Talk:Restore Britain

RfC on ethno-nationalism (ideology)

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.

After a thorough reading of this RfC, it is apparent that there is a consensus to adopt option C. Although the raw !votes are relatively close, most support for option B was substantially based on an initially limited availability of direct sourcing and concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH, which was largely addressed by additional citations provided by Aquillion. Remaining objections primarily concern WP:WEIGHT and infobox size, however this does not outweigh the improved sourcing. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 01:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

---

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)

  Minor correction. Far right is political position and this is ideology, so that RfC has no bearing on this RfC. But otherwise your argument checks out. Finfixer (talk) 08:37, 4 August 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)
• B However I would still support an ideology being included in the infobox. I would suggest British nationalism and social conservatism as the sources in the article describes Restore Britain. JJARichardson (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is not in the scope of this RfC to determine so the question will be left open for editors to figure it out. Of course the immediate result of this RfC is that ideology is omitted entirely and, as such, someone should start a discussion after the end of this RfC. In that sense I was mistaken to not make it a two question RfC where people give an opinion on what should happen if A or B is chosen as the second question. So A,B or C and if A or B then what (add ideology). But if it comes to that it well be discussed hopefully in a manner where local consensus will be sufficient. Finfixer (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• C>B I believe the party is ethnonationalist and we have sufficient sourcing for that. Some discussion above argues that sourcing as to the leader's view is not evidence of the party's view, but I feel that's a bit spurious. Restore Britain is Rupert Lowe. He founded the party, he leads the party, he is the face of the party. It is his vehicle. Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well I think Wikipedia policy is very clear and we can't undermine WP:SYNTH here, or do you have some argument why making the conclusion follows policy and guidelines? It is my understanding Wikipedia can only summarize and compile, but never conclude something novel. It all has to be obvious to the avarage reader, something that can't be disputed, or it has to be clearly backed by sources per WP:Verifiability. That is especially true for statements that don't have consensus behind them. It is also completely against the purpose of Wikipedia to use what you believe is the truth as an argument. We can't allow our personal beliefs to influence, which is the impression your argument gave me whether intented or not. Believe it or not I also think the party is most likely ethno-nationalist, but I am not letting that influence how I form an opinion on what should be on Wikipedian. Finfixer (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You're overthinking this, reading stuff into what I wrote that I never intended. I am proposing that having "ethnonationalism" in the ideology field is a reasonable summary of what reliable sources say, as per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY and WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH. I am not suggesting that my belief should determine Wikipedia content; I was just explaining my reasoning (per WP:TRUTH, "You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true", so I explained that I believe Restore's ethnonationalism is both of those things). It is obvious to the avarage reader, something that can't be disputed that Restore is Lowe's vehicle. Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The WP's you cite are an essay that certainly sheds light into a non consensus backed reading of SYNTH rules. I can agree with some of it, but I don't think it provides for using a source that talks about personal opinions of a party leader for the profiling of the party.

This is because parties have factions and are groups of people. People with similar baseline ideas gather, but the variance may be significant. For example the Labour party has a right wing and left wing, a conservative wing and a liberal wing. Just like the statement of a head of goverment isn't automatically the stance of the whole goverment, a statement of a party leader is not automatically the stance of the whole party. Often the actual stance of the whole is some form of compromise and comes out later.

Furthermore I think the essays focus on situations that are much clearer than this. I disagree with your statement of "obvious to the avarage reader". That avarage reader can be from the US, South Africa, Brazil, China. Readers come here for extra information, but also to learn with very little understanding of the context. It is obvious to someone who has a basic understanding of UK politics that Lowe is a vehicle, but go to an avarage US Wikipedia reader and that is no more. The precedent of shouldn't be applied here.

I have given my vote for B because I think the inclusion could happen in the article body as a non wikivoice statement "Some academics have described the party as ethno-nationalist". This RfC is not a case of all or nothing. I think B is a valid compromise. Wikipedia is a major source of base information for students and media alike. We should not be taking an unnecessary leap to making a conclusion here. Finfixer (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lean C (I was summoned here by an RfC bot.) As far as I can tell, the arguments for describing Restore Britain are much stronger than the single piece linked above. This is a statement by Reform UK's campaign director, Charlie Downes on behalf of Reform UK: “Reform UK believe that anyone from anywhere can become British. Restore Britain believe that Britain is a people defined by indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith.” That's an official statement of ethnonationalism, reprinted in the Guardian and a half-dozen other reliable sources. So "ethnonationalism" sounds both accurate and well-supported. Rxtreme (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well first of all your presented statement is about Reform UK it appears, unless you miswrote. Even if it was about Restore Britain, Wikipedia absolutely can not look at a statement and call it ethno-nationalistic unless a source says so. That's far beyond what the purpose of Wikipedia is because of the rule of verifiability (read WP:Verifiability). We can in limited circumstances make some synthesis of sources, but that is restricted to a debated degree. Even the above discussion has been about statements called ethno-nationalistic and whether they are evidence that the party is ethno-nationalistic as a whole. I also recommend reading the previous discussion that caused this RfC begining here Talk:Restore Britain with that argument by Anded1 particularily important to boot.. I hope this will help you reconsider your stance. Finfixer (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Rxtreme should have written "Charlie Downes on behalf of Restore Britain". The quote given is clearly about Restore. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh my apologies. So it seems. I think a read it through many times but must have gotten stuck on the notion of atribution to a Reform UK campaign director and thus read it all as Reform UK.

In any case the statement does not even say "ethno-nationalism", instead Rxtreme concluded the described is proof of ethno-nationalism because those are values of the ideology, which does constitute original research even when it is given full deference to. Surely we can agree that a source that makes no mention of ethno-nationalism is not a source for ethno-nationalism under any ordinary circumstances per WP:Verifiability. It is not verifiable from the source that the statement means ethno-nationalism, which makes it original research, because we aren't dealing with a "sky is blue" sort of situation.

No more than one source has been presented that directly says the party is ethno-nationalist. That is why I oppose the statement being in the article in wikivoice even if it most certainly is true. We need to wait for more sources that make the statement. We shouldn't be adding this label when the basis it sits on is one source and sources that link ethno-nationalist sentiments to major members of the party. I still want to emphasise that the opinion of a party member, not even the leader, does not always depict what the actual platform of the party is. It's not our job on Wikipedia to make a conclusion on what an ethno-nationalistic statement means for the party ideology. Finfixer (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Finfixer Apologies for the typo. But the statement doesn't have to use the word "ethnonationalism" to be declaring that Restore Britain is an ethnonationalist party. "The Proletariat must own the means of production" suffices as a statement of Communism and "nationality is based on ancestry and religion" suffices as a declaration of ethnonationalism. That's what ethnonationalism refers to. Rxtreme (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes they do. WP:No original research couldn't be more clear I think. We even have WP:NOR/EX that has an example of a correlation not shown by sources. Here correlation between statement and party ideology is not shown. You could argue WP:OWNWORDSNOR, but that adds an argument. But the key thing is the last example in WP:SYNTH. That example concerns an editor opinion that given sourced definition X statement Y means X. How is this materially different? Essentially you argue that because statement Y meets the criteria for ethno-nationalism it is a source for ethno-nationalism.

That's all I have to say. I have presented my argument and clearly it hasn't made an impression, which is fine. But I just hope people will present some direct clear sources that do not require a reader to know what ethno-nationalism is. If this RfC decides that one source is fine, that propably doesn't contravene NOR, but it can present NPOV issues as DeFacto stated. Finfixer (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor starting this RFC has attempted to canvass other editors here to influence the result. See Special:Diff/1368173684. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I certainly don't agree with this assertion for the reasons provided here User talk:Finfixer on my talk page. I think you might be assuming bad faith. Finfixer (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your lack of notifying any other individual editors of this discussion speaks for itself. AGF is not a WP:SUICIDEPACT. TarnishedPath^talk 13:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, where is your evidence? You said I'd been canvassed (here and on my talk page here) yet that referred to a perfectly legitimate notification per WP:APPNOTE which says it's quite appropriate to notify editors who: "have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". -- DeFacto (talk). 09:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  My evidence? That you are the only individual editor they notified. That speaks for itself. If they were notifying editors involved in a prior related discussion, they ought to have notified _ALL_ of them. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  If anything, that is evidence that it was a good-faith reminder, as if it was votestacking, more editors would surely have been notified too. Now please revert that disruptive note you added against my contribution. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest you read Sirfurboy's comment below. He has correctly identified that FinFixer notifying you was unwise. I'm not going to blame you for the actions of others; however, the fact remains that an attempt was made by FinFixer. The note stays unless I'm advised by an uninvolved admin that I'm barking up the wrong tree. TarnishedPath^talk 10:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• C aka status quo per Simonm223. This is well supported by reliable sourcing. Also given the recent run of RFCs litigating this for far-right parties in the UK, I would support a moratorium on this question for 6 months. TarnishedPath^talk 13:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  This RfC is about ethno-nationalism, not political position which should indeed be subjected to moratorium. This is as far as I know the first RfC on the topic. I took part in the most recent political position RfC on this page and supported going for far right only, which was the end result. I wouldn't start an RfC to undo or relitigate a conclusion I am satified with. The article has one relevant source. So please do read the starting argument by me and for example the argument of Anded1 in the non RfC predecessor to this RfC which I have linked in my very first comment. I do think many editors have misunderstood that this RfC is not the same as political position RfC's. Finfixer (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps other editors have misunderstood, I can't speak for them. However, I have not. That this RFC is on ethno-nationalism, doesn't make all that much difference to me. It's the same niggling about descriptions which are well supported. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I understand the frustration with the slew of constant different description RfC's, but I don't think a broad moratorium can be deployed class wide, only on a question by question basis. Certain questions do need a moratorium and I am ready to support one for any individual question litigated multiple times recently. To me this is not one of those questions yet, but I think a moratorium should be put in place after this RfC on this question and the question of political position. I think it could be usefull to add a moratorium subsection to this RfC to help the closer with that part of the consensus.

  This whole RfC is because I think one source can't possibly be enough to make a contentious wikivoice statement. If there is a dispute in reliable sources for one side to be descriped as a matter of fact it really should represent a much stronger consensus. That is why I support including it as an opinion among others even though I agree with it. Finfixer (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Finfixer, maybe you could also consider WP:BLUD? By my calculation, before this comment, you were responsible for 60% of the text in this discussion (excluding the initial call). Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have been thinking about that lately. I have felt the need to actively respond because other editors who have sided with my stance have decided not to explain their stance any further than deferring to what I have said or briefly to some other matter. Thus, it has been left largely to me to keep up any form of discussion, which is the whole point of an RfC. This isn't a poll after all.

However, I don't think I will contribute more unless someone presents a new novel argument. My last respontse to Rxtreme on the 8th largely performed the role of a closing argument. Each response I have given has seen me try and find more angles to aproach this. I think I have found them all so I have nothing more to say. Finfixer (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• B as that opinion is one of many and WP:NPOV says, Avoid stating opinions as facts and WP:INFOBOX says, An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject. This isn't even a fact, let alone a key fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DeFacto (talk · contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

  Tarnished Path, you placed the above note. You found this discussion yourself because you are a page watcher at DeFacto's page, yes? (for evidence, I note that you entered this conversation yourself, with your own !vote, minutes after taking issue with the note on their talk page). The note on DeFacto's talk page was unwise, but if that brought you here, FinFixer will have discovered the perils of putting things on watched talk pages, and all balances. Even if it is not so, I note that DeFacto has frequently contributed to this page in the past, and this will have organically shown up un their watch list. Their opinion should not be discarded. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sirfurboy, I agree with you that DeFacto has contributed to these sorts of discussions previously and there's a fair chance they would have found their way to this one regardless of FinFixer's actions. I'm not going to suggest that DeFacto's opinion should be discarded. However, whoever closes this needs to be aware of the conduct of the person starting the discussion. Regarding FinFixer, I've discussed it with them on their user talk and they indicated that they will not engage in this sort of behaviour again, which I am satisfied with. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Conduct issues would be for another forum - and in any case, you already added a comment on the matter. The canvass text is to alert a closer to canvassing that may have unduly influenced the discussion. I think, in this case, we can agree that there is no undue influence, and all is well if not repeated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with B. There are certainly members who openly subscribe to ethnonationalist views, but as far as party policy is concerned, that isn't the case. Indeed, this seems to be a contention between Lowe himself and Restore's largely online base that RS have covered. I feel it definitely falls foul of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE to treat it as if it's the party's actual platform. ~2026-43816-68 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree @~2026-43816-68. In Bret Weinstein's interview with Rupert Lowe, you can see for yourself that Rupert states that he detests Ethnonationalists. Have a watch of this YouTube video below. I have set the video to start at the correct moment Rupert discusses Ethnonationalism (timestamp 15:39) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeV5kRLyGgc&t=939s Makethingsright7 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Interviews by far-right politicians on this sort of stuff are generally very self-serving. WP:MANDY very much applies. We should always prefer what WP:SECONDARY sources have to say on this sort of stuff. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with C. The party espouses openly neo-Nazi views. ~2026-44661-89 (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• C. It is heavily covered in the best available sources and is central to the party's notability, in the sense that it is a big part of why it receives international academic attention at all. See eg. And, keeping in mind that white nationalism is trivially a variety of ethnonationalism, we can also paraphrase sources like this into it: --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, you have done the one thing I was waiting for. You have brought a second source, and arguably a third one, that do not constitute synth. This means that as far as I am concerned this RfC is moot now. There is no longer a synth or NPOV questions specific to this article, though the one on the ideology parameters existance lives on, that needs to be answered. That's because we now have at least two sources flat out stating the party is ethno-nationalist and a few more talking about views of it's individual politicians. If you were to find even more sources it would be golden, but this appears good enough to secure the status quo for the time being-

  I will review the matter more thoroughly and if I am satisfied I will withdraw my support for A and make C my primary preference. It's a bit late to withdraw this RfC though so I propably wont do that. This can run it's course. Finfixer (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• B Frankly calling the party outright ethnic nationalist based on the actions of a few twitter talking heads shows obscene bias. If editors here insist on including it then it should be done like Green Party of England and Wales and be under a Factions subheading. ~2026-45180-83 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• C per additional sourcing from Aquillion. In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I have struck my old comment, new stance C>B per new sourcing from Aquillon that does give us the possibility of inclusion. We now have multiple sources and none in disputing, though erring on the side of caution and neutrality still justifies B too. However, C is also viable due to no dispute in reliable sources.

I invite @Anded1, @Makethingsright7, @Sirfurboy, @AstralNomad, @JJARichardson, @DeFacto, @~2026-43816-68 and @~2026-45180-83 to reconsider their stances in the light of the provided new sources. If that does not happen, the new sources could soon spark an RfC on the ground that this one was based on incomplete information.

I respectfully request the close be delayed by a few days to allow the pinged user to reasses the situation. Finfixer (talk) 08:21, 28 August 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.

Requested grammar fix

"to become candidates and organisers for the Restore Britain". Remove "the". The party is called Restore Britain. It is not called "the Restore Britain". ~2026-48843-69 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for spotting! In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No citation.

"Restore Britain is an ethno-nationalist and far-right political party in the United Kingdom." There is no citation or support for this strong claim. ~2026-53113-92 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADCITE. It's well sourced in 'Platform and ideology' section as required, although a citation should probably be added based on the likelihood of being challenged. Thanks for your input. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)