Talk:Great British PAC

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for writing this. I'm not getting into the "right wing"/"far-right" debate but it seems like that should at least be assessed in this case based on following the sources. I'm also not certain about the "list of supporters" section being due weight.

lp0 on fire () 12:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

• GBPAC Logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding diverse, independent/reliable sources

I can look for news articles and such sources so that the description of the org isn't straight from an opposing political advocacy group.

But the point of the tag and the lede edit is that the description should not be solely from an opposing political group; that's clearly POV/not NPOV as best we can do. Abumoh00 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add additional sources, that would be fine, but do not remove existing sources. HNH is an reliable authority on far-right groups, like SPLC. See HNH's entry in WP:RSPS. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For sure, I can look around for some now. I have no doubt there are better sources in that regard. Again, I'm not trying to remove the source, the lede is what's in question currently; that source remains heavily used throughout the article, and one reason why it's not NPOV given the below:

From that site: "It is undisputed that, as an advocacy organisation they are biased." - can be used for factual content, not evaluative political descriptions of other advocacy groups they actively oppose. Abumoh00 (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, which is why, per Wikipedia policy, we state the organization that claimed it instead of in Wikivoice. We don't editorialize on the source. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

1. To your edit explanation question, yes 3RR was violated from what I can tell.

2. More importantly, where are your specific issues with the text; please be specific.

3. Yes, that's what I did; removed it as sole descriptor of org in lede, added it among a diversity of sources (mostly negative, but hey, that's what coverage sorta is for them), left lede representative of those descriptions, roughly weighted to partiality as best I could. Abumoh00 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, if you have disagreement on the recent edit please specify what exactly it is, so we can hammer it out together. Otherwise I can't know how to improve or change it. It looked good to me, with a wide variety of sources, and some precision/grammar fixes otherwise (next election is unclear so I put 2029 from the source).

Thanks for adding the other source as well. I'll keep that in the intermediate edit and we can go from there. Abumoh00 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, even if you added it removing a WP:NPOV tag actually requires the discussion to close here, secondly, far-right is generally accepted as the ideology of this org ("hard-right" is considered synonym for here), there are still WP:MOS issues, and your effort to use the WP:DAILYEXPRESS to describe the org, as well as a mischaracterization of the Observer which was merely quoting the Organization itself and seems to be doing so in a derisive manner and does not include the double quotation that would entail. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This is more clear, thank you

1. What are the WP:MOS issues?

2. Most sources I could find listed it as right-wing per the sourcing; wiki should be cautious of listing political labels as they are loaded and used pejoratively or positively depending on a reader's bias, especially so for lede and infobox, and especially so with 'far-___'/'hard-__'/'extreme-__' because they are even more loaded/non-neutral; although it can be difficult (but not impossible) to find a less loaded, and yet still clear/precise political description.

3. The Observer author wrote it as such, you are right, I missed that. Should it be kept then as a self-description? It's not cited who stated it in the Observer article.

4. I didn't know WP:DAILYEXPRESS wasn't ideal; for a diversity of descriptions of the org it's appropriate no? Given it's not a reporting of facts. Abumoh00 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Abumoh00on point 2. If it was up to me, I'd definitely label the group as 'far-right', their actions certainly live up to that label. But I am also a fan of adhering to wikipolicies and I don't want to stoop to their level. There are no reliable sources calling the group 'far-right', so I think it should be removed from the lead and the infobox until there is consensus amongst reliable sources that the group is 'far-right'. I think the term 'far-right' should still appear in the article, since the Guardian quotes Hope not Hate calling them that, but it can just go alongside the other terms used to describe it. Katiedevi (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Political position

I propose the group should be described as "far-right" in the lead (the infobox is for an organisation, but we can still include it under type) have expanded the sections on the Chagos opposition, which has been reported on by both news outlets and academic journals. In terms of political position, most sources state that the organisation is "right-wing", although 3 say "hard-right" which, and Hope not Hate describes it as "far-right [and] packed with extremists", and "radical right" (a subset of the far-right, which generally campaigns within the bounds of democracy and the rule of law, as opposed to the extreme right, which turns to violence).

For the time being, I will put the group as "right-wing to far-right" which is a confusing label, as right-wing is overly broad and includes the far-right, but once we have consensus, we can label the group as far-right. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

No way is far-right supported as a fact in the article body. There are numerous alternative opinions on this documented in the article. The best we can say in WP:Wikivoice is "right-wing" which is inclusive of all the opinions mentioned - so I've changed the article to use that to comply with WP:NPOV.

Hope not Hate is a heavily biased left-wing (some say far-left) anti-right-wing campaigning/activist (some say extremist) group and, if used, needs to be balanced by the views of equally reliable sources with the equivalent right-wing bias. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Being part of the right wing and the far right are not mutually exclusive. If two WP:RS describe the organization as 'right-wing' and 'far-right', one is a subset of the other, and we say it is far right (a part of the broader right wing). Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You can be right-wing but not far-right, so we cannot say that. Opinions can vary, and if the sources say right-wing without saying far-right too, then we cannot put words into their mouths. That would contravene WP:SYNTH and fail WP:V. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the sources say 'not far right' when talking about it in a right-wing context. That's the crux of the issue here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous is right - the group has never been dismissed as being far-right, and regardless of your personal views on Hope Not Hate, they are a reliable source and have gone into depth on its far right characteristics. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous, per WP:BURDEN, we need to show support that it is "far-right", not that it isn't. So please self-revert that edit which may be seen as disruptive, especially as it also reverted the addition of new content unrelated to this question and it reverted spelling corrections.

Per WP:NPOV we follow the sources, and where they do not agree we should document and attribute all the various views. We cannot just select one of those different views and assert that because none of the other sources say that view isn't true then it is not just a view, but an incontrovertible fact! -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You're completely misinterpreting what was said here. There already exists evidence that the party is far-right from other sources so that aspect of WP:BURDEN is completely moot here as there is at least one source that calls it "far-right". What you need to show is to remove the label is that there are other sources that call the party right wing, but not far right specifically. A source that just describes the organization as right-wing does not contradict a source describing it as far-right.

It's a little like if you have a source describing some square as a rectangle, just because it is described as a rectangle does not mean that it is also not a square. In order to show it is not a square you'd need a source saying it was both a rectangle and not a square, or a source saying it wasn't a rectangle. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Evidence that it is far-right? All I see are a couple of sources offering that opinion. They don't trump all the other sources, so must be considered as opinions per WP:NPOV. The "right-wing" label contravenes the NPOV requirement to attribute conflicting claims as opinions, hence none of them can be asserted as if fact.

Your "square" analogy is flawed. The analogy is more like you have one source saying the shape was a square, another saying it was a rectangle and six saying it was a four-sided polygon. We cannot assert from that scenario that is was definitely a square. Even if we didn't have the source for it being a rectangle, we still couldn't say it was definitely a square. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)