Talk:Restore Britain

Are there any sources describing it as just right wing? So far it’s described as that here but with no sources and This source calls it far right https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politics-explained/restore-britain-rupert-lowe-reform-farage-ben-habib-b2779651.html GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree in its listing as a far right organisation — three sources (the one already posted, and these two) https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/02/how-lowe-will-he-go-rupert-lowe-is-britains-most-extreme-mp/ and https://bylinetimes.com/2025/07/03/kemi-badenoch-refuses-to-sack-london-conservative-leader-backing-far-right-group-demanding-mass-deportations/ I’ve found have described it as far-right but none have described it as simply “right wing” DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra sources yeah three sources for far right and none that either of us could find for right wing seems like it should be far right. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Just because a left-wing publication labels the movement as 'far-right', does NOT make it so. Unbelivable bias from Wikipedia users as usual, attempting to distort the fact that this is a movement made up of people across the political spectrum. There is no mention of it being 'far-right' on the Restore Britain website. You are labelling something which is not true. 2A02:C7C:D027:3000:50EA:2F1A:6CC0:4DA3 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

All political parties / organisations contain people from across the political spectrum so it's a bad point to make since it's founder is the one who will dictate what it's aims and policies are, and those policies can be considered far-right. And Restore Britain is not going to publicly label itself far-right, does the National Rally or AfD do that? No. Jam006 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The Independent is listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia and Wikipedia goes off reliable sources. I fail to see why even if they are left wing that should mean it should be disregarded when it's considered reliable. Far right parties often don't call themselves far right that's not evidence they aren't reliable evidence would be reliable sources calling them right wing. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

'Far-right' is not a neutral description, it's a politically loaded term. What does 'far-right' even mean? How is it being defined here? What criteria are being used to assess whether this definition is being met? It seems to me that the 'far-right' label is being applied without considering any of these questions. What constitutes a 'reliable source' in this context? Sources with a left-wing bias can't be considered neutral on this matter, and all of the sources cited here have a known left-wing bias. This article, as it stands, absolutely does not meet any standards of objectivity or neutrality. 92.239.8.68 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Theres a wiki page on far right politics that it links too. Wikipedia's criteria for if it is met is going off what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say it is far right then so do we. Sources listed as reliable on WP:RSP. If a source is listed on there as reliable then it is considered reliable. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Just leave it as far-right. It sounds based anyway. The whole point is that Restore is not moderate like Reform. No one cares if you label it as far-right. Far-right? Far-right it is. Calling it far-right is nothing but based lol Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Closing as requested at WP:CR. There is no consensus as to whether this party should be described as right-wing or as far-right, since there are few sources and they say different things. However, there is a consensus lower down this talk page for merging the article with Rupert Lowe. In that context, it may not be necessary to give the party such a label at all, or it may be sufficient just to include a sentence saying that some sources have called them far-right and others right-wing. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

Which political position should be used for this organisation – Far-right or Right wing? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Right-wing. Or at the very least Right-wing to far-right. Definitely not just "Far-right". Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Far Right- I have yet to see or find a single source call them right wing but in the discussion above three including the independent called them far right. Seen a few now calling it right wing but as theres three calling them far right which is more than the two provided for right wing I will stick with far right https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politics-explained/restore-britain-rupert-lowe-reform-farage-ben-habib-b2779651.html edit deleted the other two articles as I changed my argument based on the fact those two aren't listed as reliable only the independent is(tho still supporting far right label due to the fact the right wing sources aren't listed as reliable and the spectator seems to have been judged as not reliable.)GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Here are two sources calling them right-wing. 1 2 80.189.57.206 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Thats still 3 for far right 2 right wing so I would still far right based on that but will edit my above commentGothicGolem29 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure unherd is WP:RS and see WP:SPECTATOR Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't consider Hope not Hate a reliable source on this topic either, then. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Hope not Hate 80.189.57.206 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Haha yeah hope not hate is a laughable source Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bubbsybaby123 Hope not Hate is terribly biased. Alexysun (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, also Byline is pretty biased imo Kowal2701 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly they are biased too Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I woudn't call it laughable or that Byline is bias but given only Independent is listed as a reliable source I would probably agree with that part of your position that out of all of these only the independent is reliable(tho still keep my position on far right due to it being the only reliable source so far.GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. Alexysun (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Far-right is completely ridiculous, this is an organisation for people who are fed up these are not people who are far-right extremists! Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Its not ridiculous when reliable sources state they are far right GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Haha the independent and reliable you are having a laugh Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:THEINDEPENDENT Kowal2701 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

They are considered reliable by WP:THEINDEPENDENT GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You may be right (although it's ridiculous) but the other two most certainly are not Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree that its ridiculous. On the other sources after reading the discussion and reviewing the wiki reliable sources page I now agree they arent reliable sources. However, that goes for the other two right wing sources as well as neither are listed as reliable ln the list of reliable sources. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

So hope not hate is reliable? Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Above I said UI changed my view and that none of the articles bar independent are including that one(tho I disagree its a laughable source.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Just because a source isn't listed in the perennial sources doesn't necessarily mean it's not reliable. It just means there's been no discussion as of yet. 51.7.196.14 (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In my view for the description of political position we have to go off sources that have been described as reliable and so far only the independent has been. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bubbsybaby123 Apparently being anti-immigration in Britain in 2025 makes you "far-right" when the British public has voted against immigration in every single election forever, but was never listened to by their government. Alexysun (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not being anti immigration that makes them far right rather a reliable source says they are far right(and I would dispute the people have never been listened too as Labour has cut immigration which is what their manifesto promised.)GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that you have only used one 'reliable source' from a websites which tilts strongly to the left of the Labour Party. If you can't provide two reliable sources with differing political positions that describe it as extremist or radical, then I would refrain from labeling it as far-right altogether. Nathan.bessler (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

There is one reliable source for far right none that has been provided so far for right wing(the two that were presented were not listed as reliable.) Therefore we should go with what the source we have says. And whatever way the article tilts it is a reliable source and the one we have and no we should not refrain from labelling it far right unless theres two when theres no reliable sources for right wing yet. GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that if other sources called them "right wing", that doesn't preclude the "far-right" label from being correct/applicable still - all parties that are labelled "far right" fall within the more broader category that is "right wing".

Even if other sources use label them as just "right wing", I'd still advocate for the use of "far right" as a more accurate descriptor (from a RS) of where they fit within the "right wing".

Even though it's definitely not reliable (and shouldn't be used), interesting to WP:GBNEWS calls them "to the right of Reform", which is euphemistically their way of saying far right . Nil🥝 (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

A fair point yeah thats worth noting(though the 1 reliable source so far does call them far right.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

A source with a known left-wing bias can't be considered 'reliable' in this context. These left-wing sources are stating an opinion from their own left-wing perspective, not an established, neutral fact. What does 'far-right' even mean? It's a politically loaded label thrown about by the left, but it doesn't even have a clear definition. If the article were to say something along the lines of 'the movement is considered far-right by some commentators', that would be more neutral and closer to the truth - but as it is, the article is presenting an opinion - a questionable opinion - as an established fact. 92.239.8.68 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Wiki goes off the reliable sources list. I disagree that stating some commentators is more closer to the truth or neutral than just stating their political position based on reliable sources. It is much better to just put the position as what the reliable sources say. GothicGolem29 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep exactly it's a joke Bubbsybaby123 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Far-right for now per the Independent, wait for more sources, there are very few atm. Also "right wing" does not contradict "far-right". Kowal2701 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Support it or hate it, I agree with the 'Nativist' label, just look at their Net Negative Migration and 'An Englishman's home is his castle' principles.

https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/an_englishman_s_home_is_his_castle

https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/net_negative_immigration Nathan.bessler (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

We would need a secondary source that says they're nativist. 80.189.57.206 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I added nativism pending discussion on if it should be linked or if it should simply say anti-immigration as I said here. Definitely need more sourcing on that CIN I&II (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Kowal2701. If more sources appear, we can take another look at this, but the current weight of sources supports far right. Bondegezou (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I would still say that in comparison to Patriotic Alternative or Traditional Britain Group, Restore Britain barely fit the far right category. 86.1.151.58 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

We make the decision based on what reliable sources say, however, not on editors' individual judgements. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean, practically, it does 108.48.53.155 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as their ranks include the likes of Carl Benjamin, and his posse of individuals known for brazenly doing Nazi salutes in public, I honestly don't think calling them anything less than fascists would do them justice. Not that that isn't the obvious conclusion any reasonable and non-partisan person can arrive to just by reading the article. Far right is the obvious choice now, but I recommend being as blunt as possible and upgrading to outright calling them Fascist, as soon as the first reliable source starts using the term. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR and isn't a valid argument to give them these labels. — Czello ^(music) 14:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean sure. But let's not kid ourselves. The information in the article itself speaks for itself. I get it though. We have to wait for reliable sources. Then for unanimous consensus. And even then we need to be wishy-washy and ambiguous, and properly attribute everything, because something something defamation lawsuit. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, IP, we're not going to do that. Please keep your opinions out of these discussions. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Right-wing, if we're going off the Indepdendent piece then I believe that would fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL per this edit by TheBestEditorInEngland. For a contentious, controversial, and provocative label I'd like to see more robust sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 14:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There’s not really any reliable sources for right wing though really the independent one is all we have so that seems to me what we have to go with until more reliable sources come out(and I think either label is going to be controversial to some and I don’t agree that far right is provocative.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The IP at the top provided sources for right-wing, no? Alternatively, a counter-point would be that we don't need a label in there at all if sourcing is insufficient. — Czello ^(music) 20:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Neither are listed as reliable on the list and Spectator itself is listed yellow. I would support no label over right wing though I still think if theres no other reliable sources the independent one should be fine to put the label until we get more sources. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the relative paucity of the sourcing, it seems that The Independent carries the day. Sure, one could point at the editorial quality of the piece, but it's in a highly reliable paper, and I don't believe for instance that the label is "provocative". Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

In the interest of finding consensus, I'd like to suggest the following:

• Only use "right wing" in the lead sentence and infobox.
• Add the following line later in the lead: It is described as being "far right" in an analysis by The Independent.

I believe that this is a good compromise between the two RFC options, and by attributing the far right label, it also satisfies the WP:RSEDITORIAL concern raised in this good faith edit by @TheBestEditorInEngland, who I don't think was aware that an RFC was taking place.

This is, obviously, not a permanent suggestion, but works given the limited WP:RS that currently exist. Nil🥝 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Given there

are no reliable source for right wing that be seen It should not be listed in the info box or or lede. If there need to be a compromise for consensus then

no position listed at all in lede or infobox would be better than just listing right wing. GothicGolem29 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d be happy with that in the short-term, given WP:EXCEPTIONAL may apply here. Hopefully we won’t need another RfC to overturn any consensus if more reputable sources pop up using the label Kowal2701 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We should just omit the political position parameter all together, Golem raises a good point above. Thoughts on this @Czello and Nil NZ:? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing the label altogether per my comment yesterday. I get there's always an urge to categorise everything (from political ideologies to musical genres) on Wikipedia, but it's not a mandatory thing - especially if the sourcing is inadequate. — Czello ^(music) 13:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Not against it either. Nil🥝^Talk 13:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Support this as a compromise. That seems fair to me. — Czello ^(music) 13:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. This seems to be the optimal neutral wording.Halbared (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't really see how its the most neutral to call it right wing when theres no reliable sources backing that up.I still support far right but even if that isn't going to be the wording surely it should be no position at all as that is more neutral rather than labeling them right wing without reliable sources.GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Support - relying mainly on the "Independent" as describing this movement as "far right" is not encyclopedic... we need to wait for more sources, and more neutral ones at that, to stipulate whether this is right or far right or whatever. Agree with this compromise, therefore. NewPeculiar (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Waiting should mean not including, rather than providing a muddled picture based on a mix of reliable and unreliable sources. A compromise potentially could be 'right-wing to far-right', though there are no reliable sources suggesting they are right-wing. Quinby (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as per GothicGolem29. Considering the state of the discussion above and the lack of sources, either no ideology should be attributed (which would be fine if we swapped to an organisation infobox, which better applies), or we should go off the only reliable sources that exist. Quinby (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose (new proposal at the end): as per my previous edit on the article which has already been mentioned here (regarding WP:RSEDITORIAL). Since this RFC began nearly 3 weeks ago, there have still been no reliable sources published regarding Restore Britain's political stance and the media seems to be paying very little if any attention to Restore Britain currently. Although it is glaringly obvious that Restore Britain is at least/generically right wing simply based off of their 'policies' on their website, we simply cannot state this as a matter of fact in the article. This is because Wikipedia is all about verifiability, even over the truth. See WP:V and WP:VNT. Restore Britain's own website is not a reliable source, especially to be used in their own Wikipedia article, and we cannot use their 'policies' to deduce their political stance as this would break WP:NOR - It must be directly stated as fact in a reliable and non-editorial piece (a reliable source for a statement of fact). We also cannot use the editorial piece by The Independent as a source for a statement of fact about Restore Britain's political stance, as is currently the case in the article where it is featured in the infobox (which is for verifiable facts, preferably already included in the article and referenced there) and in the lede. We also can't state or imply as a matter of fact that Restore Britain is right wing either, as this has yet to be published in a reliable source that could be used to reference such a claim. As such, as strange is it may seem, the best course of action should be to remove statements of fact in the article regarding Restore Britain's political stance entirely, from the infobox and the lede, until a reliable source that can be used for this is published, which is currently not the case. Again, Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and any claim as a matter of fact regarding Restore Britain's political position can therefore not currently be made (as it is not verifiable due to the current lack of media coverage), even if we believe we can deduce it with our own eyes. It is better that there is no information regarding this rather than original research or unverifiable statements of fact. Regarding the inclusion of the far right quote from the editorial piece by The Independent, I believe this could breach WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because its inclusion in the article as a passing reference would be the only information regarding the topic of Restore Britain's political stance included in the article, and with the lack of a counter-argument due to a lack of published reliable sources about this, it could easily come across to the average reader as the only viewpoint to be considered or to be taken seriously, when this isn't the case. I would therefore suggest that, at least for now, and as it is in the best interest of not breaking Wikipedia's 3 main and non-negotiable policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, that due to a lack of published reliable sources on the matter, we remove mentions of Restore Britain's political stance until, inevitably (eventually), there are some reliable sources that are published and can be used in the article neutrally. Instead, we could perhaps consider including Rupert Lowe's political stance as this is much easier to verify currently, and he is the founder and leader of the organisation? I believe we could consider it relevant to the article's topic, and this could help to cover the subsequent lack of coverage on the organisation's political stance? TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I started a merge proposal below Kowal2701 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (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.

Comment: In the lead it would be better to use "British nationalist party" as a description. Geokrieg (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Czello why did you revert the far right edit? There is an rfc at the moment so surely we should maintain the status quo while that concludes? GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Tbh I agreed with the previous edit on WP:RSEDITORIAL, but yes you're right that an RfC is ongoing so I've self reverted (although technically I think the status quo is "right-wing", as that was there first, but I don't think it's worth arguing about). — Czello ^(music) 14:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Czello: Can you double check you reverted what you intended to? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Christ I'm clearly making a hash of this. Thanks, I've fixed it now. — Czello ^(music) 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok fair enough thanks. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The citations labelling the source as 'far-right' are specifying where on the right-wing the party is positioned. We have three reliable sources establishing this, now through consensus we need to protect the page amd establish editor consensus over this label. User:Matthew-Hopkins1981

They are ethnonationalist if you read what they post, the idea of Remigration and pushing the idea that they are becoming a minority in britain 92.40.219.38 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

For them to be listed as that reliable sources would need to call them that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

read what he is saying

https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1955297716205936762?t=zpmqinNIF0fjLU1YpzEn8w&s=19

https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1955207593174983003?t=pkGboCXzYBl2CSj82jIX0w&s=19

https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1954562373408141497?t=rEhYjkaa5ZH2jCiWjqeOww&s=19

Its pretty darn clear, you dont need to be albert Einstein to see this is ethnonationalism 92.40.201.173 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:OR — Czello ^(music) 22:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

X is not a reliable source so that is not enough to be included(and we go off what said sources say say not what our interpretation of what he said is.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

These same things can also be said from a very civic-nationalist perspective. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Everything else he said doesnt have quotations, wondering why thats needed for specifying christian. ~2026-10140-63 (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Because "Christian principles" is a subjective description; he has labelled them as such, but many other Christians would vehemently disagree with him. Nil🥝 20:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ every label is subjective with people disagreeing LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The use of quotation marks (or in later revisions, the words "what it describes as") seems legitimate. For example, Christian principles include loving your neighbor as yourself, not oppressing foreigners, selling your possessions and giving them to the poor, and so on. I see no evidence Lowe endorses all of these. And that's only just a beginning to the "woke" stuff Jesus and the Old Testament God would have us do... — The Anome (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

well, not to reignite an old discussions, but the bible is inherently not above putting people of other religions and types down.

in fact, the book sort of promoted ethnonationalism and protectionism, depending on what denomination and how "true" to the source its followed.

I'd list examples but its irrelevant to the source topic. ~2026-48988 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit-warring over the lead needs to stop, and no one has started a discussion on the talk page yet, so here goes. The previous RFC on this very question closed as no consensus, due to a page merge rendering the question moot. As new sources have emerged in the last day, and RB has officially registered as a party, the article has been restored, and with it this question on a political position. I think most people would rather avoid a second RFC if necessary, so starting this discussion to try and land on a consensus first. Nil🥝 23:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@DeFacto I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning for deleting everything in this edit. They were all published after RB was founded, but before they registered as a party; nonetheless, the sources are still about RB and shouldn't be discounted because they were published before registration. Nil🥝 23:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The party was founded yesterday, so how can their views apply to it? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Restore Britain was founded in June 2025, but only became a party yesterday; they still existed as an organisation with a political platform before becoming a party, so why remove what reliable sources said about them and their platform? Nil🥝 23:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no evidence or reportage that their platform has changed. As far as it stands the only thing that's changed is that it's going from a political pressure group to a political party Bejakyo (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Something to consider is that the whole point of Restore Britain is that Reform UK is too moderate, and for that reason if Reform UK is right-wing and is seen as way too moderate by Restore, it would be fair to consider the articles referring to Restore as far-right. I say this as a supporter of the party, not as someone neutral. The far-right label has become based. Might as well use it now. Restore admits that it is radical and will deliver radical change, that it will deport millions of illegals AND legals. That only British citizens will be entitled to pretty much any state-funded service or aid. Benefits, housing, etc... Today they almost made a tweet saying "A British passport doesn't make you British" showing nativist and ethno-nationalist ideology. Might as well call it far-right, no one cares. I think people in this sphere are so over the labels now that they don't care about being considered far-right. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Orthodoxia Or Death "Way too moderate" is not a wording I'm aware anyone in Restore UK has used, please no Original Research. They've accused reform of watering down immigration but that doesn't constitute anything more that what it is directly LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree the edit warring has to stop especially given the previous RFCs close. I do maintain my previous position that they should be listed as far right based on the views I stated in the previous RFC on the sourcing. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It surely cannot just stay as "Right-Wing". If Reform is Right-wing and Restore Britain considers it far too moderate, it should at minimum be right-wing to far-right. But far-right is better.

Another argument is that several parties previously labelled as far-right like Britain First, and Advance UK have now publicly supported with Restore. Advance UK is even planning on merging with Restore. Also the label of far-right is good because it highlights the difference between Reform and Restore. One must be very left-wing to consider Reform and Restore even remotely close. Tories are centre-right, Reform is right, and Restore is far-right. There's nothing wrong with it, it expresses the views of many, myself included. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable, independent sources pointing to it being referred to as far-right over right-wing? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There are sources listed in the article that call them far right. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for Restore calling Reform "too moderate" LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not exactly sure what “qualifies” them as far right at all. It actually makes no sense to me. ~2026-10118-27 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Something that touches it (and I'm not saying that that's a bad thing) is their remigration stance. Net negative migration. Deportation of millions in Rupert's own words.

Also the fact that it considers Reform as watered down, the fact that there are several policies officially against the "islamification of Britain" in their own words. (https://www.restorebritain.org.uk) on the homepage scroll down and see the references to "islam" there are four in total.

So if Reform UK is right-wing, Restore must be labelled as far-right unless Reform changes to being labelled as centre-right. There's nothing to be ashamed of, in Rupert's own words "I don't care". That should be the reaction to people using the term far-right as a label being used just to avoid attacking the party's actual policies. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Mind you- I’m just discussing the edit that it is. But on a side note- utilization of the term “far right” is a frequent tactic used by left wing/far left ideologues in an effort to remove the center and alienate opposing opinions. We need to be careful what we allow to be labeled as such. ~2026-10118-27 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Only WP:SPECTATOR and UnHerd describe it as 'right-wing'. Spectator is considered an opinion outlett, and Unherd doesn't seem to have any status as a reliable source nor a decent editorial standard.

The Independent, The Guardian, and Politico are all on WP:RSP as reliable sources. This is joined by the article for Byline Times which while not on the list seems to have a high standard of reportage. Additionally the only academic source to refer to it likewise refers to it as far-right.

The strength and number of sources point firmly towards Restore Britain being far-right Bejakyo (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 looks like we'll need another RfC though, assuming the reverts will continue. CNC (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 it appears to me that the majority of reliable sources are using the "far right" descriptor, and we should follow suit. I also don't think that the sources calling them "right wing" contradict that descriptor either, as "far right" is within the spectrum described as "right wing". Nil🥝 00:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

As in the same way far-left falls into the wider topic of left-wing politics right? I think that's a fair point to add yeah Bejakyo (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Refer as right-wing I am kind of tired of people just blindly following sources that clearly state a agenda then go look for sources saying otherwise.

Just because a political party is "anti-immigration" does not mean automatically that it is far right. shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, we rely on what sources are saying. As it stands, the strongest sources are referring to it as far-right. I'd recommend looking at the following: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Bejakyo (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources calling them far right are reliable. The guardian is left wing and the others cited are even worse. You mention that The Independent called them far right and yet the latest article about the party being established doesn’t: . And the BBC doesn’t either. So it will be removed until several non-left wing sources call them “far-right.” Legend of Remy (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Just because you consider a source is "left wing" does not make in unreliable. The Guardian and Independent are both considered reliable sources on wikipedia, per WP:THEINDEPENDENT & WP:GUARDIAN. If you disagree, that's a conversation for WP:RSN Nil🥝 07:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Look, I do agree that those articles label it as such to avoid looking into its policies, however I think that if Reform UK is labelled as Right-Wing, we can't have Restore being considered equally right-wing. Additionally, if Advance UK is far-right, and they proudly say that they same the same ideology, now that they're about to merge; surely it would be inconsistent to keep labelling it as right-wing when they are obviously a lot further to the right of Reform.

Who cares? https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2023083380716327408 Take a look at his rhetoric. He doesn't care! He and his supporters have had enough of trying to appear diplomatic and moderate. Rupert would just say his catchphrase "I don't care". No one cares about it being labelled as far-right, that's its whole point, it's not Reform. It wants remigration, it wants a Christian society, it wants to stop anti-white rhetoric (You can see that in their policies on their website). Just let it be labelled as far-right. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

anti-white racism i don't agree with either Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It's just the "white bad" logic is overused Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Christian society doesn't always indicate far-right Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

There’s now two Independent articles that have come out about Restore after it was founded as a political party and none of them call it “far-right”. The BBC article and some lesser known sources I looked up also didn’t refer to it as such. The only one I could find was the guardian. So, I think the label should be removed until more sources come out about the party. It’s only been three days, so it can’t hurt to wait. Legend of Remy (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware, but at the same time it would be unfair for both supporters and opposers of the party to have the position be the same as Reform when its whole selling point is that reform is moderate in comparison. The reasons I gave above too should be considered. Also comparison with other parties considered far-right across Europe should be considered. And as I said their stance on islam, planned merge with "ideologically identical" in the words of Habib-Advance UK, and the party being endorsed by parties such as Britain First and by Tommy Robinson. All things should be considered. The way I see it is, the only way to have "Right-Wing" as its position is if we were to change Reform UK's position to being centre-right to right-wing but I don't think that is fair either. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Wiki relies on reliable sources just ignorig them and going by our own views is WP:OR GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not neutral for "far-right" labelling. You cannot label something "far-right" and then lock the page. Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When they are considered reliable by consensus then they are usable for far right labeling. Pages are never locked as WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE unless there is a moratorium on discussion which I doubt there will be for some time if its listed as far right. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Rather balance the sources. Why is they more sources on "far-right" than "right-wing"? Reliable Sources needed for both right and left Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for needing reliable sources from both left and right to make a determination(plus not sure right wing would pass this anyway.) We just follow what reliable sources say period. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 19:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on this (WP:ALLOWEDBIAS) says: A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

So we need to balance the bias in the sources if we use biased sources (which means there is a policy basis for needing reliable sources from both sides) or exclude the material relating to political position altogether. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Balancing the bias as it states there is about weighing the opinon from said sources. It does not mean we have to include both left and right sources. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, the only real criteria is that the sources used as WP:RS to be honest Bejakyo (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why would you not want to include the views from sources from both sides tough? It doesn't make sense to say balancing the sources from just one side. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not an issue an issue of sides, it's an issue of following what WP:RS say, as opposed to doing WP:OR Bejakyo (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

So sources from all sides are acceptable then. I don't think we're considering OR though, just giving due weight to all opinions, regardless of which side they are from. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said, it's not about sides, it's about following what WP:RS say, as is the case with describing any organisation Bejakyo (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Because balancing the bias in the WP:RS we have rather than having to include both left and right sources or not include the political position is the policy based stance to take. Thats why I think we should do it this way. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Very well put Bejakyo (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree on that then. I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

so wikipedia is for the left now? Jcbw2006 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

No one has said it is. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

where is there 8 sources for "far-right" and only 2 sources for "left-wing" that is bias. Jcbw2006 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I would be fairly surprised if you can produce two sources describing Restore Britain as 'left-wing' Bejakyo (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Going by the sources available, far-right is clearly the most applicable label for the party. Just in the Platform section of the article as it currently stands, at least six sources are listed describing the part as far-right, including a peer-reviewed journal article as well as news articles from The Independent, The Guardian, and Politico which are all listed as reliable sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. From what I can see, most of the editors arguing against the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead are doing so on the basis that these sources as left-wing, biased, or overuse the term "far-right" to somehow silence opposition. I think this is plainly ridiculous and untrue, but regardless of what any of us think, it makes absolutely no sense to discard those sources based on the opinions of a few editors when they are already widely used throughout the site and generally regarded as reliable. If editors feel as though The Independent, The Guardian, or Politico are untrustworthy, this is not the time or place to litigate that.

I understand that the party is very new and the balance of reliable sources might change over time, but currently I do not see a single good reason to omit the "far-right" descriptor other than blatant ideological motivation.

Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, here is Rupert Lowe's response to being called far-right: https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/

"Restore Britain has been called ‘far-right’ and ‘racist’ by the Guardian, Reform and the whole host of soapless socialists over the last few days.

I cannot be clearer in our official party response. We do not care. The illegals will go. The hotels will be emptied, the HMOs closed. Foreign sex pests, criminals and invaders will be rounded up, and they will be sent home. Far more legals will leave than enter. Those foreign nationals here already will pay their way, they will contribute, they will respect our culture. If they don’t do that? Fine. Their choice. They will leave too. If that’s racist to these people? Then so be it. This is a logical policy platform that the British people agree with. They’ve just never had it seriously offered before. Our political party is going to tell the brutal truth. Get used to it." Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Folks, this should do it. While he does not identify within the political spectrum, he responds to the articles labelling him as far-right with "We do not care". Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

No, you cannot distil it down to just one view, the view of the majority. You need to describe the breadth of opinion, duly attributed (who said what) and duly weighted. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It absolutely makes sense to list out the full range of ways the party has been described in the media and in scholarly sources - in the “Platform” section or somewhere else in the article. However, as it stands, the lead and infobox do not describe the party’s political position at all, and in those sections it makes sense to describe the party in the same way that it is described by the large majority of reliable sources.

Right now the article lead is just doing a poor job at conveying what Restore Britain is because certain editors are for some reason more resistant to labeling the party far-right than its own leader. The ideology section in the infobox is also nearly empty. It’s much preferable for the article to simply reflect the dominant view amongst available sources rather than be oddly silent about where the party stands on a political spectrum.

I’d be fine with mentioning other ideological descriptors in the lead alongside far-right as long as good sources are attached, but for now far-right should go in the infobox.

Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Putting just far-right in the infobox fails WP:NPOV though, which says: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it". Adding just one view is taking sides. Also, per WP:INFOBOX, "An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject". The key fact here is that there is no consensus on it. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

If labeling Restore Britain as far-right is "taking a side," then we might as well remove the political position section of every political party on the entire site. There has never been a political party in history where every single source discussing them describes their politics in the exact same way. Right now, we have a solid collection of sources calling Restore Britain far-right. It feels like you are asking for an unreasonable standard in order to label any political party. Respectfully, what sources are you drawing from to assert that the label is disputed? What is the other side and in what sources is it represented? I have yet to see any source explicitly state that Restore Britain is not far-right.

Look at the page for the Labour Party for instance. It says political position: centre-left, with sources attached. There have been countless articles from right-leaning outlets calling Labour extreme or radical left. There have also been left-wing outlets accusing Labour of being a right-wing party. The right thing for Wikipedia to do is not to just leave the lead and infobox blank while giving equal weight to all possible opinions. What editors have done is taken the perspective of the overwhelming majority of high-quality sources. If there is enough consensus to clearly label Labour center-left despite numerous dissenting opinions, then it should be even easier to establish a consensus here.

Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Further, while Reform UK is described as right-wing in the infobox and lead, you can see that there's much more elaboration given in the body. This is really typical stuff and I don't quite see why it should be any different here Bejakyo (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that the infobox should be left blank, but think the lead should give a brief duly weighted summary of the spread of views which should be detailed more fully in the article body.

What happens in other articles is irrelevant here, but if you see such problems in other articles, then why not raise the concerns on their talk pages too. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not bring up the other article to point out a problem with it, I highlighted it to demonstrate what Wikipedia articles on political parties typically do. See:

Advance UK: far-right

Reform UK: right-wing

Conservative Party: centre-right to right-wing

Liberal Democrats: centre to centre-left

Green Party of England and Wales: left-wing

Workers Party of Britain: left-wing to far-left

The political position of a party is standard information that gets included in the infobox, across the board. Debates about how a party should be labeled sometimes get contentious when different sources say different things, but the goal is to ascribe each party the label that best aligns with what most reliable sources tend to say about it. Relatively speaking, the decision when it comes to Restore Britain seems clear-cut. Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That fails the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy though. We shouldn't be going there. Our job is to represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RS are in agreement that Restore is a far-right party. Failing to note that is a WP:NPOV issue and a much more pressing one. Our role isn't to litigate, but to follow what reliable sources say. Bejakyo (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

wikipedia biased... "neutral" bs Jcbw2006 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

then put reliable sources when does not label them "far-right" you shouldn't have 8 sources over 2 sources for right-wing. You cannot be flavour for the left all the time, that's not neutral. In the past 2 years, articles have become very biased when it comes to such topics, and THIS is one of them. Jcbw2006 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

So, because there are more sources that say "far-right" than there are that say "right wing", it's Wikipedia's fault...? We don't control what sources say, we only report it. Nil🥝 21:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You'll make wikipedia itself into a echo chamber and even a unreliable source if that continues. Neutral sources on both sides NOW and balance them up. Otherwise you're against the wikipedia.

Sick and tired of the bias. Balance it out, not that hard for editors. Jcbw2006 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand that if we are to give equal weight to two perspectives, you actually have to go out and find quality sources to back up each side? It isn't Wikipedia bias to collect reliable sources and then have the page reflect what those sources say.

Clearly this isn't an echo chamber because we are having this discussion about what should go into the article right here, and the article has not yet even been changed to include far-right in the lead and infobox, because the community is gathering feedback from editors to hear arguments for why it should or should not. I just personally think the arguments against have not been strong thus far.

Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

But clearly there is bias when editors refuse to get sources from that doesn't call them "far-right". And wikipedia has favourite over the left there is evidence of that already even Co-Founder is shocked, but this article can prevent that. Far-right is overused. Jcbw2006 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Right. Maybe right-wing to far-right does the job. Makes it clear that it is to the right of Reform and is a hard right, nationalist party; but also makes it clear that it isn't exactly far-right in the way Mosley was. It's not a fascist party. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That would fail WP:SYNTH though, without reliable sources that support that it is somewhere between the two. The best we can say from the sources we have is that some say one thing and others say something else. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I get that but I don't think there will be articles explicitly saying "they are right-wing to far-right"... Otherwise we will either have to have them in the same position with the spectrum as either Reform or Mosley and technically both would be wrong. They are neither simply right-wing like Reform, nor are they Fascists... We are going to have to use some discernment I think otherwise the political position will have to stay empty. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

We may need a RFC at this rate. To me the case for the "far-right" label is close to unimpeachable, per the evidence that Bejakyo presented above. I think large chunks of this discussion have been quite unhelpful: Wikipedia policy is being ignored in places and misrepresented in others, and it seems that some users just oppose ever using the label "far-right", and/or consider any source which uses the label to be illegitimate because it uses that label. Are we really trying to argue with someone who's decrying "anti-white racism"? AntiDionysius (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The discussion here has really gone nowhere and there is a small group of editors who are preventing the inclusion of the "far-right" label just based on disagreements they have with general Wikipedia policy and gripes with the news media as a whole. Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't think that opposing the far-right label requires one to go against or misrepresent policy or anything like that; there are reasonable arguments to be had, even if I disagree with them overall. But many of the arguments put forth here have not been those. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree it probably needs an RfC as requires a neutral closer to be able to weigh the arguments against policy and assess the consensus from there. This discussion isn't very productive. CNC (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say a reasonable solution would be to describe them as "right to far-right" perhaps with an explanatory note next to this saying how it is disputed between the party and various more left leaning groups. Kieraaaa (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I support this, at least as of now. It seems obvious that the party is right-wing or far-right, and if no conclusion can be made, this is the way. I think it's time to also get this implemented, or doing something to speed up the procress for a label. Thomediter (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. That said, the comment in scare quotes about anti-white racism wasn't necessary and only harms the possibility of having a leveled discussion. SullyK (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

A couple tweets and retweets, even by the owner of Twitter, should not constitute a third of the article, nor should it be starring in the leading sentences. While I can see why this was added and agree that Elon Musk's statements of support should be stated, perhaps a better solution would be to have a list of individuals, with Elon Musk being one of the first mentioned, under a catagory of "supporters," which could state "The following significant individuals have expressed support for the Restore Britain." Does this seem reasonable? WriterOfScrolls (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WriterOfScrolls

absolutely agree, a section on every member wouldn't be as unduly weighed as an Elon Musk relationship section. Not that I'm particularly for that either LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove it until someone can find a more proper section to fit it into LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I reworded a trimmed version to go to the beginning of history, but then I realised it's arguably WP:OR. Yes Musk support contributed to the creation of Restore Britain, but the sources used don't tie it directly to the party. In that sense it's best left on Lowe's page where it belongs, as relevant to him, but not to the party, unless up to date sources discussing the topic can be used. CNC (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

As a right-wing conservative i still dont understand why wikipedia hasn't label Restore Britain yet as Far-right or Right-wing to Far-right this label isnt even biased at all? ~2026-10794-29 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

yes it is, unless neutral sources say so, its not a biased label shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

But add sources for ones who do not. Jcbw2006 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't need a fourth thread on the same topic Bejakyo (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah anymore discussion I believe should be organised in Talk:Restore Britain#Political position: "Right" or "Far-right"? which is the oldest currently active thread on this issue. Kieraaaa (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I under that Tweets are not typically considered the most high standard of source, but per WP:ABOUTSELF there is a clear basis for this to be included in the article given it is, as the leader of Restore UK says, the official party response. Given some users have supposed bias on descriptions of "far-right", providing the official party response to such descriptions is not just fitting, but needed. I hope we can resolve any such issues here Bejakyo (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Politicians post lots of things to social media. It's not for Wikipedia editors to select what such material is worthy of inclusion. We look to reliable sources. If reliable sources think it worthy of discussion, so do we.

WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply for it says not to include material that is "unduly self-serving", as this clearly is.

I cannot think of another example of giving a politician a large quote box like this. ~2026-59442-7 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It's an official communication of the party, not an unduly serving inclusion. Bejakyo (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a clear exception to WP:SPS, but my opinion is that for X specifically, accounts that were not verified before the Musk takeover are not reliable even for this purpose. It may be usable if the account was verified previously, but a reliable secondary source is preferred either way. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not worried about whether Lowe really said this or not. I think we can be confident that this is Lowe's official Twitter account. However, I am concerned about how we choose what is or is not important to include in the article. Lowe tweets a lot. We don't want to be in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory where Wikipedians are picking and choosing which of Lowe's tweets merit inclusion. We should follow what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say.

Nor do other articles on politicians or political parties give over large quote boxes to them to promote their words. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"the party had attracted ethnonationalists" is irrelevant and isnt constructive in any manor to the page and is only mentioned to try and sway a readers opinion. ~2026-10140-63 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to know who is supporting a party. The material is supported by a citation to a reliable source. I don't see a problem. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed Bejakyo (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Multiple old folks and pensioners support rupert, should add that too then shouldnt you ~2026-10140-63 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see from looking here and using this search, Restore Britain is not yet registered with the Electoral Commission. If they are planning to field candidates in elections, they will need to do this. Is there any evidence that they are in the process of doing this? — The Anome (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It's possible they have filed paperwork but as it says on the EC's website it can take up to seven weeks. There's also the point made in this article that it will be an umbrella organisation for local parties so we'll have to wait and see DontForgetJeff (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

On this note, may it make sense once registered to adjust the founding date "as a political party" in the infobox to reflect the registration date listed on the EC website, as I believe this is the case for virtually all other parties (that were established after EC website went live). Kieraaaa (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Lowe mentions in a YouTube interview with David Starkey that his party is in the process of applying to the Electoral Commission. SullyK (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There's currently only one widely agreed upon ideology for the party and that's British nationalism. Should we add another one or two in the ideology section based on reliable sources? It seems to me like one that should be added based on their homepage on their party is either "Christian Nationalism" or probably more so "Christian Right" of course the former being a more radical expression of the latter. This party does mention Christianity and Christian principles more than most parties with a typical "right-wing rhetoric". Also not only talking about banning halal and kosher slaughters, but also that the niqab and the burqa are un-british. So clearly not a secular and completely libertarian view when it comes to religion. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"Christian Nationalism" won't be neutral Jcbw2006 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You would need to find a reliable source that describes them as such. Honestly I'm not entirely sure that the term 'British Nationalism' is the best reflection of what the cited The Guardian article states. There is a far stronger implication for what it calls 'hard-right anti-immigration populism', i.e. Right-wing populism. lotorous 16:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Its selling point is not not being a populist, on being pragmatic and brutally honest, and saying that their objectives won't easily be achieved... Even if there is an article that has described them as such, it wouldn't be entirely accurate. Also it would be the same main ideology as Reform which of course isn't the case as Restore is obviously a lot more right-wing than Reform (and just about every major article has described them as such). For that reason British Nationalism is a lot more accurate, and keep in mind that it is broad as well which makes it an easy label. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There was a recent Alex Philips interview with their campaigns director Charlie Downes on Talk in which he seemed to conflate Christianity with being British in a way that suggests that Christian nationalism might be an appropriate label for their policies. — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That's interesting, though it might not be best to use the label if a reliable source cannot be attributed - especially on a topic like this, where the label is likely to be challenged. lotorous 17:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I mention it just because it's an indication of which way the wind might be blowing. You can find what appears to be a tweet from Downes confirming that interpretation here which says "Restore Britain believe that Britain is a people defined by indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith". suggesting that not just Christian nationalism but also ethnonationalism might be applicable labels. — The Anome (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

this comment seems to come from a deluded place, since when is a factual statement an ethnonationalist virtue?

a cow born in a chicken coop, is not a chicken. its as simple as that. and all parties should hold this view. ~2026-10140-63 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You are not doing your own cause any good by making comparisons with animals of different species. Modern humans are only of one kind, H. sapiens sapiens. — The Anome (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, though. If we include a label it has to be explicitly stated by a source rather than an intepretation. — Czello ^(music) 12:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, the use of the term "indigenous British people" is ludicrous; the majority of modern Britons are descended from Angles, Saxons and Norman people, none of whom were indigenous to the British isles. Even the Celtic/Brythonic people only go back as far as the Iron Age, and themselves were immigrants from Central Europe. How far back do you want to go?

Nigel Farage, for example, is descended from Hugenot ancestry - would Lowe argue that he is not British? And of course the name Lowe is of German-Danish origin, or could even have been Germanized from Levy. But I fear I'm headed in the direction of WP:NOTFORUM at this point... — The Anome (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Stop with indigenous nonsense. You are full of simplifcation. Most Anglos and Normans have celtic DNA within them. (I'm half-Welsh) I got Celtic DNA and blood. Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

When we get to the point that we are arguing about 23&Me data, I think we're getting a little off topic here. To recognize a Nation as being generally tied to and shaped by a religion or ethnicity is extraordinarily common in most places in most times, but what distinguishes "Ethnonationalism" and "Christian Nationalism" is a high degree of absolutism in this regard. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say this at this time. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no use arguing over what sources might say in the future. Unfortunately this discussion appears to be turning into WP:SOAP. lotorous 22:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

modern-day sense vs 1600 years ago Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

it's a different story though. British people are the one with close or adapted to the Isles for generations. "indigenous British people" is not clear. But Anglos and Normans are rightfully native to England from DNA facts and Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd love to know what you mean by "adapted to the Isles". Do you mean they grew resigned to the weather, or are you suggesting that the British people have somehow adapted biologically to their environment, perhaps by growing thick fur and developing gills to deal with the cold and the rain?

You do understand that the Angles (not "Anglos", which are something completely different) were Germanic people who arrived around 500 AD, and the Normans a Norse/Frankic people who came from what is now northern France? Neither of these groups were indigenous to the British Isles, "rightfully" or otherwise - we know exactly who they were and where they came from. Now, the Aboriginal Australians, they're an actual indigenous people; they arrived in Australia around 50-60,000 years ago as the first human settlers. — The Anome (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Studies show that most people in the UK/England carry Celtic DNA, though the situation in 500 AD was quite different. We must distinguish between modern identity and the reality of 1,600 years ago. Today, people are native to England in the same way Scots are native to Scotland or the Welsh to Wales. My grandparents once considered myself Welsh or half-Welsh; although I grew up mainly in Nottinghamshire, making me half-English too, I come from North Wales. My parents (partially) and grandparents spoke Welsh as their first language with roots from Wales, which accounts for my Welsh/Celtic heritage. While all humans ultimately originate from Africa, the British people of today are the rightful natives of the UK. Then (500 AD) and now (1900s-present) is now a different story... I can't say "invasion/invaders" for that era, depends though. On the other side, "Indigenous" is a more complex, often too politicized term for peopels' agenda, especially nowadays. Some groups and big peoples may be Indigenous but the term seem still complex, debated and sometimes even mythica. Historians/researchers still figuring themselves out. Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Much in the same way that someone with whose Indian or Jamaican grandparents have lived here since childhood are British, then? Or people whose German ancestors moved to Britain in the 17th century? Or people with a Germanic/Danish surname? Descendents of immigrants all.

Is there some special way that nativists make the distinction between "native" and "non-native", I wonder, and if so what might that be? — The Anome (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Most people in England carry significant Celtic (Ancient Briton) DNA overall especially in Nottinghamshire. While the Anglo-Saxons had a major impact, they intermarried with the existing population rather than replacing them. North, Midlands and parts of South England are high Celtic. In Nottinghamshire, more than 64% Celtic DNA within that county on average (may include me too) alone. Only Yorkshire (mainly North Yorkshire) hold most old anglo-saxon DNA... Men in Yorkshire are particularly dominated by old Anglo-Saxon Y-chromosomes (52%), while the female (mitochondrial) DNA is often much older, tracing back to the end of the last ice age. Anglo-Saxon mixed alongside Normans and Danes (East Midlands holds 6-11% Dane/Danish/Viking DNA thanks to Danelaw).

Hope you understand UK is a mixture of many many things into one. Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

some of it may be confusing or complex but that's how it is.

I'm a proud Welsh/Celtic. And a Brit. (With half-English). Jcbw2006 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's rather my point. My ancestors only go back about 1500 years - apologies for invading your island, which your ancestors took over from the indigenes when they invaded! We are all British; Celt, Angle, Saxon, Norman, Italian, Polish, German, French, Arab, Jewish, Jamaican, Indian, Chinese and Ukrainian, it doesn't matter where your ancestors are from. — The Anome (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

what you mean invading? Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

They came over here en masse in "little boats", without any legal permission or right to settle, outbreeding and driving out the natives and taking over their territory. A bit like what the current majority population of Australia did to the Australians. Unless you think the British Isles were terra nullis, that sounds a lot like invasion. — The Anome (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Further addition, Studies like the Oxford University People of the British Isles project proves that the English are mostly "indigenous/native" Britons who simply changed their language and culture over time, rather than being wiped out.

My view, i don't seek English as "invaders". Why do you use modern-day sense though? Some studies also show were invited by Romans previously too. You're very wrong with your alt'ing history into today form. English Channel crossing is a different story/ Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Genetically, an Englishman from Nottingham and a Welshman from Wrexham are far more similar than they are different. They both share the same ancient British "Ice Age" ancestors. Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Not replying to anyone in particular, but this is very much straying into WP:TALKNOTFORUM territory. Kieraaaa (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Needed to correct the dude who gets the wrong idea. How are English people invaders? English people ain't that germanic. Celtic DNA exists in pretty much all people in England and Wales. Sorry, I will now Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

most people are already celtic in England. You cannot use "invasion" as modern-day terminlogy. Anglo-Saxons are mixed with Celtic already. Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

my point is... old anglo-saxons are unfairly seem as "invaders" when not the case. DNA proves a lot. Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no "unique Celtic group" in the UK; the English, Scots, and Welsh are all part of a "genetic mosaic".

The "Saxons" did not wipe out the "Celtic" Britons; they intermarried.

The English are roughly one-third Anglo-Saxon and two-thirds "Celtic" or Ancient Briton. Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Main of England is not purely Germanic: Even in the most "English" areas like the Midlands, for example, the majority of the DNA is actually ancient British (Celtic). There is party out there back to Wales, Plaid Cymru, they alt the history to try win their independence i criticised and dislike them due to false ideas, xenophobic and misleading historical context. Jcbw2006 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of things are empty on this page. As most agreed, British Nationalism should be kept as long as there are sources supporting it, which there are. As for Christian Nationalism yes I agree with the ones saying that it's essentially their position, but at the very least "Christian Right" should be there although I think Christian Nationalism is better due to their many mentions of Christianity being a part of the identity of this nationality; which is precisely what Christian Nationalism is. Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't remigration be in their ideologies? That's one of its many "selling points". It even says on the policies page "net negative migration" and even says underneath "millions must go"... I understand that remigration can at times be explicitly racial and theirs isn't but isn't it still a form of remigration? Orthodoxia Or Death (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This is all still WP:OR. The sources do not explicitly use these labels from what I've seen. — Czello ^(music) 17:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

So far I've not seen anyone actually provide any sources that explicitly state any of the ideologies that have found their way into the infobox, and so I've removed them. Can any user please provide sources that explicitly use these labels? — Czello ^(music) 16:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I took a look after undoing the revision and indeed couldn't find any sources mentioning these ideologies other than one from Eagle Eye Explore . It states that Restore Britain "aims to promote British nationalism". That site isn't listed in Wikipedia:RSPS so I wasn't sure if it should be added as a source. NONE19204 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, so It seems there are no sources for now. Also, what does a "partisan source" mean? @Guinsardrhineford0079 NONE19204 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think Kieraaaa has covered things particularly well, but equally I think it's only fair I briefly chime in, too. Even without/before looking at other articles on Eagle Eye Explore (a source that appears to have almost no digital footprint and has seemingly never been cited on Wikipedia outside of a a single reference on Serbian Wikipedia), this specific article in question raises plenty of questions with regards to Eagle Eye Explorer's credibility. It's blatantly obvious to see that this is a publication intent on pushing an agenda rather than trying to provide the balanced or objective coverage required by WP:RS. I can't imagine any reasonable user looking at this and thinking it's a reliable source.

For decades, there has also been growing resentment from native British people even against British citizens of foreign ethnicity, believing that the latter are being treated far better than the natives. Such concerns are not unfounded, because for the past several decades, the native British people have long since been taught, from a young age, that feelings of patriotism and nationalism are inherently negative, and should frequently be associated with fascism, Nazism, racism, etc. However, according to the very same mainstream narrative, patriotic and nationalistic feelings from ethnic minorities should always be celebrated, as an example of diversity and multiculturalism in Britain. This long-term institutionalised effort by so-called progressive British governments, past and present, has arguably caused far more harm than good – making national British pride a taboo to be shunned and condemned, whereas ethnic minorities should be celebrated instead.

Guinsardrhineford0079 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This does seem unreliable. I didn't look at the rest of the article when adding the source. That was a mistake on my part, apologies for the confusion. NONE19204 (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I personally have never heard of them before and some research shows no results for them other than their own pages, so I would be cautious as to whether it meets the bar of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If it is the only source and you feel it necessary to include, maybe post in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? Kieraaaa (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We have a quote from their campaign manager saying "Restore Britain believe that Britain is a people defined by indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith". That's pretty much Christian nationalism in a nutshell, from someone in a position of power within the party. Combine that with Lowe's public statements which say essentially the same things, and I think that's clear self-identification as such. — The Anome (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and also a WP:PRIMARY source. Let's find an independent source that actually calls them Christian nationalist. — Czello ^(music) 16:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The source originally cited was an article from The Guardian. It speaks of the party 'splitting support among those drawn to hard-right anti-immigration populism'. It also says that the party has attracted support from those who support an 'ethnically nationalistic view of British identity', though this appears to be more an implication of the party's base of members, rather than its actual ideology. lotorous 16:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, this is talking more about the supporters than anything. — Czello ^(music) 16:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Anome: Apologies for reverting you but a few of your replies now have deleted other users' comments. I'm not sure if it's lag or an edit conflict, but I just thought I'd let you know. — Czello ^(music) 17:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Lag, I think. I've been careful trying not to over-write other's comments. — The Anome (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)