it's probably out-of-scope here. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This money/set of benefits seemingly was given before the Brexit Party existed, and wasn't given to any party, so we'd need very good sources that explicitly link it to the BP for it to be included here. User:Snowded, I see that you've put it back in; could you self-revert until a consensus is reached (per WP:ONUS) – I'd prefer not to revert again. EddieHugh (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly linked and the Marr Show and the Channel 4 challenge in Merthyr were part of the current campaign. They myth of small donations that Farage is trying to push has already been shattered by investigative journalism. Given that Farage set up the Party (to use his words) as a start up company in which he makes all the decisions all and anything relating to his political actions is relevant. I amended the text to make reference to its use in the current campaign -----Snowded ^TALK 21:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed this. The line European Parliamentary authorities are investigating is factually wrong. The quaestor, who is also a Liberal Democrat MEP, has written a letter asking for an investigation, but as yet there is not one, and Farage is not currently under investigation. Also, I agree this should only appear on Farage's page (with factually correct info), as everything is personal to Farage.Jopal22 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

We now have this report in the Guardian - a reliable source - which brings the issue front and centre to the current campaign - and the Party only currently exists for this campaign. You can't distinguish the Brexit Party from Farage as he has set it up as a private company which he controls. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

While I concur that we should recognise the strong link between Farage and the Brexit Party, other editors have persuaded me that this text is better in the Nigel Farage article than here. That said, perhaps a brief summary of other funding rows could be composed for here? Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No question that it should be on the Farage page, but its nature is material to an understanding of the Brexit Party. The lack of transparency is an issue and reported as such and the hisorical context - involvement of former advisers from the referendum not denied bu Farage, comments like 'we don't check the currency of donations' etc. are all a part and parcel of this. I didn't add a sentence to the text I largely restored this morning but I thought about refering the EU potential investigation and I still think wording is needed for that -----Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been some back and forth over versions of some text I added about Gordon Brown's call for an investigation. The intervention has been covered extensively ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25]). I'm open to alternative summaries of the coverage, but this is something that secondary source coverage establishes due weight for. Chris Bryant's quote in the Lancashire Telegraph puts it the most clearly that I've seen: a lack of oversight means that overseas donors could be able to make multiple payments of less that £500 to end up with an illegal donation over the limit, and Bryant and Brown think that the Electoral Commission should investigate. Ralbegen (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And I can't think why there is any legitimate reason to exclude the material. I tried a couple of variations but they just got reverted which makes the section a POV violation -----Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is how I'd word it:

Farage has stated the party will largely be funded by small donations and that they have raised "£750,000 in donations online, all in small sums of less than £500" in their first ten days. The party also accepts large donations, such as £200,000 donated by Jeremy Hosking, a former donor to the Conservatives. The party will not be taking money from key UKIP funder Arron Banks, but Farage has personally faced questions during the electoral campaign regarding undeclared travel and accommodation benefits provided by Banks before he joined the Brexit Party.

I removed the original text as it was factually wrong, in that the he has not "received nearly £450,000 from Banks" (this makes it sound like a bung rather than allowing him to use accomodation etc), and Farage is currently not under any official investigation. This needs to be corrected on the Farage page. On this page there should just be a short description of the issue, with only touching on how it effects the Brexit Party, whilst linking to a more complete explanation in the Farage page. Jopal22 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. --RaviC (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I like Jopal22's wording too. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've added something close to Jopal22's wording to see if that will fly. Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that wording. Now the Commission have confirmed a 'visit' this may change but its OK for now-----Snowded ^TALK 22:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest removing the NPOV tag once we've given 24 hours for anyone to challenge that we shouldn't Jopal22 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead section/infobox: discussion starting 21 May

There's been lots of discussion and editing. I think we're mostly caught up on everything. I made some relatively bold edits last night based on what I thought was emerging consensus from various discussions. I thought, however, it was useful to re-(re-re-re-)visit the lead section. Jopal22 had some very specific suggestions above: we've not used Jopal22's text in full, but elements of it have been added to the article.

I think there are unresolved points around populism remaining. The current text says, "The party is considered as populist by some political commentators." I would ask three questions:

1. Do we need "by some political commentators"? This is text insisted upon by DeFacto. Other editors do not see it as necessary. As far as I can see, there is near unanimity in reliable sources (the article cites 8 pieces from a range of different sources and we've discussed several more here). I can't see RS saying anything other than Eurosceptic or populist.

2. Do we swap from "considered as populist" to simply "is a populist party"? (We've effectively got a gradient in terms of how hedged the text is: "considered by some" -> "considered" -> "is a"). Other articles vary in their approach: Jopal22 and I have given examples either way for other parties. Again, I would argue that the weight of RS is clear here. Others are concerned about "populism" inherently as a term. But then we are meant to avoid WP:WEASEL.

3. Do we say "right-wing"? This might be in the position field of the infobox, or we could swap "populism" to "right-wing populism" in the infobox ideology field or in the lead section. We have some citations saying "right-wing populism" or "right-wing", as given in the "Policies and ideology" subsection, although more citations just say "populism". One prior concern was that there wasn't a manifesto or set of policies to be judged, but more reporting has yielded a constitution and related documents that are consistent with right-wing, as Jopal22 discussed earlier.

Thoughts? Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Populist - yes. Right-wing - wait until any concrete fiscal/social policy emerges, at which point there will be enough RS sources to justify any position. --RaviC (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I know I might sounds like I am being trivial, but using the term populism unqualified I think gives two impressions, that the party is claiming to represent the "people against the establishment", and it is used pejoratively to criticize a politician for building popularity by exploiting people’s fear. Describing them as positioning themselves as people against the establishment is fine, but the pejorative implication should be discouraged in an encyclopedia (wikipedia is not a newspaper, which will often use a looser factual bar). I think I would only agree to the use of populist under 3 scenarios:

• saying it "espouses a populist libertarian philosophy" (this could be in the first line). I think adding libertarian clarifies the "people v elite" philosophy whilst softening the pejorative implication. (This is what encyclopedia brittanica did for UKIP https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Kingdom-Independence-Party)
• Using phrases like "referred to by many in the media as"
• Using the term only with context of explanation i.e. described as populist because it claims to champion "ordinary people" who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups

As for right wing. I think this is a grey area, as the party clearly has two stages. An early stage to be a one issue party (brexit, which is neither right or left), followed by a long term plan to move to a right wing party. I don't think we can use right wing yet. Right Wing populism implies populism that builds upon issues such as a hardline immigration policy, and the Brexit Party has explicitly avoided mentioning that word, so we can't go there. Thats the problem with a new party, you have to judge them on what they've said since they are formed, not what individual members might have said before

Another way of perhaps conveying the nature of the party, of you don't feel it is being truly represented, is to separate Nigel Farage from the first paragraph, and starting the the second paragraph with "The party is currently lead by Nigel Farage..........", and then find sources regarding Farage being key to the Brexit Party (e.g. there would be no party without Farage), and then discussing how he has a right wing philosophy etc (with references) Jopal22 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll put together some suggested text Jopal22 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly support Jopal22's views on the use of 'populist' - we cannot use the Wikipedia voice to imply it is a factual and objective description. As it is subjective (i.e. an opinion) we need to be careful to correctly attribute the holders of that opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't use weasel words. "Populist" is the only description we're consistently seeing. It's not equivalent to calling the party "terrorist" or "evil", which are value-laden and opinion respectively. It's a term used without qualification in Syriza. In Podemos it's used with more qualification. I find it hard to accept that it's a primarily pejorative term. Here it is being used in the Sun, which has endorsed the Brexit Party. Here is Rod Liddle talking about how he wants populist parties to do well. It's a term that's used in reliable sources that we should use here.

So to (1) I'd say, no. To (2) I'd say yes. To (3) I'd say we should still wait. The Sun, far left news sources, blogs and the Express seem to use the label most, which aren't reliable sources. Reliable sources will discuss this eventually. There is no deadline. So The Brexit Party is a populist party. Ralbegen (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: we avoid weasel words by providing clear attribution, which WP:WIKIVOICE also insists on when avoiding stating opinions as facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DeFacto:—I was making a general response to Bondegezou's question rather than to your post, sorry! I probably should have bulleted it rather than indented it. Regardless, you've made that point in this discussion and in another discussion above, and I've responded to it in both cases. I don't find any of the arguments against using the term "populist" without qualification to be particularly compelling, and I hope I've managed to explain my reasoning. Ralbegen (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Question for advocates of "The Brexit Party is populist" or similar wording: what does that sentence mean? EddieHugh (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jopal22, DeFacto and EddieHugh: which should we listen to? Your opinions on populism or what reliable secondary sources say? As far as I can see, we follow WP:RS, not WP:OR. The suggestion that we should say "espouses a populist libertarian philosophy" is nonsense when not a single RS has said that. (An RS saying that about a different party does not help.) Wikipedia calls numerous other political parties "populist": it is clearly not something the broader editing community see as a problem. In answer to EddieHugh's question: I would suggest you read the 8 citations in the article, the half a dozen more that have been discussed here and Matthew Goodwin's new book on national populism.

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. What is factual and objective is determined by WP:V. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So what you are arguing for is, I want to add a description for the party, but I don't want there to be clarity about what is meant.

It is not our opinions on populism, it is what multiple reliable sources say about it i.e. poorly defined and often pejorative. Secondly I am not arguing against reliable sources, or that we shouldn't use the term. I am just arguing that we should be clear what we are implying when we use it. I don't see the problem with adding in a definition to add clarity (I'm happy to include the perjorative implication as part of defining it). A question to you is, if you were to write what you think needs to be said, but did not use the word populism, what would you say?

Also wikipedia doesn't blindly follow what reliable sources say e.g. subjective things like "national treasure", "beautiful" are added with context, or factually incorrect things are corrected e.g. they use the term Middle East when they mean Arabian Peninsula Jopal22 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thats a little unfair - all political terms have some fluidity about them but there is little question of BREXIT being a populist party per the sources its not marginal -----Snowded ^TALK 11:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked my question above because that is what the reader will ask (we're writing for readers, not just ourselves). If the answer is 'read a dozen sources plus a book', then the reader will be clueless. Surely we don't want that: "we should be clear what we are implying when we use it", as Jopal22 says. It's a simple question, so if we can't answer it, we can't expect the reader to understand and... surely we don't want that. EddieHugh (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If RS describe the party as "populist", then so should Wikipedia. That some Wikipedia editors don't know what populist means or dispute the designation is irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@EddieHugh and Jopal22: we link to the Wikipedia article on populism. The reader has there a good article explaining populism to them if they're not certain what it means. That's why we have internal links. As I've said, I am happy to see the main text expanded to discuss further why the Brexit Party are populist. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

...And if they go there, they'll be told immediately that "various different definitions of populism have been used ... and the term is often applied to others pejoratively" (and that's what 'experts' say!), so will wonder what applies in this instance. And no one's attempted to answer my question yet (the incentive is: if it gets answered with sources, we can put that in the main text). EddieHugh (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There are more good quality RS describing the Labour party as populist than the Brexit Party.. so why is there no mention of populism in the Labour Party infobox? It is because the word 'populist' is a loaded and ambiguous term that is currently being redefined. Here - the Guardian - the darling of left wing wikipedians.. describes why the word is constantly ambiguous and confusing. To quote directly from the Guardian article from this year:

'When populism appears in the media, which it does more and more often now, it is typically presented without explanation, as if everyone can already define it. And everyone can, sort of – at least as long as they’re allowed to simply cite the very developments that populism is supposed to explain: Brexit, Trump, Viktor Orbán’s takeover of Hungary, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. The word evokes the long-simmering resentments of the everyman, brought to a boil by charismatic politicians hawking impossible promises. Often as not, populism sounds like something from a horror film: an alien bacteria that has somehow slipped through democracy’s defences – aided, perhaps, by Steve Bannon or some other wily agent of mass manipulation – and is now poisoning political life, creating new ranks of populist voters among “us”. (Tellingly, most writing about populism presumes an audience unsympathetic to populism.'

References

So the word is not stable and not reliable it seems. Reaper7 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Source is an opinion piece written by a freelance writer and your quote is pretty partial even then. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As previously, Reaper7, if you want to discuss the Labour Party article, go to the Talk page of the Labour Party article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noting this source which discusses the party's populism in depth and could be a very strong source to use in the article. Also on the basis of this source, I'd now be more happy for the term right-wing to appear in the lead and infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: using 'populist' as an adjective is similar in principle to using 'brilliant', 'bigoted' or whatever - and WP:PEACOCK and WP:LABEL warn against such usage, even if it is used that way in reliable sources. WP:NPOV seems clear on this too: Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The term "populism" is used frequently on Wikipedia and stated in Wiki voice. The term is not a value-laden pejorative, but a descriptive academic term. Also, I asked for input on the NPOV noticeboard.[26] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is someone adding text to the lede saying the party "fields candidates from both sides of the political spectrum who support Brexit". This is entirely unsourced and not covered at all in the body. As far as I can tell, it's just one editor's original research. From what I can tell, RS clearly describe the party as "populist" and perhaps "right-wing" as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I refer you to later in the page which says The party is standing candidates in Great Britain at the 2019 European elections, with candidates including the former Conservative Minister of State Ann Widdecombe,[41] the journalist Annunziata Rees-Mogg (a former Conservative general election candidate and the sister of the Conservative MP and Brexit advocate Jacob Rees-Mogg), the Leave Means Leave co-founder Richard Tice,[1] the writers Claire Fox and James Heartfield (both once part of the Revolutionary Communist Party and later writers for Spiked)

Also https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/23/former-communist-claire-fox-standing-as-mep-for-farages-brexit-party Jopal22 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, think you are wrong to say unsupported, but it is probably correct to say it is slightly misrepresentative. I wanted to put something to show about the political leanings of the party members but I made it sound 50/50 right/left. Hope the adjusted text is better? Jopal22 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really - if we are going to start this commentary then we can add comments about some of their candidate's dubious origins and it all gets out of hand. I don't see that this adds value to the article - but it is the line Farage is pushing so we need to be very careful before we endorse that -----Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well I was just trying to add something about the political wing of the party as there was some desire to do that from previous comments. You cannot apply right wing to the party when it has zero right wing policies. You can reference that the candidates are right wing, but it would be unfair to imply they all are, hence the wording I put. I don't care whether it's the line Farage is pushing or not, I'm not trying to support or attack Farage! Jopal22 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that people from the far-left fringe are in this party strengthens the argument that the party is populist, it doesn't undercut it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Populist is mentioned in line 1 and the infobox Jopal22 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is that its not a party that represents left and right over the whole spectrum but the extremes and in any event we can't say that without a proper source and some discussion on weight. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, now I am pretty sure that most (if not all) RS call them populist, and unless there are any RS that explicitly challenge this assertion we can say they are. As to right wing, I am less sure about that, and would leave it out for now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Jopal22, earlier you said, "On the back of this, it is clearly a right wing party based upon its stated policies", but now you say, "You cannot apply right wing to the party when it has zero right wing policies." Did something change your mind?

Others: yes, sometimes "populist" is used pejoratively, but then "liberal", "socialist" and "conservative" are also sometimes used pejoratively. We still use them on Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

To me the party clearly has a right wing core agenda, and is packed with right wing individuals but it currently operates with a generally neutral approach to right/left wing issues. I think this has to be potrayed but I think have to be careful with wording. I would be happy to use the term right wing (in some places e.g. infobox, relatively unqualified) if RS (especially in the British media) consistently used this label (which I don't think they do currently). What I was trying to do before in the lede, was not explicitly label them right wing, but say Nigel Farage basically is in full control of the party->he is right wing->most of the candidates are right wing->but be honest that they have a few left wing candidates. Unfortuntely I don't think i worded it well and it came across as advertsing Farage and making it seem like the party is an all inclusive cuddly party. I would favour some sort of wording that says they currently operate on a neutral platform...but talk about the right wing members and constitution. I'd also be happy to mention Classic Liberal (as they describe themselves) and talk about that is a PR word (don't word it like that in the page) for conservative. I do find it funny they describe themselves as liberal and democratic, perhaps they should merge with the Lib Dems! Jopal22 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The 1st sentence of the 2nd para of the lede reads: "The Brexit Party campaigns for the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union (EU)." This is incorrect. I have seen on video Farage stating, quite clearly, that the Brexit Party's one policy is that the UK should withdraw from the UK on WTO terms. In other words, leave from the Brexit Party means leave under WTO terms, the no deal scenario. It does not mean leave, and another arrangement would be OK. This was I believe made very clear during the EU elections campaign and it was that which brought them their success. Therefore, the sentence as written into the article at this moment is misleading, is it not? Now I know that buried in the 3rd para. there is a kind of self-correct to this, when the policy is expanded upon to the reality of the situation. But whyever would we want to be misleading in the first place? I would have just jumped in and corrected the misleading statement, but I can see that you're all having a kind of party in the Talk page and might have got upset. ;-)

"Restoration of Britain’s democratic sovereignty"

The opening paragraph of this article currently includes the phrase "The Brexit Party portrays itself as a being focused on the restoration of Britain’s democratic sovereignty." But the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, thus it is not possible for its sovereignty to be "restored." This line currently implies the opposite. It should either be followed with an explanation that this is a nonsensical aim or, at the least, the relevant phrasing (the subject of this section) should be enclosed in quotation marks. 129.31.247.31 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Parliament can be said to have given up some of its sovereignty when it passed the European Communities Act 1972, enabling the UK to join what was then the European Economic Community, at the beginning of 1973, and requiring courts in the UK to apply EU law. Reaper7 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sovereignty was the no1 reason given by those who voted for Brexit. Jopal22 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's synthesis. There's no discussion of sovereignty in the article at all. The lead is a summary of the body of the article, and the body of the article should draw from reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sovereignty is not a sliding scale; a nation is either sovereign or it isn't. If the UK had "given up ... its sovereignty" in 1972, it would not have been able to choose to exit the EU. Parliament (and therefore the UK) remains sovereign because, if the ECJ hands down a ruling that Parliament does not like, it can choose not to implement it through withdrawal. The lead remains factually incorrect and biased. 129.31.247.31 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The sentence says that the party "portrays itself as": what follows is therefore what the party says, rather than what is true. There's no point debating the truth of it. The only question is whether this is an accurate portrayal of the Brexit Party's rhetoric. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My previous comment was not the backing for the text in the page, just a comment about the sovereignty discussion overall. I think other parts of the challenge made here a kind of fair though. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that all the precursors of the Brexit Party (UKIP, Farage, referendum debate, Leave means Leave etc), heavily pushed this position. But I agree that it is borderline WP:SYNTH that the message continues to be key to the Brexit Party. They do continue the message (e.g. take back control of our waters in election leaflets, and Farage on tv with "it’s about do we govern our own country or don’t we?” But Kelly snapped back: “Nigel is full of his abstracts, I suggest that we are a free country and it’s insulting to claim that Westminster isn’t sovereign.”https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/good-morning-britain-debate-between-matt-kelly-and-nigel-farage-1-5698169), but I don't think that is there central message which seems to be democracy, betrayal, broken politics etc. Feel free to suggest alternative text on how they portray themselves Jopal22 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, just seen my Farage on tv comment was pre Brexit party. Ignore that bit Jopal22 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There remains confusion here over what the sentence "The Brexit Party portrays itself as a being focused on the restoration of Britain’s democratic sovereignty" actually means. As currently presented, there is an implicit acknowledgement that the stated goal -- "the restoration of Britain’s democratic sovereignty" -- is achievable. It isn't. To address this, all that is required is for "the restoration of Britain’s democratic sovereignty" to be wrapped in quotation marks. Doing so would remove the implication. 129.31.243.83 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you put it in quotations then it implies there is a RS where they use those exact words Jopal22 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's reasonable. In which case qualify the statement, as I originally suggested, or do something else. But it shouldn't stay as it is. 129.31.243.83 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party vs The Brexit Party

I know we've been here before, but after looking at my ballot paper this morning I thought I'd raise this again. The parties were listed in alphabetical order, and this particular one appeared as "The Brexit Party" rather than "Brexit Party" and was placed between "Liberal Democrats" and "UKIP". In the past I've argued strongly for the present title per WP:THE, but I'm wondering now if we should look again at changing it, since that appears to be the official name. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? This is Paul (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. I would support moving to The Brexit Party. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd still go for "Brexit Party", you only have to look there logo to see the name without "the" is in common use Jopal22 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "The Brexit Party" however the commonname seems to be just "Brexit Party, I did an advanced google search completely immiting "the" which only bought up 143.000 results however "the" can be used in different ways. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Opposed. The European Parliament elections use the registered name of a party, not the common name. In the past the ballot papers have featured "The Labour Party" and "The Green Party" and the Conservative registration seems to be constantly tinkered with. We haven't moved those articles because of such technical details so why should this one be an exception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party's status with regards to Northern Ireland

I would recommend that "The party is not standing a candidate in Northern Ireland" is best amended to "The party is not registered in Northern Ireland and is not fielding candidates there", to better reflect their party political status in Northern Ireland. [27] -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Done Jopal22 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Closing. NiciVampireHeart 19:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Bolding 'The Brexit Party Limited'

@EddieHugh: (re: this edit). The Wiki naming convention states: The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title. That means the article title for "The Brexit Party Limited" would become The Brexit Party. Another branch of the naming convention states: If the official name differs from the article name, then there should be a redirect from the official name to the article. Also this MOS page states of bolding: This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. So taking all that into account, I would assume that it is expected that for an article having a common-name title (rather than the official name), which has a redirect page created for it using the official name, but named without the legal suffix, that the first mention of the official name in the article ("whether the term appears in the lead or not") should be bolded. Sorry for the long sentences, but does that make sense? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(The official name isn't "The Brexit Party Limited". The article is about the political party, not the company. The official name is The Brexit Party and the common name is the Brexit Party.) Ralbegen (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: yes, your point persuades me I am wrong about the bolding. That subtlety between company and 'trading name' often causes confusion, but yes, this article is about the political party, not the company. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, 'The Brexit Party Limited' isn't a redirect. It still isn't, and I can't imagine anyone searching for it instead of 'Brexit Party'. The long sentences make sense, but Ralbegen makes an excellent counterpoint on party vs company. I don't care about it much; my main motivation is that putting it in bold is ugly and the casual reader will wonder why it's been highlighted (and, without getting into nuanced interpretation of policy/guidelines, there is no good reason). EddieHugh (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreeed. Emeraude (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Brexit party member of the euro super-group

According to Steve Bannon, the Brexit Party will be member of the super group in the european parliament.

There are some source savailable for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.207 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bannon is not a spokesman for Brexit Party. If it becomes a member, include it then. Emeraude (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

But "Nigel Farage’s Brexit party has been in talks to join the far-right group in the European parliament and is keeping its options open about its future allies, a spokesman for the party has said". The Guardian. Bannon is not a spokesman for Brexit Party, but the spokesman for Brexit Party has spoken [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.115 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Still in the future, maybe. Emeraude (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Results

Should we include the Peterborough election result in that section? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section?

Given the recent outrage about the Brexit Party's remarks about Labour winning due to the "Pakistani vote", should a section on controversies be included? --Hermit ^20xx 15:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Although WP:CSECTION comes from an essay, it is usually followed, so not a specific 'controversies' section, no. And, in general, if someone's shouting "outrage", then it's best to wait and see if it develops into something that gets significant coverage before including it (WP:NOTNEWS, a policy). EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Eddie here. Best to avoid a separate section on "Controversies" or "Criticism" or anything of that nature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing 'Split from UKIP' disinformation from infobox

Reaper7 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that we shouldn't include "split from UKIP." This is not a party split; the Brexit Party was created entirely separately, and it has more recently been joined by many of the people who were in UKIP. This is demonstrated in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's more a party founded by ex-Ukippers rather than a party that split from UKIP. This is Paul (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should follow the body of the article, and the body of the article should follow reliable sources. I can't see reliable sources using "split from UKIP" to describe the Brexit Party, which they do for For Britain, which was set up by a UKIP figure after she left. I think that precedent sets a weak case for describing the Brexit Party as a split from UKIP. The stronger case against the description is that no reliable source has used it. In any case, the circumstances of its formation are already described in the lead and the body of the article, which allow for more flexibility and nuance than an infobox field. Ralbegen (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, seeing as we agreed on this obvious fact that the party is not a 'split from UKIP' can we start reverting the edit? Everytime I remove it, it is reinstated immediately. Reaper7 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's quite blatantly a party that split from UKIP. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It was founded by people leaving Ukip - that's a clear split from them. Timrollpickering (Talk) 08:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Brexit_Party/Archive_1#Split? for earlier discussion. I agree with Ralbegen: we should get the prose right, and leave the infobox blank if there is dispute over it. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It comes down to two things. First (as ever), what do sources say? Editors wanting to include the 'split from UKIP' idea need to present good sources that state the same thing. Second, what is a split in this context? To me, 'split from X' means a party was formed by people who left one party in order to establish a new one. That happened with TIG/Change UK. It doesn't appear to have happened with the BP: people had already left UKIP because of its change of direction, then they joined the BP once it had been set up. EddieHugh (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In terms of precedent, the other recent discussion on a similar topic was at Talk:Aontú#A_split_from_Sinn_Fein_or_not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

When people split away, they don't tend to immediately go on stage with a new party the next day (and the TIG/CHUKa/[Whatever They're Called Today] debacle is a good example of why not) but set it up slowly. It's also not unusual for there to be a flow of resignations from the old party to join the new one, rather than one big transfer. The Brexit Party has been set up steadily since first registering as a company in November 2018, the same month that the then Ukip leader appointed Tommy Robinson which led to so many abandoning Ukip. Sources describing the Brexit Party as a breakaway from Ukip are not hard to find including for starters Sir John Curtice stating "the Brexit Party, is effectively a breakaway from Ukip".

If the Brexit Party isn't a breakaway party, then the only ones that would fit such a definition are when regional branches and/or organised factions disaffiliate from a party and go it alone. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Leader of the Brexit Party

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to merge the pages. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

---

History of the Brexit Party is too short to justify a separate page about the office of leader. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support merge. I agree with the above rationale. EddieHugh (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support by WP:MERGEREASONs 2 and 3. There is a substantial overlap between the subjects, and there's not that much you can write about the office. Ralbegen (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Oppose. Other UK political parties have a separate Leader article; the article has been created, it serves no purpose to merge. Britishfinance (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Leader of the Labour Party (UK) exists because there's enough you can say about it and it wouldn't fit in the main party's article. Leader of the Social Democratic Party (UK) doesn't exist because there's not much you can say and it fits in the main party's article. There's even less to say about the leadership of the Brexit Party than there is about the leadership of the SDP. Ralbegen (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed my oppose to support, easier to follow a format like Scottish National Party, which includes a list of leaders. Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Per above comment, I support for now. In a few years' time, it may be different, but as things currently stand, the party hasn't been around long enough to have an article specifically about party leaders. Of course, that page should be merged here, not the other way around. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OVERLAP. The party's only existed for five minutes. This is Paul (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge, lack of sufficient content to justify a split. Mélencron (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support and snow at this point. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Not so sure about snow. This has only been posted for a single day; it might be better to wait one more day, IMHO. Overall, though, you're right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (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.

Polling day. Vote now!

Lots of discussion around terminology use to describe the party. I'm hoping we can close the debate by getting a straw poll of where people stand. So vote now! (add your signature in a free box next to your voting option). Feel free to add short comments below the voting box.

Question 1

The current text around "populism" is Generally described as populist, it draws its support from those who are frustrated with the current implementation of the 2016 referendum and wish to leave the EU without remaining part of the single market or customs union.

Do you agree with this phrasing?

Yes	Jopal22
No - it should be made more factual (i.e remove terms like "Generally")	Bondegezou	Ralbegen	Midnightblueowl
No - the term "populist" should be softened or even removed	Reaper7	RaviC
Other - please comment below	EddieHugh

• Thanks, Jopal22, for organising this, although I note, of course, WP:!VOTE. Positions should be back by reasoning, preferably with respect to guidelines and reliable sources. While I've voted for "more factual", I am fine with the current phrasing too. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but I felt the previous discussions covered the range of opinions and I didn't want to rehash it here (plus it is hard sometimes to add guidelines without seeming like you are adding bias or trying to steer someone in one direction). Any one coming in blind, please read the previous discussion on this talk page Jopal22 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Too tricky to answer with 'yes' or 'no'. Without description/qualification or without attribution, no. See my comments in the discussion. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The modal response is to be more 'factual', but it's hardly overwhelming. We could stick with Jopal22's current compromise of "Generally described as..." Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 2

Should "Eurosceptic" appear in the infobox under ideology?

Yes	Jopal22	Reaper7	RaviC	EddieHugh	Midnightblueowl
No - it should upgraded to "Hard Euroscpetic"	Bondegezou	Ralbegen
No
Other - please comment below

Another loaded term. Is it even an ideology? Certainly avoid the even more loaded 'hard Eurosceptic' (technically, that would apply to the Labour Party, such as it is, but they're not described in that way). EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we should stick with plain "Eurosceptic". Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 3

Should "Populist" appear in the infobox under ideology?

Yes	Jopal22
No - it should be "Right Wing Populist"	Bondegezou	Ralbegen	Midnightblueowl
No	Reaper7	RaviC
Other - please comment below	EddieHugh

• Specifically "Right-wing populism", but that's a matter of style. I think "National populism" could potentially work too if it's used more widely that just Goodwin. Ralbegen (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Just going to give my 2 cents on this. My understanding of the terms is that a party can be right wing and populist (e.g. low tax, small state but also populist), without being right wing populist (which means they are using traditional right wing issues e.g. immmigration/tough on crime etc to fuel their populist cause). Jopal22 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, too detailed to be 'yes' or 'no'. As a simplistic, largely meaningless but sourced label, yes; but because it's a simplistic, largely meaningless label, no. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The modal response is for "right-wing populist", although again not overwhelmingly so! Maybe more citations will emerge if the party gets more into policy discussions post the European elections. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 4

Should "Classic Liberal" appear in the infobox under ideology (as the party describes itself in it's constitution)?

Yes	Jopal22	Reaper7	RaviC
No	Bondegezou	Ralbegen	EddieHugh	Midnightblueowl

• I note the almost complete lack of reliable source coverage of this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at the moment, given the absence of sources. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not until the Reliable Sources, particularly those produced by political scientists, begin describing it as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

4:3, so let's leave it out for now. Again, maybe we'll see more RS discussion now. I have expanded the in-article text on this. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 5

Should "Single Issue" appear in the infobox?

Yes
No	Jopal22	Bondegezou	Ralbegen	Reaper7	RaviC	EddieHugh

That at least is clear. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 6

How should be "Political Postion" infobox category be populated

Left Blank	Jopal22	Bondegezou	Reaper7	RaviC	EddieHugh
Some variation of Right Wing	Ralbegen
Big Tent
Other - please comment

• Specifically, "right-wing", off the strength of sources mentioned in the article already about right-wing populism or national populism, but also this Al Jazeera piece. Ralbegen (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No rush; await developments. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ditto, let's leave blank. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Jopal22 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave time for others to vote, but looking at it, and taking into account WP:!VOTE (i.e. still need a justifiable rationale etc) I suggest the following:

Q2, Q5, and Q6 have winners. So we go for "Eurosceptic", "Single Issue" not used, and political position is blank.

In terms of Q1 and Q3, there is still mixed views. I know I am the only one who voted for "populist" and the current lede text, but I think it is the middle ground of the votes, let me know if you disagree

As for question 4. It's level, but I also take into account need for RS, which I cannot justify (I change my vote). This is something only discussed in the constitution, therefore someone in the body of the article I think it is fine to say "The party describe themselves as Classic liberal in their consistution". I don't think we can put it in the infobox though due to lack of RS and it would be a party self describing. If anyone voting for can put together a rationale, let us know.

Let me know if you disagree Jopal22 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There's not been much participation in this yet. Not even everybody who contributed to the above discussion has marked their views here. I'd suggest leaving it at least seven days since you first posted it, and consider notifying editors who have been involved in discussions but not contributed to this segment. You may also wish to request input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. There's no rush. Ralbegen (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say for the minute that big tent is a good description. The party had attracted people from both left and right, and doesn't have specific 'ideologies' as to its current policies Wikieditor123000 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Tice - co-founder

In the para immediately above the Welsh Assembly sub section heading, it’s says that (Chairman) Tice was co-founder. But there is no mention of this in the History section. Shouldn’t there be? Boscaswell talk 09:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No. I think the para immediately above the Welsh Assembly sub-section is in error and Tice, although a significant figure, founder of Leave Means Leave and co-founder of Leave.EU, did not co-found the Brexit Party, best I can tell. This is a good history of the party. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve deleted the offending words. Thanks for that! All the best. Boscaswell talk 10:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Reference to Economic Nationalism

I would like to include Economic nationalism under Ideology in the infobox Chemical287 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that most of the party believes that though, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Chemical287, do you have some examples of reliable sources describing the party's ideology in those terms? Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, reliable sources are necessary and you will need those. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The 'party' has been very recently formed, it has no members in a conventional sense, just 2 shareholders and 'supporters' so identifying its ideology is tricky. The Brink (2019 film) identifies Economic nationalism as an ideology connecting Farage and Bannon. I will look for others. Chemical287 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Farage may well be an economic nationalist, to use your term, but that doesn't mean his view is shared by those in the Brexit Party. Keep that in mind when you look for sources. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do, I'm aware this is a contentious issue. A manifesto will help if and when one is published. Chemical287 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing

I know this has been contested previously, but I've found many credible news publications that label the party as "right-wing" and think it is an appropriate inclusion. Of course, there are exceptions within any party, but surely the purpose of the 'position' element of the infobox is to represent the consensus within a party and/or its policies, and that is the logic I've applied here. If anyone disagrees with this classification, I would invite them to discuss it here. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Internet is Freedom, but I don't think your sources stack up. The Sun generally isn't seen as a reliable source on wikipedia, the guardian talks about the group in Europe they could join but nothing about BP itself, the third is more of a twitter opinion piece, and the fourth actually says "The Brexit Party, for its part, says it aims to draw support from across the political spectrum" without labelling them as right wing anywhere in the article. I suggest looking at the discussion in the archives. Also something like this https://www.theweek.co.uk/101632/what-are-the-brexit-party-s-policies sets out well how they continue to be ambiguous and do not actively promote a left or right wing ideology Jopal22 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I should have linked to this when challenging the Sun WP:RSP Jopal22 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Limited company

Why is this not explicit about the fact that The Brexit Party is in fact a limited company and not a political party? Its a limited company which pays its sole leader from donations from members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:2a41:f600:9053:ebc4:8d7e:58f (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of the history section is "A company called The Brexit Party Limited was incorporated with Companies House on 23 November 2018." How much more explicit do you want? Nthep (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If it is a company, how can it be running for elections? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a limited company. It is also a political party. It is registered to stand in elections as a political party. There is no restriction on how political parties who are registered to stand organise themselves: they can be limited companies too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The original comment in this thread says, "Why is this not explicit about the fact that The Brexit Party is in fact a limited company and not a political party?" Therefore, that must be wrong. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be an online jibe by people who don't seem to understand how parties operate. Most significant parties have a registration with Companies House to give them a corporate personhood for holding assets and employing people (here, for example, is The Liberal Democrats Limited) but this normally registers zero interest as a purely operation matter. But because both this party and The Independent Group/Change UK/[Whatever They're Called This Week] were set up a lot of eyes watching them, the fact that the company registration appeared first before the political party one resulted in much silliness. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. It is notable -- and has been noted -- that the Brexit Party does not operate as a membership organisation, like most parties. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Policies and Ideology

Nigel farage in a recent gmb interview on the 27th of august stated the brexit party wanted to abolish the house of lords and "political reform" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia won't allow youtube links for sources... How can I source this so it can be added then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be reported by a reliable source, then it can be added. Helper201 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no news websites have reported on this. But nigel farage directly stated it in an interivew, is that not reliable enough? He states "getting rid of the house of lords" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless this can be quoted from a reliable source and/or it is directly stated as a policy of the party on its official website then it does not meet the guidelines. What political party leaders state in interviews is not always official party policy. Helper201 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

He was asked what policy does the brexit party have aside from brexit, and that was brought up as one. The only website I can find covering something like it is the express, months ago, which I'd assume is not considered a reliable source. This should prove a problem then, as there is no official brexit party policy on their website. They have no manifesto, their policy has solely been told through farage, so far — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the Express is not regarded as a reliable source, per WP:RSP. It will just have to remain out unless a reliable source can be found that says this is a policy of the party or unless this is stated as a policy of the party on its official website. Other policies of the party besides Brexit are mentioned on the Wikipedia page and this is not the main aim/goal of the party, so it is not essential that it is included. Helper201 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of them are listed, but they are not the main/aim goal of the party either. And thus are not essential but are listed anyway. I think they are important information to the page as the party lacks a manifesto but has multiple other policies, I will look out then for something wikipedia proclaims reliable then. Eventually, if it pops up again. Disappointing that's the interview is not allowed thoughh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Should be added, the leader of the party listing it live on air is indeed trustworthy. Reaper7 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Brexit party local government

5 UKIP councillors have defected to the brexit party , source https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derbys-five-ukip-councillors-defected-3096267 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

At the bottom where it talks about local Government. 5 UKIP Councillors from Derby moved to The Brexit Party on the 15th of June. Reference: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derbys-five-ukip-councillors-defected-3096267 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLKirk (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/BrexitPress/status/1172185868171456512 9 more defected to the brexit party today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reference to Hard-Euroscepticism

I would like to change Brexit party's euroscepticism to "Hard-Euroscepticism". It is clear that Brexit party has more strong eurosceptic stance compared to common eurosceptic party in europe such as Red–Green Alliance (Denmark) or Finns Party. Also I had found reliable source that decribes the brexit party as "Hard-Eurosceptic". Jeff6045 13:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeff6045. Thanks for your input, there was extensive discussion around this in the now archived talk page. I suggest you have a look at that to see the positions raised by each side. There was also a vote, which went 5 v 2, and although wikipedia doesn't use voting to decide things without having a justifiable rationale, I think the vote was based on peoples interpretation of wikipedia policy. Note there are WP:RS's for both Hard Eurosceptic and Eurosceptic. Jopal22 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Article title

This is classic WP:OR but it was the case during the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom that ballot papers saw the Brexit Party listed alphabetically among other parties as though it had an initial T, as if it was registered as The Brexit Party. Hence, it might be sensible to rename the article thus. Harfarhs (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Policies

It doesn't seem right that this page lists the policies in the way it does. There's no scrutiny or criticism, no sense of priorities within the list nor any real context into which the policies fall - unlike the BBC article from which they're derived. Can we limit to one or two policies and direct people elsewhere? That is, unless someone wants to expand the page to discuss each area of their platform more fully...? VelvetCommuter (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Post Brexit Plan

Just an note that we should update this article at some point. Farage has said he has registered the name "The Reform Party" for use after Brexit has been successfully delivered. He also sets out key priorities of that party. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5IyvmX_BJg (it's in the last 10 sec of the interview) Jopal22 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Political position

Do we really not have any source to include a political position in the infobox? Surely newspapers and other medias have been classifying the party since it was created months ago.--Aréat (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aréat:
I agree with you. In French Wikipedia the party's political specturm already has been defined as catch-all party based on reliable media.
Here are some sources that describe party's spectrum as 'catch-all'. ·  · Jeff6045 05:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff6045:some sources describe the party as right wings or far right populist. We could add the infos? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was originally left blank as the Brexit Party said they were going to reveal policies after the European elections - which they haven't really. TBH I think you could find sources for a lot of things and there is still no clear consistent description in sources Jopal22 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should summarise the article. Get the article right first, then we can worry about what goes in the infobox. We have a policies and ideology section in the article. Feel free to add the references suggested above. Once we've got consensus on that text, summarising it should be possible. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Brexit party has certain deputies or attitudes that can be considered homophobic, one of the reasons for the departure of MEP Louis Stedman-Bryce. For this and other reasons, I would like to add that it is a right-wing to far-right party. Another addition that I would like to make is to put its ideology as a populist right, and not only populist, because populism can be left or right, but I would also like to say that the party is hard Eurosceptic, having seen that it was one of the main articulators of the "leaves the EU" movement, and be the main flag of the party.. User:Greenparties1 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Greenparties1. Thanks for your interest in helping to edit Wikipedia. There was quite an involved discussion around this on this talk page which has now been archived, perhaps it would be useful to have a look at that. I know people have differing opinions on what labels are placed on political parties, but an attempt has been made for consensus which I think you should try an engage with. At the very least any changes you wish to be made should be backed up with WP:RS as a minimum in any proposal you make on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there is hope for Wikipedia after all. A party with Anne Widdicombe and Claire Fox as MEPs won't be either left or right wing, except in the imagination of idiots. Flexdream (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Right-wing nationalism as the party's primary ideology

I have seen no justification as to why right-wing nationalism should be used as the primary identifying ideology of the party in the opening sentence. The party's primary focus is Brexit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47183976 - 'It has been set up in order to fight the election if Brexit is delayed'.

It was specifically noted that the party would field candidates from across the political spectrum - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47668067 It is also specifically noted in the lede that the party received endorsements from left-wing supporters of Brexit.

Claire Fox a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party was elected for the party and former Revolutionary Communist Party member James Heartfield also stood for the party.

The party has also proposed plans such as making British Steel part worker-owned which have been labelled as seeming 'seemed a hybrid of Conservative and Labour policy' - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/04/brexit-party-plans-john-lewis-style-rescue-of-british-steel

The polices outlined in the 'policies and ideology' also don't indicate a primary focus on right-wing nationalism. I'm not saying the party is in no way right-wing nationalist, or that this shouldn't be included. I even think it should be included in the lede. Just that it’s not a good primary identifying factor to encompass the party as a whole for use in the opening sentence. Helper201 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Sematisum + Ferange https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jewish-groups-mps-condemn-nigel-165649896.html ? 79.76.237.222 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's obviously being used here as a slur. No one in their right mind really thinks it's a nationalist party. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see a MUCH stronger argument for its inclusion, especially in the lead than those given. I'm sorry but this is blatant meddling however you want to spin it. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of commentators obviously not in their right minds then! Especially post Brexit some the allienaces and approaches were to link more closely with the far right. Per WP:BRD I have restored it - if you disagree then mark it as disputed while other editors get involved. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote them then! I see one link to one academic! The claim is poorly sourced. At present it is not justified, moreover the policy and ideology section doesn't mention the word "nationalism" or "nationalist" once. The insinuations of this are clear. I'm not raising a dispute when basic WP policy is being ignored. WP:RS WP:POV Alexandre8 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple here and then we have this "Goodwin and Dennison (2018, p.535) argue that ‘increased campaigning on issues besides EU membership, means academics increasingly label UKIP as a full-fledged member of the European radical right party family’. This view can be evidenced by UKIP leader, Gerard Batten’s belligerent tirade, referring to Islam as a ‘death cult’ and calling for 55 members of the Muslim community to renounce large proportions of the Quran (Guardian, 2018). This ideological shift can be linked with attempts to remain relevant following the Brexit Referendum (Mudde, 2017a, p.2). Batten’s leadership continues a UKIP trend of ideological nativism over recent years" in this article. That took me three minutes to find and you could have done the same. I'm restoring it per WP:BRD and if you disagree then make the case her and/or create an RfC for other editors to comment -----Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Brexit Party, not UKIP. Wakey wakey. Undone restoration as OP seems to have confused two different political parties. If you recognise the mix up, let's move on and put it to an honest mistake. If from some reason you still think UKIP and Brexit Party are the same entity, I will raise a RfC. I await your comment.Alexandre8 (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what happends when you cut and paste too quickly before rushing to make the Post Office. So sorry about the second quote which was as you say UKIP but the first source was BREXIT and we can (using the right sheet of extracts this time) add this and this and this. I see that populist has been restored per prior discussions. However I think we now have enough sources to change that to right wing populism per the more recent edit. So I suggest you now gather some evidence rather than simply asserting that you find one source inadequete -----Snowded ^TALK 12:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ok appreciate the honesty. Right wing populism is absolutely fine. I have no qualms with that. My point was with the wording right wing ÷nationalism. The article already reflects I feel. In the source you provided, I didnt see the correlation between brexit party only with the glaringly obvious nationalist UKIP party. I hope you made the post office ! Alexandre8 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see talk history. We explicitly decided against right wing populism. Obviously you are free to challenge that, but please review the discuss that has already been had Jopal22 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ok will review. My discussion here was pertaining to lack of sources justifying right wing nationalism. Will not touch further until further review Alexandre8 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The talk history above is very brief with few editors involved. Most of the sources I found said right wing populism so I can't see what the objection is. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Snowed I believe he is referring to the vote in the archive, I've just had quite a good read through. If the ideology has indeed shifted towards right wing populism in the last 6 months we may need to reopen the poll. *Correction, the poll was May 2019. so a year ago Alexandre8 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Brexit Party tied for largest party in 2019 EU Elections

Could someone please amend the section where it claims that the Brexit Party were the largest party in terms of seat numbers? It rightfully claims the CDU/CSU was an alliance, so not the largest, however, Lega Nord (Northern League) of Italy also won 29 seats, thereby making them tied for the largest party in seat numbers. Rgds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjamesll (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Liga Nord got 28 seats. They currently have 29 because extra seats were allocated after the UK left the EU. 10:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Welsh Parliament/Senedd Cymru

As has been seen, three Brexit Party MS's have formed a new group (with a fourth, Mark Reckless, defecting to Abolish the Welsh Assembly). In this tweet, the Richard Tice quote makes it seem as if the new group will be closely affiliated with the Brexit Party, even possibly hinting at a renaming to the Reform Party: https://twitter.com/PlaidBrexit/status/1317062166831419392?s=20. This could potentially mean the Brexit Party is still represented by the 3 MS's (in the Senedd you can still be a member of a party, even if in a different group). Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor123000 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)