Talk:Restore Britain

Request for Comment: Political Position

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The lead and infobox should describe Restore Britain as exclusively "far-right", as most reliable sources do. "right-wing" shouldn't be mentioned as that term is more vague and used less in sources. Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the lead section and infobox describe Restore Britain as an exclusively "far-right" political party? Please respond with Support or Oppose followed by your reasoning. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

As of 9 June 2026, user who started RfC has been blocked due to block evasion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&wpTarget=%2325404809 for more information. In solidarity, t sunrise 15:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - the weight of higher quality sources evidence clearly that the party is far-right. Azarhabib (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• BADRFC and Oppose the previous RFC on this closed just last month. It is totally premature to open a new RFC, this is Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP. Alleged local consensus is not reason to open a new RFC, that's the reason the previous one was created, to avoid a local group dictating the page and get wider community opinion. I call for this to be removed to avoid wasting time. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  The previous consensus was explicitly based on the following: This is, obviously, not a permanent suggestion, but works given the limited WP:RS that currently exist. Then if sources settle on a label for reporting in the future, this can of course be reflected in the lead and the article. (emphasis added). CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Note: There was no RFC last month. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - the arguments in the previous discussion stated how Restore Britain's policy positions, operations and support base have been outlined as far-right:
  • The National / The Times (20 May 2026): Identifies the party explicitly as a "far-right political party headed by ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe", and documents endorsements from prominent ethnonationalist and neo-fascist movement figures.
  • The Week (6 May 2026 / Updated Mid-May): Published a comprehensive policy profile explicitly framing the group under the headline Restore Britain: is new far-right party a threat to Farage?.
  • HOPE not Hate Investigative Report (21 May 2026): Confirmed that the party's current Makerfield by-election campaign is actively relying on ground support from members of the neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative, solidifying its operational classification on the extreme fringes of British politics.
  • Party leader Rupert Lowe publicly responded to this characterisation on social media (20 May 2026), stating: "If being 'openly far-right' means deporting foreign rapists... then yes, sign us up - that's Restore Britain", demonstrating an explicit, indifference to the far-right label.

  Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and Speedy Close. The consensus for this was formed this week last month. We should wait a little longer. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 19:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean this week? The current wording in place is from a discussion that was closed over a month ago. In solidarity, nil ^nz 08:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Confused this with another RFC. There is no need to point this out. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 12:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  If a !vote is based on time frames, then it's appropriate to point out (in good faith) when those time frames are wrong. In solidarity, nil ^nz 12:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please see WP:REDACT and fix this edit per behavioural guidelines. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Admittedly this feels like a repeat of yesterday's conversation, but support. The original RtC's proposal stated it's not meant to be a "a permanent suggestion, but works given the limited WP:RS that currently exist. Then if sources settle on a label for reporting in the future, this can of course be reflected in the lead and the article." . Since then, reliable sources consistently call the party "far right", including one of the sources (The National) currently used to justify calling Restore "right wing". I feel comfortable saying reliable sources have settled on calling the party far-right at this point, to the point it feels a bit disingenuous for the article to say "right wing to far right", which implies descriptions of the party are more split than I believe they are at this point.

In terms of changing the article to reflect this, I would argue the only change required is updating the first sentence in "Platform and Ideology"; either just remove the "and right-wing party" bit or, if that really needs to stay, change the sentence to something like "When Restore was first established as a party, media referred to the party as right wing or far right. By the time of the lead-up to the 2026 Makerfield by-election, the party was generally [widely?] characterised as far-right.", (pretty rough draft, but you get the idea). The rest of the section already makes the case that the party is considered very right wing so little needs to change there. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and Speedy Close. This proposal is attempting to dictate the content of the first sentence in the lead and of a field in the infobox regardless of the sourced content in the article body. Currently the article body does not support the proposed content, which would thus contravene WP:OPINION and WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED by asserting an opinion as fact, and would also contravene WP:LEAD, WP:INFOBOX, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Reminder that RfCs are not votes. Whilst I do support the proposal due to the weight of the sourcing available, WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed and I'm of the opinion that the non-RfC discussion should not have been closed, especially by an involved editor. Per the consensus achieved in the non-RfC discussion, I've reinstated the proposed change. I believe this RfC should be rescinded, as proper procedure has not been followed. As has been pointed out to me, the RfC is necessary to overturn previous RfC consensus. In that case I support this proposal due to the obvious prevalence of "far-right" as the primary label in reliable sourcing. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've reinstated the proposed change. I have reverted that. When you have an RfC decision from just a month ago, it looks like disruptive editing to ignore that consensus in the middle of a new RfC that is far from unopposed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Consensus was already established, this rfc makes no sense. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  When you have an RFC result, you need another RfC to overturn it, per WP:CONLEVEL. The local consensus on this page is not enough because RfCs are advertised to a wider body of editors and thus have broader involvement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy: There was no RFC consensus established though? This discussion was not an RFC and the proposal that gained consensus was not an RFC either. In fact, it superseded the no consensus RFC from August 2025. Although given the result of the RFC was no consensus, then CONLEVEL doesn't apply, as there is no consensus being overriden. In hindsight, this RFC is a complete waste of time after all, as the previous consensus would have been sufficient to make changes afterall (given an uninvolved close that is). At minimum, please strike your comment here for clarity. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  OK I took the discussion closed in April for an RfC. I was not involved, but see there was a clear proposal and an uninvolved close. However, not being an RfC, it won't have been advertised as one. As such I have struck my request for "speedy close" although I still think this is premature, as nothing has materially changed, and it is certainly wrong to over-ride the existing consensus, even if not at RfC CONLEVEL, based on an involved close, when a contested RfC is ongoing. Stick with the status quo ante-bellum, and let the RfC run its course. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did mean your comments above to avoid the unintentional spread of misinformation, but nevermind. Indeed the involved close was completely inappropriate for such a topic. However the close occurred due to the opening of an RfC, not during a contested RfC: no-one had contested this RfC within the 5 minutes prior to the close (assuming the unsigned timestamp is correct). This is simple matter of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, nothing else. The creation of this RFC was thus entirely redundant as it ignores WP:RFCBEFORE: If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC., based on emerging consensus, even if not yet confirmed. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  My "over-ride" comment was not about the involved close but about placing the RfC proposed text in the article when the RfC is clearly contested and ongoing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and Speedy Closestriking speedy close as discussion closed in April was not a full RfC - Five new sources not discussed in the just closed RfC are brought to bear:

• The national, the Times and The Week are newspapers. It's not nothing. These demonstrate journalists are willing to call the matter and call them far-right (which they are generally unwilling to do with those who may sue them, such as Nigel Farage). And the Times is more noteworthy on that score than the others. But they are still newspapers, and their reasons for doing so are opaque.
• Hope not Hate is an advocacy site, and actually don't out and out call them far-right, but note that people who are part of the far-right are making a home there. I like Hope not Hate, but I don't think it is encyclopaedic to use them as a source on this matter.
• Rupert Lowe speaking is a primary source.

And that is all of the new sourcing. Sorry, but it is not enough to shift the needle when we have only just arrived at a consensus (in which I was uninvolved) that we call them "right wing to far right". If no sources called them far-right, then that RfC decision would be wrong. Three new newspapers is not enough to dispute that. not by a long way.

As I said on the Advance UK page: The term far-right is not a stable category and its meaning can shift across countries and periods. And that is a problem for a global encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is clearly not single authored, and the definition on one page is not the definition on another. See the introduction to this work and especially on the problem of definition. The term "far-right" is an analytical shorthand, not a precise legal or ideological classification. The term is often politicised in both academic and popular usage. Note also what they say about the Wikipedia entry, and think critically about it - they are right, because of the way we assemble articles.

But there is hope. Cas Mudde, who is prominently quoted on our page on the far-right, has sought to produce a working definition of the far-right in a manner that has been widely (but not uncritically) accepted. Mudde's three pronged definition (nativism, authoritarianism, populism) is good (Mudde especially stresses nativism), but in the same way as, say, the Bebbington quadrilateral has elicited much debate in another area of history, Mudde's definition is not perfect (one criticism is that nativism and nationalism can be confounded). It will, however, probably (in my opinion) stand the test of time, and with modifications and caveats, will probably be seen to have isolated the defining aspects of the far-right. But look at this book review of Mudde's book: . McGlynn says:

He might have made more of the tendency for lazy and pejorative brandishing of all populist right‐wing politics as ‘far/hard/extreme right’ which is complacently dangerous, worryingly making it harder to identify the emergence of the very real threat from genuine, malevolent, extreme right movements.

And that is a suitable caution. Those who want to label this or any party as far-right may feel, in perfect good faith, that they are warning the reader about dangerous ideologies, but if all populist right-wing politics is so labelled, the label will lose its power, and the real threats will not be noticed. We can and should do better.

So what to do? To be honest, this party looks to me to be rather far to the right. But why is that even necessary to state in wikivoice in the first sentence? If it is clear what they are from the article, then the only benefit of placing that word, on its own, in the lead is because the academic consensus is clear that this forms part of the new British far-right. We don't have the academic consensus yet. Proceed with caution. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The biggest argument in my opinion to change the primary label is the sheer deficit of sourcing saying otherwise. To my knowledge, so far, only 4 sources have been found specifically saying only "right-wing", one of which has been superceded by the same publication using "far-right" instead, two of which also used descriptors like "to the right of Reform, and all of which were only in passing comments. We now have triple the sourcing supporting far-right as we do for "right-wing", and I think it's undue to give them both the same weight in wikivoice. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood what I intended to say there. What is the academic consensus? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, there are no academic papers that have been written about the party that I'm aware of. So currently, the best available sources are journalistic ones. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Right. So again, to quote myself from the other page: the penchant for writing so-called encyclopaedic articles based on information distilled from newspapers is peculiarly Wikipedian. I can't see Wikipedia editors ever resisting the temptation to rush to write articles parroting what they see in news media, but McGlynn's caution ought to apply to journalists (and you know it won't), as well as to those who wish to critically distill what journalists say (which, to my mind, is premature synthesis, but that's a matter of the historiography, which is lacking here). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliable newspapers are explicitly listed as an acceptable source in Wikipedia's reliable sources policy for statements of fact. I don't understand your reasoning. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. And yet, I don't think I can be clearer. Our difference is, I expect, ideological, and we will leave it there. You want to follow the news reporting. I don't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, well-established news outlets are generally reliable and their use is widespread across WP for this reason. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is preferred but far from a requirement. So what is the policy-based rationale for this oppose? Per the previous discussion, do we have reliable sources rejecting the far-right label? If so, can they now be provided please?

I reject the WP:RGW argument here, this should not be relevant at all to labeling a party based on reliable sources: [...] if all populist right-wing politics is so labelled, the label will lose its power, and the real threats will not be noticed. We can and should do better. An encyclopedia is about accuracy, not warning the user of anything.

If it is clear what they are from the article, then the only benefit of placing that word, on its own, in the lead is because the academic consensus is clear that this forms part of the new British far-right. This is incorrect. Per MOS:FIRST: we are supposed to tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, it has nothing to do with academic sourcing.

We don't have the academic consensus yet. And...? CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You have inverted that. Mine is not a RGW argument. It is an argument that RGW is not a reason to come to a premature synthesis based on a handful of news media sources. Let's be clear of a few things. The Times, for instance, does not actually call Restore a far-right party. What the article says is:

The former British National Party (BNP) official said the party, launched by the Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe in February, offered the far right its last mainstream political opportunity to obtain power in the UK and said there was “a world of difference” with Reform UK.

That is, the article is saying that two far-right figures have decided to desert Reform UK and instead to support Restore Britain, because they believe it is a "mainstream" political party that nevertheless skews far enough to their ideology that they can support (and presumably, they hope, steer) it. It's a subtle difference. As I say, it is clear this party skews heavily rightwards. But we are not even debating whether it can be considered far right - the last RfC already found it may be described as " right-wing to far-right". Those supporting this RfC are saying no, that's not good enough. It is far right and nothing else. The Times article does not say or imply that. The Times article heavily implies it is a mainstream right-wing part, that skews far enough towards the far-right that they can support it.

But note, now, what I am doing. I am reading the source critically, analysing what it is saying, and attempting to synthesise this with other sources that must also be read critically as they derive from a journalistic media landscape. Note also what I have said above about the problem of definition. We are attempting here to synthesise sources that may call the party far-right, but which don't do so within any academic framework, to come to a view that the party (about which we lack sufficient policy clarity) is itself far-right. This is an RfC to say we can call them far-right only (rather than "right wing to far-right") because some newspapers do. That is a problem. That Wikipedians often won't recognise it as a problem is not something I can change, and if you like articles written from news media, I'll not change your view, but neither are you going to convince me that a properly encyclopaedic article should be built on a premature synthesis, especially when it is editors doing the synthesis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if you feel I have inverted your RGW argument, that was not my intent. I read from ideologies, but as part of the rebuttal to that. Can you clarify, did you instead mean to say Those who want to label this or any party as far-right may feel, [...] if all populist right-wing politics is so labelled, the label will lose its power, and the real threats will not be noticed. instead? I don't mean to crude cut your quotes, just trying to make sense of your argument that to me still appears to say RGW is wrong, and we shouldn't do that, but that there are effectively good reasons to counter it based on the same logic?

Question: why was there consensus for "right-wing to far-right" without academic sourcing, if it's clear we require academic sourcing for such a claim? Ie why is ok to say X not but Y, based on lesser quality sourcing? This part I still do not understand from a policy-based perspective, even if I understand (and disagree) with your source analysis and synthesis. The parties policies otherwise have nothing to do with this label, which should be based on RS not original research; ie not our own interpretation of far-right, or whether by analysing the policies we can attribute the label. Likewise whether journalists are qualified to be using this label or not is not something that is written into policy either (only that better sources should be used when available).

I agree it's not great when articles are written only from newspapers, and that this is not a great article, but that is all we have right now and how the article is currently written. But either way, thanks for elaborating, I think I have a slightly better understanding of your perspective, even if I disagree. Also happy to agree to disagree. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

What I meant (and thought I said) in "ideologies, but..." was that I accept the good faith with which people want to call out the far-right when they think they see it, but if we, in the process, apply the label to all populist parties, then we inadvertently sabotage our writing by emptying it of its power. The choice of language is ours. We can wait for academic sources to reach a consensus on this, or we can say "oh yeah, these journalists are happy to use it without being sued, let's do that, and ignore the journalists who don't, because WP:MANDY or something." But if we do the latter, our articles do not read like they belong in an encyclopaedia (WP:5P1) with neutrality as one of its five pillars (WP:5P2).

To your question: why was their consensus on "right-wing to far-right" without academic sourcing? I can't really comment on a discussion I was not involved in. But as a general rule, broader definitions are better than narrow ones where the overlaps are fuzzy. It's not the best wording, but it does seem to encompass the range of opinions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

we inadvertently sabotage our writing by emptying it of its power is precisely the RGW mentality I referenced earlier. We shouldn't concern ourselves over the use of the far-right label loosing it's power, with the notion that the real threats will not be noticed by doing so. Instead we should leave the academics to do that part and instead document the coverage in a neutral way, without the need to adhere to those principles above our own policies and guidelines. This is the main the issue with presenting WP:TRUTH rather than WP:V, when motivated by a common cause to do so.

Regarding "broader definitions", per MOS:FIRST: If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition (emphasis added), so strongly disagree. The fact no-one is really discrediting the far-right label, but instead only arguing why we should not be using it instead, speaks volumes. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As Restore Britain (in any form) is only 371 days old, there will be little to no academic historiography. Why would you expect tons of academic sourcing to exist for a party that is only 1 year old, when peer-review usually takes several months, sometimes even longer? Verifiability takes precedence over truth. As for academic sources supposedly being better: Countless articles about contemporary politics rely on news websites. Expect to wait until the early 2030s to find academic historiography for the 2026 Iran war, as an example. "The news" is not a single cohesive organization, so any statements about news-wide editorial practices will be an overgeneralization to say the least. The quality of news sources varies tremendously from website to website. For instance, The Guardian and The New York Times have strong editorial oversight and factchecking. Whereas The Daily Mail and Fox News have pretty much no oversight and no factchecking.

As for the term "far-right", no one has outright discredited the concept. In general, the exact terminology for the distant-from-center right-wing subsets is pretty much debated among scholars, with different scholars preferring different terminology. Some scholars prefer to use "far right", while other scholars prefer to use "radical right".

I would suggest writing it as follows:

Restore Britain has variously been described as a right-wing, far-right, or radical-right party.

SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The current description of Restore Britain's political position as "Right-wing to far-right" is logically incoherent and structurally redundant. Our core mandate on Wikipedia is to provide readers with the most specific, clear description that is sufficiently backed by reliable sources (Wikipedia:DUE). Broadening the descriptor to include "right-wing" adds no clarity; it actively obscures the well-documented labels used by sources, which undermines the weight of source materials.

Mostly recent examples of independent reliable sources explicitly classifying Restore Britain as far-right, particularly in coverage surrounding the upcoming Makerfield by-election:

• The Guardian explicitly reports on the party as part of the "far-right" buildup in Makerfield.
• The Sun explicitly categorises the movement as "far-right" in its analysis of the split with Reform UK.
• The Liverpool Echo unambiguously labels Rupert Lowe as the leader of a "far-right political party" due to his platform.
• The Financial Times similarly tracks the party's momentum as a "far-right offshoot" gaining social media traction.

While some secondary coverage may occasionally use the much vaguer and broader umbrella term "right-wing", this is what multiple sources describe it as because "far-right" is a subset of "right-wing" rather than necessarily an alternative to it.

Using "right-wing to far-right" is a confusing and incoherent description. Because "right-wing" inherently includes the "far-right," structuring the definition this way would be like describing a colour as "red to scarlet" or "green to emerald green". The broader term "right-wing" adds no clarity any more than "red" or "green" does in those comparative examples. At best, it is unnecessary. At worst, it is confusing, giving the impression that the position is less defined than it actually is.

This is a well-sourced and coherent description. Our job here is to provide our readers with the most specific description that is sufficiently well-sourced. Given that the party's platform, encompassing total bans on the burqa, bans on kosher/halal slaughter, and a 133-page policy paper focused on "mass deportations", is uniformly used by high-quality RS to identify them as far-right, the infobox should reflect this specificity directly. Let's drop the redundant "right-wing" prefix. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per previous discussion. There is diverse sourcing from reliable sources labelling the party as far-right per Restore Britain#Platform and ideology. If there are reliable sources (plural, not just an outlier) that disputes the far-right label then opposers should provide them. Per comment above, I reject the policy-redundnant argument that scholarship is required, or that we should try and right great wrongs. Once better sources emerge, we can reevaluate if needed, just as we are doing so now. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  • The Independent, 25 May: - "Rupert Lowe’s party - which was set up as a right-wing challenger to Reform - in a series of posts on X..."
  • The Times, 9 May: - It’s going very well,” Rupert Lowe, the businessman turned Ukip politician, Reform MP, and founder of the challenger right-wing party Restore Britain"
  • The Critic 23 February: "On the thirteenth of this month, Rupert Lowe registered Restore Britain as a political party — only the latest in a series of right-wing parties aiming to outflank the mainstream right to the right.."
  • The Spectator 16 February: "You wait years for a right-wing party – and then a veritable fleet comes along at once."
  • GB News 25 May: (can't be bothered to quote them. It's GB news).
  • The Telegraph 25 May: and again.
  • The Sun 30 May: and again.

But note the objection is mis-stated. No one is disputing the far-right label, which is already there. You are arguing that we should not call them "right-wing" because some call them far-right. As we see, plenty call them right wing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

GB News is generally unreliable, The Spectator is a publisher of opinion pieces. The Telegraph article doesn't describe the party's position, The Critic source is already in the article, being used to support the label "right of reform". A more recent article by The Times uses "far-right" instead of "right-wing" as a label. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the Times does not. See my comment above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Re opinion pieces: as we do not have unanimity amongst the sources, we are only concerned with opinions here anyway (per WP:NPOV: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice.). Hence we can include them all, including those from the opinion pieces, in the same way - not in Wiki's voice, but attributed in the article body text (per WP:OPINION). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:THESUN has been deprecated, WP:GBNEWS is also trash. No one is disputing the far-right label, which is already there. I'll wait patiently for sourcing then. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

An important point is is that the lead should follow the body:

• No Unique Information: The lead must never introduce new facts, claims, or arguments that do not appear later in the article (WP:LEAD).
• Reflecting the Body: If the body of the article describes a topic as "far-right" with multiple reliable sources, the lead should reflect that exact specific consensus.
• Proportional Weight: The lead must reflect the prominent points of the body in proportion to the depth of their coverage (WP:LEADWEIGHT).

For example, two sections of the body specifically outline the party as far-right:

1. Restore Britain#History#Far-right support - which shows prominent neo-fascist and ethnonationalist support in the party, and
2. Restore Britain#Platform and ideology, which states; "Restore is a far-right party, generally considered to be to the right of Reform and part of the radical right."

Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Those examples are both flawed though. The first is synthesising a conclusion not supported by the sources, that the party is far-right, simply because it has attracted support from some on the far-right. The second is relying on a sentence which contravenes the neutrality policy by isolating one opinion from the full range of opinions and asserting that opinion as if a fact in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that seriously contest the description of "far-right"? Sure, there are many than only call them "right wing", but that in and of itself doesn't contest or contradict the "far right" label. In solidarity, nil ^nz 03:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ, I'm not arguing whether they are far-right, or not. I'm sorry that isn't clear by now. What I am arguing is that the lead and infobox of this article should summarise the body content of this article, per all the wiki policies and guidelines that I'm fed-up of citing (and, no doubt, others here are fed-up of reading).

Currently the body of this article suggests that there are other opinions on this, so obviously that should be fully and P&G-compliantly reflected in the lead and infobox.

That should all go without saying. If we think the lead and infobox are wrong or that the body is wrong, the Wikipedia way to change things is to first agree whether the article body itself is wrong or out-of-date, and if it is, then to fix it - carefully following the P&Gs, of course, especially wrt facts versus opinions and with appropriate attribution and context, and the tone and loading of the prose. This will lessen the chances of it being disputed and edit-warred in the future.

The last thing to do is to review the lead and infobox content, and adjust them, if necessary, in accordance with the new body content. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that point elsewhere in this thread, but that's not what you were arguing in the comment I replied to. My question was directly related to that comment, in which you say calling Restore Britain far-right is flawed by wikilinking to WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. So my question, as you've brought it up, is: what sources have seriously contested the claim that "Restore Britain is a far-right party"? In solidarity, nil ^nz 21:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ, the article presents opinions other than "far-right", supported by several sources. We cannot assume they actually meant "far-right", their stated opinions do conflict with "far-right". Hence we follow WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, which says If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. The alternative is putting words into the mouths of those conflicting sources, and that would contravene WP:SYTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, none of these sources dispute the far-right label or suggest even that the party is centre right, and some of them are just broader labels for far-right:

• The Sun (28 May): How "far-right" Restore Britain votes in Makerfield pose threat to Reform and could hand Burnham clear run to No10 (different article from the same outlet you provided)
• The Critic (source you provided): "outflank the mainstream right to the right" - so far right
• The Spectator is a magazine so contains opinions pieces, it's not incorrect to say its on the right-wing, but a party that is far-right is still situated on the right-wing, it just pushes to the extreme ends by openly endorsing discriminatory policies, another piece from the Spectator outlines the growing antisemitism and racism amongst its membership.
• The Daily Telegraph in another article extensively documents the party's connections and support base from the far-right.

A party that is largely described as far right can still be right wing, the far right defines it more precisely, just like with Advance UK or UKIP, they are far right parties because they are largely described as such by reliable sources. They may have right wing leaders but their policies, platform and support base is largely far right. The terms do not contradict. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above, which I'll largely repeat here (I'm unclear on why a new RFC was opened.) The simple fact is that depending on context, "right-wing" does not contradict "far-right"; the "right-wing to far right" construct is an awkward compromise that isn't really supported by the sources, which lean increasingly clearly to far-right. The idea that we must describe it as a range, when none of the sources do, simply because some less in-depth sources just broadly say that it's right-wing doesn't make any sense; the sources that go into depth on its ideology or which discuss the larger context make it clear that it's far right. In addition to the above, see eg. If it was true that the far-right label was controversial or contested, or that coverage saw it as part of a range rather than some being more specific and some less specific, then it would be easy to find at least a few sources directly contesting the far-right label, or ones that clearly position the party eg. closer to the center in some way. No such sources exist, because the party is far-right and this is uncontroversially accepted among any source that discusses the far-right in Britain. The far right is part of the right, which means that arguing that the existence of some sources that only use "right-wing" in passing means we must qualify our well-sourced usage of "far-right" is like arguing that we can't call someone a senator if some sources only refer to them as an elected official; the former is a subcategory of the latter, so they don't contradict. Our role in that case is to just look at the best available sources and its overall direction and choose what degree of specificity to go with; and in this case it's clear that "far-right" is best-supported. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support: On Wikipedia, "far-right" and "right-wing" are not mutually exclusive. The far-right is a specific subset of the broader right wing. While "right-wing" covers everything from mainstream conservatives to radicals, "far-right" is a clearer, more precise description for Restore Britain. Reliable sources use it because the party's platform, for example mass deportations, banning religious freedom, and alliances with former BNP leaders, which goes much further beyond standard conservative politics into extreme nativism. HyacinthAmberleaf (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support The preponderance of good quality reliable sources goes with far-right. Some sources using "right-wing" does not contradict that. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - source I've found one academic source. Note that although it has a DOI and is published in Sage Journals, the specific journal is Political Insight, which is a public facing journal of the UK's Political Studies Association. Although that is a leading association, it is not their high impact academic journal. Despite that caveat, it's probably the best source so far, as it directly addresses the question here. The paper is here: . See the heading Tracing the migration of fringe ideas into party policy and table 1. Restore Britain / Rupert Lowe is listed as radical right and not far-right.

• Harrison, E., & Brown, O. (2026). Listening to the Funhouse Mirror: How Social Media is Reshaping British Politics. Political Insight, 17(1), 22-25.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've found 2 more academic sources.

Bhatt (2025; doi:10.1080/01419870.2025.2555562) describe Restore Britain as far right ("The last point illustrates several fault lines within European far-right racism [...] In the UK, the neo-Nazi Homeland Party, Britain First and Patriotic Alternative oppose all non-white migration and call for mass expulsions. [...] a multitude of competitive actors on social media devoted to generating divisive, inflammatory, polarizing messages, including Rupert Lowe MP, formerly of Reform UK and now leading Restore Britain [...] The shifting ideological divisions with the far right can result in forms of racism that are predictably structured or erratic").

Abbas & Akhtar (2026, doi:10.1111/soc4.70207) write, "Restore Britain—led by suspended former Reform MP Rupert Lowe and adopting an openly ethno-nationalist register that Reform's diasporic civic-nationalist framing must explicitly preclude—has begun to peel grassroots activists from Reform's right flank". While they do not directly answer the question here, that description ("ethno-nationalist" and to the right of Reform) is consistent with far right.

Together, I think these sources support "far right" as the best descriptor, which is the term I supported above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The first of those was written before 5 December 2024, at least 14 months before Restore was registered as a political party - a very long time in politics. Most of the other sources in that first paragraph were from 2026. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The first of those was initially submitted to the journal on 5 Dec 24, but would then have undergone revisions and was accepted 22 Aug 25, so the text as seen dates to then. Restore Britain was created and existed for some time before Lowe actually registered the party, as we discussed here at Talk at the time. Nothing suggests Restore Britain's ideology changed at the point it was registered. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for these. At least we are now discussing the right sources. Although Bhatt (2025) doesn't out and out say Restore is far-right (unlike Britain First, the Homeland Party and Patriotic Alternative), your second lacuna has "Reform UK contains these tendencies, and ones that differentiate between Muslims and others, settled and recent migrants, and asylum seekers (Williams, 2025). Alongside is a multitude of competitive actors on social media devoted to generating divisive, inflammatory, polarizing messages, including Rupert Lowe MP, formerly of Reform UK and now leading Restore Britain" - suggesting that the writer sees Reform UK as attempting to walk a mainstream and avoiding the far-right label, but the writer sees the competitive messaging from Lowe as being more out and out divise etc. On balance, I think that can be very fairly read as arguing that Lowe's party sits within "The shifting ideological divisions with the far right."

I am less convinced by the second source. As you quote, Abbas & Akhtar (2026) don't answer the question directly. The label they use is ethno-nationalist. We can note that nativism is a key characteristic of the far right, but it is not alone. It is not a bad source, mind. Its use would improve our article, and it is not unreasonable to see the nativism component alongside authoritarian sounding statements from Lowe, and the clear appeal to populism to argue that this party sits within Mudde's definition of the far-right (nativism, authoritarianism, populism). But the source does not say that. Our use of it to argue the point would be our synthesis.

So we have one WP:BESTSOURCE that uses "radical right", one that does not call the party anything but clearly implies it is included in the "far-right" and one that calls it "ethno-nationalist". I think we are short of a case for wikivoice taking a stance here, but this is useful, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Radical right is a subset of the far-right which campaigns within the bounds of democracy and law, as opposed to the extreme right. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support: No sources describe the party as not far right (they just call it right wing, a superset) and many sources do describe it as far right. Doesn't seem like a close call here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  I literally just put a source in the comment above, that does not call it far-right, instead calling it "radical right", and that is the only WP:BESTSOURCE in this discussion! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's not the same thing as explicitly stating that it's *not* far-right, in fact, it's the exact opposite, as radical right is a subset of the far-right. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  That paper is explicitly not making radical right a subset of far-right. It speaks of "far-right and radical right communities" (emphasis mine). And all this superset and subset talk is synthetic. Further, to say, as a few people have said, including this comment, that because far-right is a subset of right wing, and that therefore all those sources we have identified that call them right wing, but not far right may be assumed to be calling them far-right, is a category error. If X⊂Y, and a∈Y it does not follow that a∈X. That is a non sequitur. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Allan Nonymous, @GlowstoneUnknown, as I wrote above in replying to a similar post; the article presents opinions other than "far-right", supported by several sources. We cannot assume they actually meant "far-right", their stated opinions do conflict with "far-right". Hence we follow WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, which says If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. The alternative is putting words into the mouths of those conflicting sources, and that would contravene WP:SYTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  I fail to see how these are "conflicting" labels when one is a superset of another. I'll also point out that the Harrison & Brown source doesn't actually state at any point that Restore Britain is "radical right" as opposed to "far-right", it only talks about different subsections of the "online right" and talks about Rupert Lowe & Rafe Heydel-Mankoo as part of a "radical right" subcategory of social media influencers whilst Tommy Robinson & Britain First are part of a "far-right" subcategory of social media influencers. At no point are any of these labels defined nor is Restore Britain actually talked about as being part of any of these categories. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  "... movement entrepreneurs like Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) ..." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes those are words in the article, listing Lowe and the party he is a member of. I reiterate my previous point. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  @GlowstoneUnknown, sure, where [label 1] is a superset of both [label 1.1] and label [label 1.2] it is reasonable to use [label 1] in place of [label 1.1] or [label 1.2] (both sky blue and navy blue cars can be described as blue cars). But to use [label 1.1] to describe all [label 1] members or [label 1.2] members would be nonsense, as it would be to use [label 1.2] in place of [label 1] or [label 1.1] (we cannot say that all blue cars or navy blue cars are sky blue).

  So how can we say that sources supporting any subset of "right wing" are automatically supporting using the "far-right" label? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Because the majority of sources say far right, if it was half and half then we could keep the current label, or if it was largely described as right wing then we could write that it's a right wing party which has been described as far right by some sources. In this case, it's a more specific term, and many of the sources that call the party right-wing in one article, in other articles from the same outlet say far right. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Because the majority of sources say far right Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, because the majority of sources describe Restore Britain as far-right:

  • The Financial Times: Categorises Restore Britain as a "far-right party" attempting to outflank more established right-wing political figures.
  • The Guardian (Commentary): Identifies the party as a key driver of the "extreme right" and part of a broader re-racialisation of British politics.
  • The Guardian (Politics): Places the party within the context of the "ethnonationalist far right" exploiting social unrest to drive an explicitly racial agenda.
  • The Week: Explicitly headlines and defines the group as a "new far-right party" challenging the established space on the right spectrum.
  • Yahoo News: Republishes and validates reporting tracking the movement as a "far-party" (far-right party challenger) altering local electoral alignments.
  • Byline Times: Directly brands Rupert Lowe's platform as "Far-Right Restore Britain" while investigating their local election candidates.
  • The Ferret: Documents the platform explicitly as a "far right political party" following the tracking of regional branch activities and extremist entries.
  • Novara Media: Analyzes the group's internal factions under the umbrella of the "far right" amid a breakdown in regional by-election strategies.
  • Hope not Hate (Briefing): Profiles the group's infrastructure as part of the "British far right" detailing its overlap with extreme civic and ethnonationalist wings.
  • Hope not Hate (Exposé): Assesses systemic entries into branches by detailing "militant neo-Nazis in Restore Britain" and associated open fascists.
  • Searchlight Magazine and Hope Not Hate: Documents internal power struggles within what it tags as "Rupert Lowe's far-right breakaway party" heavily influenced by openly racist social media factions.
  • On Demand News (ITN): Explains the party's growth and hardline nationalist policies as a challenger going "even further than Reform UK" on the political spectrum.
  • TRT World: Characterises the party leader as a "far-right insurgent" driving a radical platform for mass deportations.
  • The i Paper: Reports on the rapid mobilisation of supporters gathered to hear the platform of a "new far-right British party" expanding across the UK.

  Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  You misunderstood the question. This is certainly a plurality of news sources. How do we know this is a majority of sources (the claim that needs verfication)? Or even of news sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Financial Times continues to call them "far right". We can also add Jewish News to the list calling them far right. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy, I have found an academic source classifying Restore as far-right. Link here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03063968231164905. Found using BASE. Quoted verbatim from the article:

  'This article examines three contemporary far-right actors in the United Kingdom, Reform UK, the Reclaim Party, and Restore Britain, whose names and rhetoric are anchored in a politics of restoration.' - found in introduction

  'Restore Britain, founded in 2025 by Rupert Lowe is a start-up party, having formally registered as a political party in early 2026 [...] All three are treated here as far-right entities because they advance nativist, anti-egalitarian, racist, and anti-pluralist claims that target civil rights infrastructures and normalise exclusionary remedies (Davies and MacRae, 2023; Fekete, 2024).'

  Not familiar with academia at all, owing to me being a high school student, but this source does look pretty legit, being published by the Political Studies Association. It also does cite two more academic works in the latter citation that may be of interest. In solidarity, t sunrise 21:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, and that will be an interesting read, but could you check your link? The article you have linked is 'Davies, H. C., & MacRae, S. E. (2023). An anatomy of the British war on woke. Race & Class, 65(2), 3-54. The quote is not in it, nor would it be as the paper pre-dates Restore. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for that mishap.

  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02633957261455903 In solidarity, t sunrise 14:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. So this is a very new paper (just over a week old). Clearly too early to look at citation count, but that journal has an impact factor of 3, so citations seem likely. I read the paper and have a few concerns. Firstly, the paper is not so much about framing these parties as far-right as framing the concept of Restorationist Re‑politics (RRP). And on that concept, I have some questions, although I'm not a political scientist myself. I'll be interested to see what peers make of this, but my feeling is that this may not be well specified. It appears to me that large swathes of conservative, social‑democratic and even some progressive discourse could be coded as RRP. Consider how one could appeal to messages to "reclaim" workers' rights, or "take back control" of utilities. Is the author onto something? Not sure. But as we won't be calling Restore a "RRP" party, it is moot here.

  But there is the part you quote, where Samaras, I think correctly, notes conceptual inflation and the polemical deployment of the term "populism" in both scholarship and elsewhere. It is clear that if populism were more narrowly defined, he would call these parties populist. But does the paper erect a new straw man? Surely most serious populism scholarship already treats populism as a discursive frame on which the ideologies (nationalism, racism, neoliberalism, etc.) are hung.

  My problem with this lies in that the choice to substitute the language of populism with "contemporary British far right" is under‑argued. The paper briefly notes that all three are treated as far‑right because they advance nativist, anti‑egalitarian, racist and anti‑pluralist claims, citing secondary literature, but there is little systematic engagement with alternative classifications, particularly for Reform UK, whose status remains contested in broader scholarship. I looked at the secondary referencing. Fekete (2024) says the far-right is a spectrum, but spends some time talking about Suella Braverman's 2023 conference speech. The argument is that the right has seen a cultural revolution whereby extremist ideas have become mainstreamed. Thus it seems clear that this paper has chosen to interpret, based on this argument, that the ideas they have identified are defining, and thus they define Restore UK and Reform UK as far right.

  Now, how does that change the situation? This certainly qualifies as a WP:BESTSOURCE that argues that these parties are far-right. If we doubted whether the far-right label were warranted, this would, I think, constitute clear evidence that they may be considered far-right. We actually want to answer the question whether they should only be called far-right though. On that, I'm unhappy that a paper that chose to eschew the characterisation of populism in favour of a broad spectrum conception of far-right would be used on its own. The choice of the term is the author's definition, following Fekete. What is not engaged with, is Cas Mudde. That being the case, I don't think this is enough to change my view that the current framing is correct (right-wing to far-right). I don't expect my view to prevail - but I would be really gratified if some editors thought more carefully about this framing, in any case. And also, congratulations to yourself, as a high school student, searching for and reading university level reading. Thanks for finding this interesting paper. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  No problem! It really was just a search on BASE. In solidarity, t sunrise 14:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support, Restore Britain occupies a position further to the right of Reform UK, which is already pivoting hard to the right. The party has drawn open alignment and endorsements from British neo-fascists, and its platform and support base are distinctively more radical and overtly racial than Reform UK. It's about as far-right as a party can get within a liberal democracy. Aleain (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, they reject calling themselves “far-right” and most of the time the phrase is used in negatively portrayed articles, to avoid perceived bias we should use “right-wing to “far right” Cube1ber (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A) they don't oppose the use of the term, and B) the phrase is used in negatively portrayed articles – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Explain why you believe it's being used negatively, also Restore has stated their indifference to being called "far right". Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what other users have stated above, reliable sources categorise political groups based on consensus, and the overwhelming majority of mainstream media and political analysts describe Restore Britain as far-right. Failing to reflect this prominently would itself introduce perceived bias into the article. Aleain (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per the numerous reasons given above. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, "Far-right" & "Right-wing" IMHO are words to watch and scare quotes. Including in the body of the article that subject is variously described as X by A & B, Y by C & D, and Z by E & F would be fine as the description is attributed to a source, without saying in Wikipedia Voice that subject is X or Y or Z.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Scare quotes are specifically only quotation marks, and words can not, by definition, fall under that category. I fail to see how the term that the vast majority of reliable sources use for the party could be considered a contentious label or an imprecise expression. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Do you understand the definition of scare quotes? Aleain (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per numerous reasons given above. Remaining neutral due to lack of academic sources describing it as anything but Radical right. Support due to radical right broadly referring to a subset of the far-right as a scholarly term.
• Comment: in my most recent edit I have made the Restore Britain#Platform and ideology section consistent with the lead by adding a note listing sources describing it as far-right. It should be noted that incongruence between the lead and article has lead to complaints by some users further down the talk page; I believe we should keep it consistent across the article until a consensus for the lead and infobox is reached.

If nothing else, I believe this can be useful for tracking the weight with which news sources give one or the other descriptor. Right now, 'far-right' outnumbers 'right-wing', as I have only added 3 sources mentioned earlier in this discussion; please do expand on this. In solidarity, t sunrise 23:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I added two you'd missed, plus one you missed for radical right and one more. But I also templated both runs of excessive citations. We shouldn't be doing this. It is not a poll of news reports. The question needs to be answered by WP:BESTSOURCES for which we currently have just three, the best of which supports "radical right". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Or preferably, at least one tertiary WP:BESTSOURCE analysing what the secondary WP:BESTSOURCES are saying, per WP:BALANCE, to replace this unseemly WP:OR-fest with something that complies with WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Surely the weight with which news sources describe the party as either descriptor (Which to my mind, leans to 'far-right') is important in order to prevent giving undue weight to a minority of descriptions/views?

Regardless, I will rescind my support for now, until said WP:BESTSOURCES describe the party as either, instead of 'radical right', which doesn't seem to be a very meaningful descriptor. Thank you very much for your addition to the list of citations. In solidarity, t sunrise 15:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's an abuse of WP:BESTSOURCE. You appear to be claiming that anything published in an academic journal is much better than anything published in a newspaper/magazine. That is not the case. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I am claiming that academic sources that seek to understand where a party is on a political spectrum are better than newspaper sources who balance a deliberate editorial bias against the risk of being sued, but who have no duty to neutrality. Further, looking at the run of sources being added to the article, one notes that inasmuch as the use of a label such as far-right or right-wing is concerned, the opinion of the article writer is a primary source, and the attempt to take a run of such sources to arrive at a position is a synthesis of those sources. If an academic source does this (and note, one source has done it), it is their synthesis, and they are the secondary source. If we do it, the synthesis is ours. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support preponderance of reliable sourcing describes them as such. Call a spade a spade. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Support as well. References are describing it as far-right only. ~2026-34127-29 (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Can we please try to find a consensus for the ideology section as well? JJARichardson (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - A series of Wikipedia:Reliable sources refer to them as right-wing but not far-right such as Sky: The Telegraph: and again The Independent: and again Cube1ber (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose - I agree that there isn't a real consensus on this issue. Bravelake (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per CNC; we should not be prevaricating on these sorts of things as such concerns with political offense are non-neutral per WP:NOTCENSORED. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Comment - it seems that 16 are in favour and 8 against describing the party as "far right", however, are there any sources that specifically challenge the label, or present it more moderately? HyacinthAmberleaf (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  @HyacinthAmberleaf, have you read the 'Platform and ideology' section in the article? Its first paragraph has recently been comprehensively updated to use the best available sources. Since most of the comments in this discussion were made before that re-write, I guess they are now outdated. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but reading the source there is no mention of the word "right-wing", it only states:

  "Restore Britain — led by suspended former Reform MP Rupert Lowe and adopting an openly ethno‐nationalist register that Reform's diasporic civic‐nationalist framing must explicitly preclude—has begun to peel grassroots activists from Reform's right flank, replicating on the right the kind of fragmentation long observed on the left."

  I'm not sure if the term "right wing to far right" adds any clarity, in cases where the definition is contested by sources it could be used, but the content seems to support the arguments that have been made above. HyacinthAmberleaf (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  At issue in this RfC is the lead and infobox. Adjustements to other sections of the article have no bearing on it that would support an oppose direction. However, it can strenghten the support direction because it seems the section incorporates what this RfC proposes be put in the lead and infobox. The article needs consistency. Finfixer (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:LEAD: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Hence if the consensus here does not accurately summarise the current version of the appropriate section of the article, it will contravene that guideline, and probably contravene policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V too. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:LEAD will not be broken. Currently the article puts heavy weight on "far-right". As it stands the lead violated the policy. Keeping "right wing" in also violated NPOV by giving undue weight to a minority not by just mentioning it a lot but through a range solution making it equal to the media consensus. A consensus that indeed is verifiable through the sheer volume of reporting of the party as "far right" over any other label.

  In my opinion this RfC is ripe to be closed with a summary of the discussion by someone uninvolved. I planned to do so, but found that my knowledge of policy is still too superficial for that to be a good idea. That's why I decided to get involved instead. Finfixer (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  As it stands, with my stance added, 17 support and 8 oppose. While Wikipedia is not a vote a more than 2/3 agreement should after a long RfC qualify as a rough consensus. Finfixer (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support . A point was made by @Aquillion about the clumsyness of using a scale. I fully concur in that point. Using a scale of "right wing to far right" gives weight to nothing and is incredibly hard to interpret. It is especially problematic for comparing parties. I also join that there is a clear lack, as many have now pointed out, of sources saying it is not far right while there are a lot of sources sayin it is far right. NPOV demands that articles should give due weight to all opinions. Because, as already argued, a range solution is pretty much equal to nothing, it can't be used. Due weight must be given to the far right stance and any opposing views covered later in the article body. An article body, that might I add, now speaks of the party as "far right" all across. The main argument of the oppose side I have picked up is the lack of academic consensus. The rebuke for this has been well laid out, especially considering there seems to be no academic consensus to any direction. That's when Wikipedia is more than free to rely on news sources. Remaining concerns about NPOV can be solved by avoiding wikivoice in the lead by saying something like "widely considered to be a far right party" which is a statement of the consensus as opinion, not fact. Finfixer (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  A scale isn't "clumsy" or "hard to interpret". If a scale of viewpoints exist among RS, then our coverage should reflect that. This conversation clearly demonstrates a scale of opinion among RS. That some editors are hellbent on referencing just one end of that scale, isn't reason to follow suit. Bravelake (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  What does a scale do to a reader that seeks to understand the position of a party? It is fluid and up for interpretation. If there are in one country many parties defined as "right wing to far right", just because some sources prefer the milder "right wing" expression, what do we suppose a reader is to learn from that? The presence of scale makes it hard to compare parties. It has it's uses when two viewpoints are clearly on equal footing. But judging by the amount of RS presented for "far right" compared to "right wing" including academic ones, that is not the case here. "Right wing" is still a very valid point. No one is disputing it being a viewpoint worthy of respect. But I think, and so do many who join me in support, that it isn't such a major one that it could be put on equal footing through the use of a scale. Things would change if this RfC had a strong list of sources that dispute "far right".

  I think there is also rationale behing using "far right" independent of sources. Tertiary logic so to say. Restore is a split off from Reform. I doubt such a source exists that says it isn't more radical than Reform. It absolutely is. From that follows that even in the absence of sources it is propably a far right party. Then when you add the identified broad RS ontop you get a strong case for "far right" rooted both in sources and common sense. Not to mention primary sources that align with the secondary sources. Finfixer (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would support the following wording for the lead:

  Restore Britain is a political party in the UK. It has variously been described as a right-wing, far-right, or radical-right party.

  SVG-image-maker (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would use "Restore Britain is a political party in the UK. It has been widely described as far-right, but also at times as a right-wing or radical-right party" with the infobox stating "far right". That would better depict the contents of the article that indeed say the party is "far-right" first and foremost. Finfixer (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I want to comment that it appears that at some point, though now reverted, an attempt was made to remove "far right" from the platform and ideology section despite this ongoing RfC. That has the appearance of an attempt to contravene the consensus being formed here by using WP:LEAD policy to combat it. Essentially to make whatever is reached here null and void.

  I am pleased to see the edits were reversed to protect the status quo while this RfC proceeds to a close. That should come soon with it now being 20-8 in favor of support. That is about 71% in favor of using "far right". Wikipedia is not a vote, but if that is not something that satisfies consensus, then I don't know what is. Finfixer (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Support: I've yet to see a source that seriously contests the multiple assertions from multiple reliable sources that they're "far right"; the closest is the source from Sirfurboy that categorises them as "radical right" and excludes them from their "far right" categorisation. Even then, that source doesn't support us continuing to use the clumsy "right to far-right", which is currently in the lead. As already well discussed, the sources that have described them more generally as a right-wing party don't preclude or contest the more precise far-right label. In solidarity, nil ^nz 22:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Aquillion and Nil NZ. There is a heap of reliable sourcing that refers to them as "far-right" and I haven't seen convincing argument which demonstrates that the description is contested. A description of "right-wing" by some sources doesn't preclude or contest the more precise "far-right" label. TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support: Sources terming the party far-right far outweigh those terming it right-wing. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just a reminder: even if there were more such sources, WP:NPOV does not allow the majority opinion to be asserted as if a fact in Wiki's voice. It clearly states that "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  And so will not be done. This RfC is not, due to NPOV policy, set to determine exact wording as far as I am concerned. It is to determine what will be given weight. It will be necessary to mention in the lead and preferrably in the same sentence that an alternative non trivial viewpoint exists. My personal wording suggestion is "Restore Britain is a political party in the UK widely considered to be far-right, but also at times right-wing or radical-right". This acknowledges that the matter is up for debate. The infobox on the other hand does not need to do this because the purpose of the infobox is to be concise. It could do so through a headnote, which I would support. Such should satisfy NPOV by giving due weight to the alternative viewpoints. Finfixer (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Still waiting for these "conflicting assertions" to be presented, as many participants have referenced in the discussion already. I look forward to reading such sources. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you just came across them yourself, judging by the comment you added to the #Lack of sources at first section topic below, and to which I have also replied. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've yet to see an argument in opposition to the proposal which finds any sources outlining that the party is not far-right. The whole point of this discussion is to establish what current sources state, not to predict what future sources will say. HyacinthAmberleaf (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

References

References

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.

Removal of "right-wing" sources

I just removed several sources being purported to describe the party as "right-wing". Here I'm giving my reasoning for each one's removal:
- Reform's rival running in by-election helps Burnham, says top pollster: Only uses the vague terms "right-wing bloc" and "right-wing vote", referring to categories of voters or groups of parties; never explicitly uses phrases like "right-wing party" or "the right-wing Restore Britain".
- Rupert Lowe launches his own party: An opinion/commentary piece, would require explicit attribution to the author of the piece.
- Polish lessons for the British right: Another opinion piece, also needing explicit attribution.
- Manufacturing Consent: Faragism and the Hegemonic Struggle for Britain: A reliable academic source that at no point explicitly describes Restore as solely "right-wing".
- Is Rupert Lowe’s threat to Farage real? I went to Restore’s heartland to find out: An opinion piece that also at no point ever explicitly uses "right-wing" to describe the party.
- Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe launches Restore Britain party: Only uses the term "on the right", which would necessarily include the far-right and is just not above the explicit support threshold.
- Why is Restore Britain so popular?: Only uses "right-wing bloc" again, and refers to the party as "to the right of Reform".
- Could this woman determine who will be Britain’s next prime minister?: Only uses "right-wing" in a sub-headline, not supported by the article body.
Just thought it'd be useful to cover explicit reasons why these were removed in a more suitable format than an edit summary, so anybody curious can check this page instead. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this is a mess, but not just for "right-wing" stuff, so I've restored them all per WP:BRD while we discuss it. All the views on this are opinions that need attributing and we've been toing and froing on this for ages, both here and in other similar article. Why not do it properly per WP:NPOV and WP:OPINION? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources aren't opinion pieces, and I don't understand the reasoning behind re-adding the ones I removed. Most of them are independent news articles that either do (as with 5 of them) or do not (as with 4 of them) describe the party as right-wing, with 3 opinion pieces alongside them. I'm of the opinion that the two opinion pieces I removed per WP:RSOPINION should be attributed directly (i.e. X, writing for Y described Z as [...]) and not given equal weight in the article as generally reliable independent news sources like The Independent and The Telegraph. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an "opinion piece" to express an opinion. All those sources are expressing opinions, otherwise we would have unanimity, which we clearly do not have. Furthermore, they are all primary sources of those opinions. What we therefore need, to avoid WP:OR, are secondary sources to do the analysis of those primary sources and summarise them. Then we can reliably source OR-free content in our article with them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, opinion pieces are not the same as news reports, and they shouldn't be given the same weight as each other. Academic sources are obviously preferred to news sources, but that doesn't mean that news articles are not based on research. Also, that doesn't explain why you re-instated the sources that unambiguously don't support the label. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Both runs of sources are problematic. I marked them for excessive citations, but the template was removed (wrongly, in my view). We should not be doing this. Yes, if a newspaper article calls them X or Y, that is the opinion of the newspaper editor. We now have a political science piece that explains why they have chosen to call them far-right, and that one source alone is enough to verify that they may be called far-right (but not that they may only be called far-right). We also have an academic article that places them as "radical right". That alone should be enough for that descriptor. The best source for right wing explicitly qualifies their right wing lean by adding "ethno-nationalist", but it does not call them far-right. That alone could support "right wing ethnonationalist". Many sources also support "populist". But unless we are happy to abandon our WP:SYNTHesis for both labels, we should abandon it for neither. Neutrality demands that the standards we apply for one side be applied for the other. Would you like me to rewrite that sentence using WP:BESTSOURCES only? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My only quarrel with your suggested solution is that, with the limited number of BESTSOURCEs, we may be doing the article a disservice by excluding generally reliable news publications in their entirety when they are the bulk of sourcing even discussing this matter in the first place. I would be willing to compromise by putting "radical right" first, as the primary label supported by BESTSOURCEs with the other two labels (right-wing and far-right) as attributed to "various journalists". For instance:

Restore is a radical right party. Various journalists generally describe it as right-wing[b] or far-right,[c] and it's generally considered to be further right than Reform UK.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown, it goes against one of Wiki's primary policies, WP:NPOV, to assert any opinion as if fact. All opinions must be attributed to their holders, even well argued and strongly held ones. So I disagree with your suggestion that we state "Restore is a radical right party", as that opinion also needs to be clearly be attributed as an opinion. Sure we can adjust the weight we give to opinions but we cannot promote opinions to facts.

Also, we cannot use the weasel words "various journalists", or whatever, based on our own analysis of primary sources. We need that to be supported by a single reliable secondary source if we include anything like it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That was only a very simple example rewording what's already there. It was just a compromise suggestion that results in BESTSOURCEs becoming the primary source of information for that paragraph with reliable news sources relegated to secondary status instead of being removed entirely. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I would welcome that rewrite as a clear move in the right direction. This section has been embarrassingly entrenched in SYNTH for far too long. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've attempted a rewrite. I don't anticipate everyone (or anyone?) will be entirely happy, but I do suggest that the sources I have used are both the best sources we have at present, and show roughly where the political scientists are landing on this. I suggest we use those even if the wording gets tweaked. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me and a vast improvement in policy compliance. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, I get your general hesitancy to even GREL news sources. But depending on the subject in question, academia is not without bias, and in some fields of research it may be industry-funded. One shouldn't expect tons of academic sourcing to exist for a party that is only a year old, when peer-review usually takes several months, sometimes even longer. Verifiability takes precedence over truth. As for academic sources supposedly being better: "The news" is not a single cohesive organization, so any statements about news-wide editorial practices will be an overgeneralization to say the least. The quality of news sources varies greatly from website to website, and news reports are generally way better than opinion articles. For instance, The Guardian and The New York Times have way more oversight and factchecking compared to The Daily Mail and Fox News.

I would instead support an in-section statement like, "Restore Britain has variously been described as [X], [Y], or [Z]." This would reflect the varying statements in RS. SVG-image-maker (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Membership Number Inaccurate

The Membership (2026) states >96,000, however the membership figure for Restore Britain on this wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_affiliation_in_the_United_Kingdom) states 123,000 with a source of https://www.ft.com/content/f3bf8cc3-1be6-4c8b-9ded-61ee7f09f642?syn-25a6b1a6=1 (Lucy Fisher; Gross, Anna (7 May 2026).)

The Restore Britain party has also claimed up to 130,000 members (as reported by The Guardian in June 10th 2026 - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/10/restore-britain-right-politics-white-supremacist)

Please can the >96,000 figure be updated to 123,000 so that both wiki's match please, or even be changed to 130,000 on both wikis. Thank you.

Makethingsright7 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Czello

I'm just wondering if anyone has seen my edit request, as I don't appear to have any replies? Thank you Makethingsright7 (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks have fixed that article and corrected to 96,000 per wikivoice from reliable source. 123,000 is claimed without evidence, per the article and prose in this article at Restore Britain#Membership. Likewise with The Guardian (that is also WP:RSOPINION just to note as it's an opinion column). To clarify, if the party claimed they had 500,000 members next week, and RS reported that claim, we also wouldn't be adding it either. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor

Following the previous feedback that the membership figure required a reliable source rather than an opinion piece or unverified claim, I have located a reliable secondary source.

The Times reports:

"Restore says it has 130,000 paying members."

Source: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rupert-lowe-restore-britain-leader-interview-m32gqrzv0

I believe this satisfies Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements. The Times is a reliable secondary source for UK political topics and is reporting the party's stated membership figure.

For comparison, Reform UK#Membership currently cites a BBC News article for its membership figure. The BBC reports:

"Reform said it had more than 268,000 paid-up members."

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y2226x40wo

Both sources use the same form of attribution by reporting what the respective political party says about its membership, rather than claiming to have independently audited the figures. On that basis, I would be grateful if my request to update the Restore Britain#Membership figure to 130,000, using The Times citation above, could be reconsidered. Thank you. Makethingsright7 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fixingthelies2025 Would it possible for you to check over my edit request above please regarding Membership Numbers? Thanks Makethingsright7 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, I have updated this accordingly. Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fixingthelies2025 Thank you, much appreciated. There is one other section of this page where it also needs updating and that's under the Membership paragraph. It currently say's this:

== Membership ==

On 16 February 2026, a few days after Restore announced its launch as a political party, the organisation stated that it had reached 50,000 members. Two days later, Lowe said that membership had risen to 70,000. The following month, the party claimed it had reached 123,000 members, without providing evidence. In June 2026, the party is reported to have more than 96,000 members.

Would you be able to edit/ add an extra sentence about the 130,000 figure with a citation to The Times article please?

Finally, and I hope you don't mind me asking this too, there is another Wiki page here: Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom where the Restore Britain membership figure is also out of date.

The 130,000 figure needs to be added in the table with the The Times citation, and the date column adjacent needs to say June 13th 2026. The chart field also need editing with the correct figures. I believe its this one:

#invoke:Chart

6(undocumented parameter)

group 5 = 110000

I think that is all the places on that page where it needs updating, but you might spot somewhere else with you being an experienced editor.

Thank you. Makethingsright7 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response, I have fixed it, let me know if theres anything else that needs fixed! Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Makethingsright7 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nil_NZ @Fixingthelies2025 Nil_NZ - Please can you explain why you have undone the most recent edits to the Membership count? The new count was backed up by two separate references as discussed in the conversation above. If you are unable to read The Times reference because it is behind a paywall, please use a website such as https://archive.ph/ to view it. Makethingsright7 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

...? I've not edited the article in over a month. In solidarity, nil ^nz 06:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ Please check the history. You can see 2 changes you made earlier today. Makethingsright7 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, I have not edited the article since 15 May. In solidarity, nil ^nz 06:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ OK, I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing. I can see that your username is listed in the most recent history. I also received a message reply from your username. As a more experienced user, are you able to determine who reverted the Membership number changes which myself and @Fixingthelies2025 completed recently and the reasons why? Thank you Makethingsright7 (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you were probably looking at the history for the Talk page (this page), rather than the article's history. As you'll see, @GlowstoneUnknown reverted those changes, with the summary None of these sources report that the party has 130K members, in fact, the Guardian article even explicitly says "claimed". In solidarity, nil ^nz 07:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you @Nil NZ. @GlowstoneUnknown The Times reports:

"Restore says it has 130,000 paying members."

Source: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rupert-lowe-restore-britain-leader-interview-m32gqrzv0

The Times is a reliable secondary source for UK political topics and is reporting the party's stated membership figure.

For comparison, Reform UK#Membership currently cites a BBC News article for its membership figure. The BBC reports:

"Reform said it had more than 268,000 paid-up members."

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y2226x40wo

Both sources use the same form of attribution by reporting what the respective political party says about its membership, rather than claiming to have independently audited the figures.

On account of this, please can you reinstate the recent edits. Thank you. Makethingsright7 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:OCON, "claimed" does not pass WP:V. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, there are other sources actually reporting Reform's membership count without a "claimed" caveat. AND, in the body, the Wikipedia article explicitly states that the 268K number is only a claim. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

There is only 1 source reporting the Reform Membership figure of 268,000 and that is the BBC article I mentioned https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y2226x40wo

"Reform said it had more than 268,000 paid-up members."

The Times article I have provided as a reference for Restore Britain's membership count uses the exact same form of attribution as previously mentioned.

"Restore says it has 130,000 paying members."

If you are unable to read The Times reference because it is behind a paywall, please use a website such as https://archive.ph/ to view it.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rupert-lowe-restore-britain-leader-interview-m32gqrzv0

I do not understand how different Political Parties can be treated differently? Makethingsright7 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

That number should not be in Wikivoice, the largest unattributed number is 234,175 in June 2025. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"AND, in the body, the Wikipedia article explicitly states that the 268K number is only a claim."

Surely this can also be applied to Restore Britain then. I have 2 reputable References. May I ask that you reinstate my edits, and add wording to the same effect as what Reform have. eg. The 130,000 number is only a claim. Thank you Makethingsright7 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

That is already the case. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

my apologies, I was confusing it for the 123K number present – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Please can you then basically reinstate the edits, but add a note to say the figure is claimed then, as you appear to agree with me now. Makethingsright7 (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Done. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Makethingsright7 (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

We also need to change this:

Membership (2026) >96,000 in the main table on the right.

Reform UK have their 'claimed' 268,000 figure in the main table, so I feel Restore Britain should also have their claimed 130,000 in their table Makethingsright7 (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Not anymore. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Me again. So I have finally found another source for the 130k members without a "claimed" caveat. This is another Times article:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/makerfield-restore-andy-burnham-2gbfhs95q

"where a tiny fraction of Lowe’s 130,000 paying members spent their Saturday and Sunday distributing leaflets"

I trust this article now meets your approval. I have already cited this reference in the Membership section, but I daren't touch the figure in the table! Makethingsright7 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown If you are in agreement, we will also need to tweak the wording here:

In June 2026, the party claimed to have 130,000 members, without providing evidence. Also in June 2026, the party was reported to have more than 96,000 members. Makethingsright7 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the section to be chronological and to use just the source using its own voice, and reflected the change in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also just made a tiny edit to the info box - I've added month before year for the Membership number row, to keep it inline with all other Political Parties info boxes for their respective wiki pages Makethingsright7 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Section lacking neutrality

In the platform or ideology section of this article, I couldn't help but notice the sentence:

"Concerned over the perceived trajectory of "Native British births" by percentage, the party echoes the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, a conspiracy that claims that "non-native" citizens will eventually outnumber "native" citizens. The party has alleged that this will occur by 2070."

This reads to me as politically charged, according to the article on the Demographics of the United Kingdom in the ethnic projections section, all reputable projections do attest that the native White British population will fall below 50% by 2070, it's not a controversial statement, nor an outlandish theory, it's backed up by sources all across the political spectrum. The only ideological aspect of this position is that the party views this trajectory as a problem. Likewise, I've seen no source demonstrating Restore Britain actually perpetuating the Great Replacement Theory, never have they proclaimed that some great elite is purposely trying to make the native population a minority in order to foster division, rather they're just simply opposed to mass migration.

Therefore the wording here feels intensely politically charged as though Restore are promoting misinformation, conspiracy theories and inaccurate projections when none of that is true.

N1TH Music (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

its backed up by a reluable source. Need sourcing contesting it if you want to proceed User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be framed in a neutral way according to NPOV rules, even if it is a reliable source. Uplo85 (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Your user page is as expected. ~2026-39744-35 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. What an editor's userpage looks like is entirely irrelevant to content discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Uplo85 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2026

~2026-37071-50 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Restore Britain has 33 councilors not 32

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 12:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I want the number of councilors to be changed to 33 ~2026-37264-86 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2026

~2026-37311-62 (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Blank request. No action to undertake. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Misinformation

It depicts the party as being far right but if you do a similar search on the Labour party it somehow says it is a centre left when it is a far left party due to it’s current policies. Misinformation from top to bottom. ~2026-37881-01 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It says "far-right" here because that's how it's been described in a multitude of independent reliable sources. If you believe the label for the Labour Party is incorrect, and have sources that support your assertion, then please begin a discussion at that article's talk page. In solidarity, nil ^nz 22:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Lack of sources at first section

I noticed there weren’t any citations for the entire first four paragraphs, the ones that make up the (Top) section. Could someone provide sources? Uplo85 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is following WP:CITELEAD – as the lead section is a summary of the rest of the article, the citations can be found with the relevant information in the body. In solidarity, nil ^nz 04:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged "right-wing" as not verified in body, because, it's not verified in the body. Regards, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This reflects the problem I've been trying to highlight for a while now. The article body has recently been revised to eliminate the WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations that were present for a while. The result is that the lead is now out-of-date as it no longer summarises the article body accurately.

We now have the ridiculous 'cart before the horse' situation where we cannot update the lead to reflect the article body because the current lead wording has "consensus". So instead, you want us to re-work the article body to reflect the lead content!

The other weird thing going on is that that out-of-date consensus is being challenged by an RfC to change it to something else - something which is equally out-of-date since the improvement to the article occurred. If that RfC gets closed as 'supported' what would that tell us about the integrity of the process here?

I think your tags should be removed, the ongoing RfC should be cancelled, and the lead should be re-written to reflect the article's current content. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The article body was changed to dilute mentions of "far right" and add mentions of "right wing"... during the RfC. The reason given was using best sources. Those changes were partially reverted in pieces. While we are to assume good faith, it does seem to be of bad character to make such edits that could mean that a specific result of an RfC is nullified. That, if anything, puts doubt on the integrity of the system.

Currently as relevant the body reads:

"Political scientists describe Restore as openly ethno-nationalist, and to the right of Reform UK.[37] It is considered to be a part of the radical right[38] and studies have classified it as a party of the far-right.[39]"

This does not conflict with the result of the RfC whatsoever. The result of the RfC, which is now closed, is acceptable. While in the end I agreed that the stance of "right wing" should get some fair mention, I did not alter my personal vote, because as a core policy NPOV overrides an RfC. I have no doubt this discussion will continue for quite a while. Finfixer (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Party colour looks black to me

Party colour looks black to me 19:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Jontel (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's deep blue – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You may want to take a Tritanopia colour-blindness test... lol Ighs (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is this page falsely accusing Restore Britain as being an ethnonationalist party?

The leader of Restore Britain has repeatedly denounced ethnonationalism and stated he wants it to have nothing to do with his party. In addition, none of his policies are ethnonationalist. The only so-called 'sources' being used to justify this label are articles opining that the party is ethnonationalist, simply because of the views of some of the party's members and supporters, while ignoring the line that Lowe has taken on ethnonationalism. ~2026-32443-98 (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't prioritise what the leader or the party themselves say, as they obviously are always going to reject that label, despite what independent sources say. — Czello ^(music) 10:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

And why do 'independent sources' have more say on what the party is, than the person in charge of it? The party doesn't endorse ethnonationalism, whether or not some members support it, or whether or not some random people/articles accuse it of ethnonationalism. ~2026-32443-98 (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Because independent sources are, as the name says, independent. If we just repeat what the party says then we just become their PR wing. — Czello ^(music) 12:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What independent sources have been used to justify the labelling of Restore as ethnonationalist? I don't see any in the Ideology field. ~2026-32443-98 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

First line of the platform and ideology section. — Czello ^(music) 18:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As Czello put it, but let me explain this in more detail.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means it is a referencing book, a relative in function of the type of book made irrelevant by the advent of the internet. Encyclopedias by nature compile information, they do not produce it or contribute to it apart from transfering it. An encyclopedia must account for all reliable information out there. However, Wikipedia can only read and speak, it can't think. It can describe what the subject, a so called primary source, says about itself, but it can't determine whether the primary source lied or spoke the truth. That would need Wikipedia to think about it. No, instead to make that determination Wikipedia needs a secondary source or a few. The secondary source does the thinking and then again wikipedia compiles that. Wikipedia does have limited thinking capacity to determine what sources, so what are reliable and best serve the purpose of the article, to use and how to compile information, but that's it.

What Lowe says is a primary source about what he thinks. What Lowe says is the line of the party is still for most purposes a primary source due to direct affiliation. Wikipedia can only describe shortly what he says. That you could put in the article if you so wished, but you could not use it to remove what the secondary sources say.

Further reading;

• WP:PRIMARY, on primary sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability, on article verifiability

Finfixer (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Whilst indeed one source does describe it as such, it is not generally Wikipedia practice to use a single source to describe a group with a disputed label.

MOS:LABEL Contentious Labels establishes that ‘value-laden’ labels “may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.” A single source does not seem to meet ‘widely used by reliable sources’. Given the apparent lack of consensus on this issue, an in-text attribution would be preferred over the label in Wikipedia’s voice and certainly not in the info box.

In other RfCs it has been established and editors have preferred, alongside MOS:LABEL, such as that of Reform UK and the US Republican Party, that for contentious labels, multiple corroborating sources are preferred, especially when reliability issues crop up.

Additionally, according to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, this article seems to be “giving undue weight” to this label and giving it as much importance as other non-minority labels such as far-right or right-wing by giving it comparable prominence.

Additionally, as I mentioned, MOS:LABEL says that “multiple corroborating sources are preferred especially when reliability issues crop up”. I would argue that there are reliability issues here. For example, Tahir Abbas speaks polemically against right-wing parties and in favour of far-left parties, talking about “the severe threat posed by Reform UK’s racist culture war agenda” and that voters were “calculating that the Green Party was the only viable vehicle to block the populist right” to defeat Labour and its continuous failures.

Whilst, as per WP:Reliable Sources, indeed this does not mean that one cannot use this as a source, the fact that this is the only source describing the party as such should suggest caution, especially giving it equal weight as other labels, and thus it would be better to be removed from the lead and info box, leaving the statement later in the body “attributed to that editor or author”, as preferred by Wikipedia.

I conclude that according to MOS:LABEL, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, there is insufficient sourcing in the literature to establish consensus for the label ethnic nationalist, especially given that this is a controverted label by the leader. Anded1 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The UK green party are a center left party. I think you need to recalibrate your Overton window.Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I was not necessarily making a comment on whether the current source is sufficient. It may very well not be as you pointed out.. I was commenting on whether a biased party representative is a sufficient source to counter an independent one. However, even with what you pointed out I would caution against framing the article as making a false statement. The issue is in the weight and form used, not in the statement made because there was reliable source behind it. As such, the temp users challenge was framed on the wrong issue. Finfixer (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. I was just adding a further comment to the discussion, not particularly aimed at yours; I do see that my comment was responding to yours, I’m just not very used to using the talk page and the particular rules when using it. ❤️ Anded1 (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

If they aren't ethno-nationalists, then what are they? ~2026-39971-59 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

They are Civic Nationalists - @Simonm223, @Auspol4 Anded1  has made a substantial argument for having the Ideology - Ethnic nationalism removed from the info box. This needs to be actioned. Makethingsright7 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hear hear. As I already clarified, I have not given my support to having the claim in the infobox. I have merely talked about whether Rupert Lowe is a valid source to dispute the claim. From what has been presented I asses that does not matter. So I join in support.

The claim must be removed from the infobox and stated in the article body as one opinion among others, not in wikivoice. Finfixer (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No. They have not. We have academic reliable sources in play here. You can't handwave this away. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

They are left wing biased sources - they should be neutral. Also, your talk page suggests you are heavily left wing. Makethingsright7 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

While I, for time being am in favor of removal, Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. They do not have a place in an enviroment where good faith must be assumed. Remain civil Finfixer (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've taken your comments onboard. Makethingsright7 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Please focus on content and not other editors. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so don't dismiss or think of other editors as opponents just because you have content disagreements with them. In solidarity, nil ^nz 21:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry... It's just a bit concerning to me that some editors appear to be ignoring Wikipedia's own policies and I can only put it down to their own political views. I apologise if I wrong. Makethingsright7 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. We don't treat sources as unreliable just on the basis of bias. Simonm223 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It is regrettable you decide to frame this as handwaving something away. It seems like an attack on intentions, not substance.

Now. Source 37, the one single source linked to the statement, is indeed a reputable academic source. But it is only one source. None of the other sources, as far as I have seen, join this. So it does not represent any form of academic consensus. Furthermore, the provided source only very briefly, without giving that much reasoning, states "ethno-nationalist" as what appears to me as an afterthought. It gives other things much more time and weight. While that is not a major consideration for Wikipedia, I do think it is also worth noting.

@Anded1 stated "MOS:LABEL Contentious Labels establishes that ‘value-laden’ labels “may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.”

Does one source, which mentions the label twice, qualify as widely used? I do not believe so by any stretch of the imagination. Your statement that we are dealing with "academic reliable sources" plural fails on the plural aspect. Can I have a counter to this instead of accusations of handwaving and of overly broad overton windows? Finfixer (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Just adding another comment here.

I first refer back to my original comment. Talk:Restore Britain#c-Anded1-20260714234000-Finfixer-20260711174300

I would argue that ethnic nationalist should be removed, and either removing the ideology section, or adding “nationalist”, “national conservative/ social conservative”, “populist-right”.

I’m away from my computer at the moment so I’m not able to access all sources, but here are some:

1-OSF paper

2-LBC article

3-aljazeera article

4-Samaras Sage Paper

5-Politpro page

6-Guardian Article

All of these are not as academic as the last, but these sources have all been used on wiki pages for describing other political parties; however, this would require further research. Anded1 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This discussion concerns ethno and civil nationalism. An RfC already decided on calling them far right when it comes to political position. Finfixer (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I am aware, I’m referring to the Ideology box, not the political position box. See for example the box in VOX political party as well as Reform, though theirs does not have as many in the ideology section.

I’m arguing that the ethnic nationalist label in the ideology box should be replaced by the ones I have listed above, including merely nationalist, which it has been described as. Anded1 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's consider some further sources. They are not as clear cut, but I suggest they support the description of Restore Britain as ethnonationalist. Bhatt (2025, doi:10.1080/01419870.2025.2555562) writes about ethnonationalism, then saying: "The last point illustrates several fault lines within European far-right racism that are best illustrated by the minority groups that are targeted [...]: asylum seekers, poor unskilled versus wealthier skilled migrants, undocumented versus settled migrants, Muslim or Jewish people, or all non-white people. In the UK, the neo-Nazi Homeland Party, Britain First and Patriotic Alternative oppose all non-white migration and call for mass expulsions. Reform UK contains these tendencies, and ones that differentiate between Muslims and others, settled and recent migrants, and asylum seekers (Williams 2025). Alongside is a multitude of competitive actors on social media devoted to generating divisive, inflammatory, polarizing messages, including Rupert Lowe MP, formerly of Reform UK and now leading Restore Britain [...] The shifting ideological divisions with the far right can result in forms of racism that are predictably structured or erratic, and manifest across different geographical and social contexts in volatile forms." This is not explicitly describing Restore Britain as ethnonationalist, but is putting Restore Britain in that territory.

Ellis (2025, doi:10.3366/scot.2026.059) writes, "Figures such as academic‑turned‑activist Matthew Goodwin (and the MP Rupert Lowe) play a notable role here, feeding ethno‑nationalist narratives from the ‘online right’ into more mainstream media spaces".

Harrison & Brown (2026, doi:10.1177/20419058261436087) write: "the online right’s broader claim that it speaks for a silent majority across the board does not survive contact with the evidence. For example, Rupert Lowe, the most retweeted user in mass deportations discussions on X, was only identified by 14 per cent of a nationally representative sample by JL Partners. Further, beyond mass deportations of illegal migrants, the positions being normalised within these communities are out of step with public opinion: the stripping of indefinite leave to remain from settled migrants, the mass deportation of up to two million people, including legal migrants, the remigration of settled communities, and an open flirtation with ethno-nationalism." Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The obvious problem there is that Wikipedia's source policy explicitly prohibits making deductions from sources. These sources can be used to say that there are people with ethno-nationalist ideals in the party and that the leader has spoken in such a manner. That's it. A source saying those ideals are in the party can not be used to say those are ideals of the party proper.

"Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be an improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is not allowed."

-WP:SYNTH from WP:No original research;

To overcome this you need a source to make that conclusion. Because the matter is contentious, the one source that briefly does so ought to not suffice. The party is propably what we accuse it of. But for the time being it is not well established enough to be stated on Wikipedia in Wikivoice. Finfixer (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It really seems like you are ignoring the above sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That you state so seems to me as you declining to consider the presented clear Wikipedia policy. None of the quotes from those sources state the party is ethno nationalist. Only that members from the party have been spreading such sentiment. To conlude that such must mean we can in wikivoice state the party is ethno-nationalist is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy.

You are as a user far more experienced than I am Simonm. What I ask of you is that you take the time to actually deconstruct what I say and counter my policy arguments with policy arguments and my arguments about sources with verbatim statements from those sources. Your one sentence statements to do not contribute to the discussion because they have no reasoning behind them. It's like talking to a wall that will only respond "you are wrong" and that will some times add a few words for "because X". It should be a few sentences at the very least for because X.

"Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources." is the policy verbatim. It is policy. It is not guideline or manual of style thing. It is directly from source policy and I would prefer to see users counter with source policy. Finfixer (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you happy that we have sufficient sourcing to say that Lowe propounds ethnonationalism? That seems more strongly sourced. (I think we have enough to say Restore Britain is ethnonationalist, but let's start with what we can agree on.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That can be agreed on. The article can say that "Declarations by Lowe and other party members have been considered ethno-nationalist by some experts" or something similar. That represents no synthesis and I think the others supporting removal will agree on that. However, I would still prefer avoiding further absolutism in the statement, because that isn't necessary to cover this fairly contested matter. An absolute statement could present some minor BLP issues because it makes a contested judgement on the opinion of a living person. Finfixer (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Support removal from the infobox. Having read the discussion above, I don't think the key point has been resolved: whether the current sourcing is sufficient for such a prominent, unqualified label in Wikipedia's voice. If there is genuine disagreement over whether MOS:LABEL and WP:SYNTH support its inclusion, then the more cautious approach would be to attribute the description within the article body rather than include it in the infobox. Makethingsright7 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Makethingsright7 and also support removal from the infobox. There is definitely genuine MOS:LABEL- and WP:SYNTH-based disagreement with what is currently there. That is clear from the traffic related to it on this talk page. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Then I would propose removing it at the very least as an interim measure as this discussion is still not ripe for a final conclusion and local consensus.

For example I think it has been agreed that the current form of mention is bad. However, I don't think it has been decided whether or not to include any form, like a statement that such opinions exist, at all. That hasn't really been the focus of anyone elses comments other than mine, but is an obvious next course of action, because total removal from the article could also be problematic due to there being a reputable source. Finfixer (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait why has a bot turned this into an RfC with that tag. This is in no way an RfC. The starter question is not an RfC question. We are not going to get a resolution for another month if this runs as an RfC. That bot is faulty Finfixer (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have eliminated the RfC tag from this topic and the above topic that definitely is not an RfC. Finfixer (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:STATUSQUO. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest we conclude when the matter has been decided to a sufficient degree? This is not an RfC so there is no convention on recommended minimum and maximum lenght of the discussion. It is clear consensus has not as of now been reached, that I admit.

However, it is important to note that WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, it does not represent consensus like a guideline or policy. It should not controll something that is being discussed as being contrary to official policy and multiple consensus based guidelines. In that situation arguing the essay works to support a continued suspected policy violation. If the end result is remove, the page had information that does not belong there for a long time. Having false policy violating information on a page is much more harmfull than not having a piece of information.

The essay principle is best aplied when there are policies and guidelines going both ways and a dominating set of article instructions needs to be determined. That does not seem to be the case here. Finfixer (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Compiling above discussion. I am not neutral in this discussion so take this with a grain of salt.

The question is whether or not the article should state "ethno-nationalist" in the infobox and article body. 

The compromise of mentioning in the article body as an opinion among others has not been broadly discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finfixer (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It appears that there are four users who currently speak for some degree of removal. Anded1,Makethingsright7, De Facto and I are those users.

There are two users who speak for inclusion, those two clear ones being Simonm223 and Bondegezou.

Unclear is the stance of @Czello because the question has changed from "does the opinion of Lowe override the source" (to which he and I answered "No") as presented by the starter TA to "Is the sourcing sufficient" as presented by Anded1 and Makethingsright7

It appears to me that the question at hand concerns WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH (from sources presented in the discussion) and MOS:LABEL with WP:FRINGE having also been brought up. From these a broader NPOV question can be derived.

Unless to answer the above discussion it would be in the interest of clarity if people were to make further comments below this comment. Finfixer (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Head counts are irrelevant. There is not consensus for a change. If you insist on continuing seeking this change start an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That may indeed be the best course of action due to the nature of this question and this local discussion having ended as unclear. I will do so shortly. Finfixer (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Finfixer: Regarding your comment above why has a bot turned this into an RfC with that tag and your edit summary I am not sure what Legobot is doing, but no user has moved for this to be an RfC. This is not an RfC. Please don't blame Legobot: in this edit it was doing exactly what it was designed to do, which is to assign an rfcid to a new RfC. The {{rfc|policy}} tag was added in this edit, so if anybody is in the wrong here, it is Makethingsright7 (talk · contribs). I should also point out to the wider audience here that policy RfCs should be held either on the talk page of the policy itself, or at WP:VPP but certainly not on the talk page of an article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologise for my mistake. It was my first time using the tag and I didn't realise I had placed it incorrectly. Makethingsright7 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It's more that you shouldn't have placed an RfC tag on this conversation, because this did not form an RfC. The RfC tag is added by the user starting the RfC process, which in this case was not the case. The TA that started this treadh was not intent on an RfC.

Now I have started an RfC on the question further down the talk page because no consensus one way or another was reached through this local discussion. However, it means that it will take anywhere from a week to up to a little over a month for this question to be resolved unless a speedy close takes place. The RfC process is unfortunately slow by design. Finfixer (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your explanation. I will know for next time! Makethingsright7 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the correction. Finfixer (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2026

Add "British Nationalism" to ideology list ~2026-39520-15 (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. — Czello ^(music) 06:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2026

Change no. of councillors in info box from 32 to 34 to reflect recent defections of Cameron Emery and Jo Blythe from Reform UK. Citations are showing correct number, but wiki page isn't. Makethingsright7 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Membership > Councillors also needs updating - please check https://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors.php?p=522&y=0 -shows 24 and https://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors.php?p=530&y=0 shows 10 Makethingsright7 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Czello continuing from above, the Councillors table needs an extra row adding for West Northamptonshire which has 76 elected councillors (https://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/council.php?c=415&y=0), so the table will show 2/76. Finally date needs amending above table - Councillors As of 28 June 2026 Makethingsright7 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Auspol4 Thanks for updating the figures. One thing you have missed is: "Councillors As of 28 June 2026" at the top of the table. Please can you change the date to 14 July 2026 as per https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/politics/two-former-reform-councillors-on-west-northamptonshire-council-leave-for-restore-britain-8797210. Thanks Makethingsright7 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done Day Creature (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

yes, it looks like the change was completed after my message at 04:46, 18 July 2026 Auspol4 Makethingsright7 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2026

I would like to request that ‘far-right’ be edited to just ‘right wing’

The statement on the page is inflammatory and we do not need more division. ~2026-40295-66 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. See extensive discussions previously. — Czello ^(music) 10:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Removal of reference to ethnonationalism

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

---

The description of Restore Britain as ethnonationalist is inaccurate, as stated by leader Rupert Lowe in several interviews.

As clearly stated in a recent interview with Bret Weinstein, Rupert Lowe stated: 'I detest ethnonationalism or Neo-Nazism. I have never been driven by that.' Source appeared on YouTube, which has been blacklisted by wikipedia. However this has widely been reported and discussed both in print media and online. SmokeyAnth (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2026 (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.

RfC on ethno-nationalism (ideology)

Whether in light of MOS:LABEL, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE and other relevant policies and guidelines, the article...

1. ...should not describe the party in the infobox and in the article body as ethno-nationalist at all.
2. ...should not describe the party in the infobox and in the article body as ethno-nationalist as a statement of fact, but may in the article body describe such opinions exist in a manner mindfull of NPOV and undue weight.
3. ...can describe the party as ethno-nationalist in the infobox and article as a statement of fact.

Support for one or support for multiple in order of preference may be stated. Finfixer (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

B>A, for A as per @Anded1 in Talk:Restore Britain#c-Anded1-20260714234000-Finfixer-20260711174300. I will return for further comment of my own making soon for why I prefer B over A. Finfixer (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I start by reciting points made before and the status quo. The article says that the party is "ethno-nationalist". A single academic source is provided for this statement. User Bondegezou presented sources which describe agenda spouted by certain party members, but not the party itself, as ethno-nationalist here Talk:Restore Britain#c-Bondegezou-20260722142900-Why is this page falsely accusing Restore Britain as being an ethnonationalist p. I refuted those by stating that WP:SYNTH forbids drawing a conclusion the sources did not make. I also concluded that using the provided inline source to synthesize is insufficient, because it returns us to the problem of one reputable source.

I stand by that. Groups within a party or the leader of a party say things that can be considered ethno-nationalist does not make the party such in the eyes of Wikipedia untill such a point that reliable sources are making that conclusion.

Well then you may ask why having one reputable source is an issue. Let's start with NPOV and undue weight. A statement made by one academic source, and not even a mainline one, is unlikely to represent the same level of consensus as the party being far-right or right-wing. Despite of this it is given similar or near similar weight in the article. We also have WP:FRINGE/ALT and the broader WP:FRINGE that caution against theories that significantly deviate from the mainstream.

Due to these I am able to support A.

However I believe B may be the more valid option. I don't think the statement is seriously contested because only the party itself does so. This does not mean Wikipedia can state it as fact, but it does lower the burden of some form of inclusion. We can include a mention that such opinions on the party exist as ONE sentence without violating NPOV. That is to preferraly be done through in text atribution. Finfixer (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy close, suggest 3-month moratorium. We already had an RfC less than a month ago about it. There has been no demonstratable need to have another RfC this soon after the previous one. A 3-month moratorium will be a sufficient enough wait that additional sources describing its ideology will come out. SVG-image-maker (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you strike this. The RfC a month ago was held on the far right question, not ethno-nationalism. So political position, not ideology. So no, there has been no RfC on this question. Of course I wouldn't be proposing an RfC if the RfC I took active part in, and the winning side of which I supported, had answered this question. Finfixer (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

So we shouldn't be having a moratorium on something that has not been talked about in an RfC. That is nonsense, wouldn't you think? It amounts to silencing discussions before they even take place. Read the RfC question before you take a stance because this RfC has nothing to do with the far-right ine. Finfixer (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• C / Status Quo this is a thoroughly sourced description, especially considering the limited material available for fringe parties like this. I also support a moratorium of 6 months after the conclusion of this RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  How is one source that mentions ethno-nationalist in two sentences with limited explanation thorough? This is what baffles me because articles should only have what sources support. That there are limited sources is not a reason to weaken our standarts. It makes things more complicated if such considerations start getting included forcing more debate and deliberation. There is no need to make things more complicated than they are. Finfixer (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

B>A, as per MOS:LABEL, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE as explained in Talk:Restore Britain#c-Anded1-20260714234000-Finfixer-20260711174300. Regarding the further quotations supplied by Bondegezou Talk:Restore Britain#c-Bondegezou-20260722142900-Why is this page falsely accusing Restore Britain as being an ethnonationalist p, I highlight the specific wording of MOS:LABEL:

"Value-laden labels . . . may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"

The subject in question here is not the rhetoric used by the leader nor some of those who make up the party membership, but the party and ideology in itself, further explained by Finfixer here. Anded1 (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• B - The infobox is a summary per WP:INFOBOX. Although a good source describes them as ethno-nationalist, this is not clear enough for a summary, particularly as the term was rejected in favour of "far-right" only in the previous RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• B - Agree with the arguments listed above AstralNomad (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• B - I also agree with the arguments listed above Makethingsright7 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2026

Under the heading: Leader of Restore Britain

There is a grammar error within the below paragraph which I have highlighted in bold:

The Leader of Restore Britain is the most senior and highest position within Restore Britain. The current holder is party founder Rupert Lowe, who became leader on 30 June 2025 after founding the party as a pressure group. Lowe and Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage due to Lowe's criticism of Reform UK's leadership and criticism of Farage, which led to his departure from Reform UK in March 2025.[62] On 13 February 2026 Restore Britain became a political party.[63] Makethingsright7 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)