This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Restore Britain article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

As of May 2026, there is consensus to describe the party as "far-right" in the lead sentence and infobox.

The content of the Restore Britain page was merged into Rupert Lowe on 17 August 2025. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article, please see its history.

It is entirely logically incohrerent to suggest that Advance UK is far right (as Wikipedia does) but Restore is only "right wing to far right", when the leader of Advance UK has reprimanded Restore for being too extreme. Makes no sense. ~2026-26149-32 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-26149-32, that's Wikipedia for you. Most articles are open to editing by virtually anyone, with or without any knowledge of the subject and with or without any training or experience in the writing of encyclopaedia articles. There is no central editorial oversight over how good articles in Wikipedia are, and readers would be wise to check everything they read in an article against the sources cited to support it.

Content can be changed at any moment, by anyone, and whether their change survives, or not, depends on the how it is received by those who are motivated to check it and/or change or remove it. Cabals may be involved in maintaining particular points of view, as may vested-interest-editors and editors pushing their own point of view. There may even be some editors trying to ensure content has an impartial tone and actually duly documents and explains notable points of view.

If you find what you think is a problem with an article, then the onus is on you to have a go at fixing it. Remember though that Wikipedia has a set of content policies and guidelines, and editors who disagree with your additions will quickly find something amongst those to use to ruthlessly undo your efforts. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with your point of view, I completely differ from DeFacto here, wikipedia is based around source material and nothing else. If wikipedia existed back when people believed the sun rotated around the earth it would say that the sun rotates around the earth because there would be source material for it; the aspiration in this example would be for humanity to realise the truth, and then wikipedia would reflect that. Wikipedia is not a battle ground for ideas and opinions, it is an encyclopedia which is meant to reflection source material that is attributed in the article. Since there is no wikipedia:original research on wikipedia any point is moot unless it can be attributed to source material, as it well should be. Our own thinking and opinions is entirely irrelevant on Wikipedia, so please find sources, and make an edit suggestion based from these. Chattenoir (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chattenoir, I'd agree that it should be "based around source material and nothing else", but not that it currently actually is. I'd also agree that it should not be "battle ground for ideas and opinions", but not that it currently is not. I do agree that "our own thinking and opinions is entirely irrelevant on Wikipedia", and wish we could be confident that all editors realised that and edited in that spirit. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Advance UK's political alignment is labelled as 'far-right' as:

1. it has been labelled as such by The Guardian and The Independent, both of which have reached broad consesus as reliable in WP:RSP

2. it has received support from Tommy Robinson

3. it was a sponsor of Tommy Robinson's Unite The Kingdom rally; Ben Habib spoke at said rally

As for Restore a consensus has been reached to label it 'right to far-right'.

I doubt whether Advance condemning Restore as 'too extreme' or not has much bearing on its political position. T ^{let's talk!} 12:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m flabbergasted it only says “right wing to far right”. This is a party advocating the remigration of millions of people. It is objectively far-right. ~2026-27802-32 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article, which shows that there is no consensus amongst the reliable sources as to whether it is far-right or right wing, carry the {{Far-right politics in the United Kingdom sidebar}} template, or even be included in it?

I think not because it, in effect, is asserting in Wiki's voice that it is accepted to be a far-right party. I propose removing it per WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple reliable sources placing them as far-right, so yes, we should have that side bar; and yes, Restore Britain should be in that sidebar. It's not violating NPOV when it's supported by reliable sources. nil ^nz 11:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil NZ, it's only supported by the sources as the opinion of some commentators, yes - but not as a fact which can be asserted in Wiki's voice in this way. The template doesn't qualify it or attribute it as an opinion, it appears as if a fact, so putting it in there contravenes, at least, the WP:VOICE section of NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't the opinion of some commentators, they're asserted as matter-of-fact in editorial voice. Just yesterday we had The Guardian calling them "overtly far-right". nil ^nz 13:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil NZ, no. Read WP:VOICE again. It says Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. So as we also have sources which assert as matter-of-fact in editorial voice that they are something other than far-right, we need to treat all these assertions as opinions. That is, NPOV, one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia needs to be fully applied on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source that "seriously contests" the notion that Restore Britain is far right? The fact that some sources also call it right-wing (and that we are reflecting this in the lead and infobox) does not necessarily mean that the description "far right" is seriously contested, given that "far right" is a subset of "right-wing". Unless there is a reliable source saying that the party is not far right (or discussing it in terms that are incompatible with it being far right, for instance by saying that it is a left-wing or centrist party), I think it should be included in the sidebar. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious include, based on available sourcing. The article even states Lowe has stated indifference to Restore Britain being described as far-right or racist. Our best sourcing so far confirms the theory, even aside from the fascists that are welcomed with open arms etc. CNC (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is some newer sourcing to consider as well, have been meaning to add the recent HNH report along with The Times:

• Neo-fascist leaders back Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain and not Reform, April 2026

I assume it's in relation to the solid reporting from here:

• The Company You Keep: The Extremists Flocking to Restore Britain, April 8 2026

There is also these two that I only just noticed:

• Restore Britain: A new home for old fascists, pt 1, April 27 2026
• Restore Britain: A new home for old fascists, pt 2, April 30 2026

If someone has an archive link for The Times would be appreciated. CNC (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even with HnH's opinion that some "extremists" support Restore, that does not mean that we can ignore the views of the other reliable sources used in the article or ignore the NPOV policy statement that says If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice.

Hence, as the article does document conflicting assertions on this, we surely cannot say in Wiki's voice that Restore is far-right - whether in the prose, or by adding them to the far-right sidebar, navbar or category. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeStrike per potential WP:HEY - see comment below - If this were a category, or even a footer navigation template, that would be one thing, but per WP:SIDEBAR, the subject matter of the article must be tightly integrated with the subject of the sidebar, since these are visually intrusive collations. The aricle is not tightly integrated with the far right in the UK. There is minimal information in the article about the far right, and no clear consensus that they are far right such that we could call them that in wikivoice. SIDEBAR templates are not complete taxonomies. We don;t need to, and shouldn't list every party in this sidebar that has been called far right by someone. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it should obviously be included. It's extensively cited and discussed in the article and is a significant part of the subject's notability. The question of whether its far-right status is disputed doesn't matter - I don't think the article actually calls it disputed, and none of the sources dispute it; there are a variety of sources that describe it in various ways. But the key point is that there is enough coverage in the article to establish that this subject is significant in relation to the far-right; this would be true even if (as some editors assert) other people disputed it - though, I'll reiterate, all they've really established is that they dispute it and that some sources exist that do not use the term; neither of these are sufficient to change the fact that the coverage that does discuss the party in connection to the far right make it a major part of the topic. Indeed, basically all coverage of the far-right in the United Kingdom goes into extensive discussion about Restore Britain, making it clear that to scholars of the far-right it is seen as central to the topic. Note, again, that this is true even if editors don't agree that the party itself is far-right, and that the presence of the infobox does not necessarily have to imply this. If editors feel that the body doesn't currently go into enough detail on that connection, we can easily fix that; sources are not hard to find. (Ah, regarding my edit summary, I got confused about how old this discussion was, having confused it with the previous one. But the rest stands.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If editors feel that the body doesn't currently go into enough detail on that connection, we can easily fix that; sources are not hard to find. But that is exactly the point. To be due in a WP:SIDEBAR, the subject of the article must be tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate. The question here, because it is about a SIDEBAR, is not what the sources say, it is what the article says. The template claims this is part of a series, but the article does not show this. If editors feel it should be part of that series, they should write the article to be part of the series first, and then add it to the series. Also you should refresh yourself on WP:ONUS and consider self reverting your re-inclusion of the challenged material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support if we are apparently voting already, but also to formalise my support for inclusion that was lacking. In response to @Sirfurboy I'm going to take my own advise here from another template discussion: include the relevant content in the articles, in order to become eligible for inclusion as part of the scope. Thus see diff and diff (before the revert maybe?). In short, there is the The Times describing this party as far-right (some would argue that having a right-leaning paper use this label is the gold standard, I wouldn't but there we go), as well as documenting the support from prominent UK far-right figures; silence from Lowe, deference of support from fascist party Britain First; Steve Laws, a notable ethnonationalist and self-proclaimed proud racist who is purportedly representing the party. I'm struggling to understand how this isn't within the scope of Far-right politics in the United Kingdom, with now a dedicated sub-section to Restore Britain documenting the relationship, as well as the subsection at this article: Support from the far-right. Granted, at the time of voting I think you were probably about right, or at least, from from wrong regarding your interpretation of sidebar; but with the aforementioned sources included in the article, I think there is a lot more weight to that inclusion (whether that be as content, or as a link in a sidebar). CNC (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that the article has been improved, so that it is focussed on the far right, I've struck my oppose for now. But I continue to have concerns, and do not support the inclusion at this stage. Aquillion claims above that there exist sources from scholars of the far right that discuss Restore Britain extensively as far right. But the sources you have added to write the new section are Hope Not Hate and The Times. Hope not Hate is adjunct to a charity, but not part of it. Rather it is a limited company that is constituted at arms length from the charity, so that it may undertake certain activities that would be precluded by the charity status. The trust's stated purpose is to challenge all kinds of extremism and build local communities, with particular focus on the organised far right, communities susceptible to it, and the issues and policies that give rise to it. So I think it is clear it is involved in advocacy (indeed, I know it is, since I've donated to it). As such, however, I don't accept that this and a newspaper are WP:BESTSOURCES, and it is debatable to what extent this would constitute secondary coverage (in the matter of historiography, it is primary. These are the people calling it far right, not the people analysing the claims). Rather, I would like to see us locating, reading, and then using the sources that apparently exist from the scholars of the far right, which would be, I would presume, almost certainly secondary coverage. If such can be found, and we can write an article that shows how this organisation sits within the far right, then we would clearly have made the case that this is part of a series on the far right in the UK. As it stands, we have not done that. Again, a SIDEBAR does not need to list every party that could be described as far right. It should only cover those that are significant. The term tightly integrated excludes mere taxonomies and exhaustive lists. The SIDEBAR should draw attention to those organisations that are significant because, e.g., they have changed the conversation, or elicited in depth treatment. Most SIDEBARS are horribly bloated, and I don't support (at this stage) bloating this one too. Especially considering how contentious the subject is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor, you said you're going to include the relevant content in the articles, in order to become eligible for inclusion as part of the scope. That sounds like you are selecting evidence based on the conclusion you want rather than basing the conclusion on all the available evidence. Would that be a fair assessment? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's called improving articles per WP:HEY. Discussion doesn't prevent that. CNC (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you want to improve an article in which the evidence doesn't support the conclusion you have two options. You can can adjust the conclusion to reflect the evidence or you can adjust the evidence to reflect the conclusion. You made a choice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "adjust the evidence", do you mean tampering with sources? I've never heard of such a concept either way, maybe I haven't been around long enough. Regards, CNC (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't mean that. I mean some combination of use more or less sources, extract more or less from the sources, reinterpret the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to elaborate on that with some examples? CNC (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto this is an utter lack of WP:AGF. You should know better than throwing such accusations around without evidence. nil ^nz 20:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly is lack of WP:AGF. What accusations? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing another editor of either deliberately misinterpreting sources or synthesising sources. That's not conducive to AGF, especially without providing evidence to back up such claims. nil ^nz 21:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I refute your interpretation of my post. I have not accused them of any such thing. You seem to be trying to discredit my contribution by misrepresenting it rather than by constructive discourse. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I did misinterpret it (and my apologies if I did). Even so, ending a rhetorical with You made a choice is still rather pointed and doesn't usually lead to constructive discourse. But I digress... I agree, no one should be discrediting the contributions of other editors, and rather than questioning editors' intents—whether that be yours, mine, or CNC's—it would be more productive to focus on the content and sources in question. nil ^nz 00:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I googled what you mean; you are free to improve the article, no-one is stopping you. WP:BEBOLD and ideally include the WP:BESTSOURCES. I've tried my best but there is always room for improvement. For this subject, it seems WP:THETIMES and WP:HOPENOTHATE hold the most weight at present, based on depth and reliability. You are encouraged to improve the sourcing if you have found something that I have missed. CNC (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOPENOTHATE includes: It is undisputed that, as an advocacy organisation they are biased. We are still waiting for the scholars of the far-right for whom this is seen as central to the topic (per Aquillion). This was the basis of reversion in of the template against WP:ONUS. I'd hope that the sources would be forthcoming soon. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak on behalf of Aquillon. There is this source as passing mention:

• Antiracism and the current moment, Ethnic and Racial Studies, August 2025.

The last point illustrates several fault lines within European far-right racism that are best illustrated by the minority groups that are targeted, though rarely in a neat and settled way: asylum seekers, poor unskilled versus wealthier skilled migrants, undocumented versus settled migrants, Muslim or Jewish people, or all non-white people. In the UK, the neo-Nazi Homeland Party, Britain First and Patriotic Alternative oppose all non-white migration and call for mass expulsions. Reform UK contains these tendencies, and ones that differentiate between Muslims and others, settled and recent migrants, and asylum seekers (Williams 2025). Alongside is a multitude of competitive actors on social media devoted to generating divisive, inflammatory, polarizing messages, including Rupert Lowe MP, formerly of Reform UK and now leading Restore Britain, Ben Habib, former Reform UK politician and now of Advance UK, and former academic Matt Goodwin. The shifting ideological divisions with the far right can result in forms of racism that are predictably structured or erratic, and manifest across different geographical and social contexts in volatile forms.

This is referenced at Rupert Lowe as refers to him within this context, rather than his party directly, but could be incorporated. There was another academic source I found but was also only referring to the party in passing also, so didn't bother using it either. I'm not sure what academic sources Aquillon is referring to, there doesn't appear be to a lot out there yet. Hence I can only attest to the best sources at present, whether that be advocacy or right-leaning papers with a bias, that is as good as it get's as far as I found. CNC (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, that is passing. I am starting to think the scholars of the far right, talking about this subject, may not exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you say you googled, or how that relates to the rest of that sentence. I'm not criticising your efforts, just questioning the tactics. I can't see why The Times or HnH are given such weight - they aren't arguing the party position, they telling us the types they say are supporting them. We have plenty of sources, it could be that it's how we interpret them that is the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote, but thank you @DeFacto for bringing this up for discussion; the same concern occurred to me as I was referencing the page recently.

Instinctively, I oppose, not only due to the "far-right" designation being in dispute (although @Aquillion makes a good point which I'll note), but also: clicking on the sidebar's title and navigating to the Far-right politics in the United Kingdom page, one immediately finds that they're reading about "the formation of Nazi, fascist, antisemitic, or Islamophobic movements." So, to call Restore Britain "tightly related" and include it in the series seems like equivocation.

@Aquillion points out "the fact that the coverage that does discuss the party in connection to the far right make it a major part of the topic." That a number of media sources label Restore Britain as "far-right" isn't disputed, and that alone does make it at least a bit related. That said, I don't think that relatedness is strong enough to warrant the sidebar (to echo @Sirfurboy). I withhold my vote since my problem isn't wholly with the sidebar itself, but also largely with the equivocation I've mentioned. SullyK (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am opposed to this sidebar's inclusion not on the grounds that this party is not reliably described by some sources as far-right (though HopeNotHate is not reliable for this end as it is listed on Wikipedia's reliable source list as "biased"), as many reliable sources do label it as such, but based on the fact that Reform UK's page, the most closely comparable to this one, does not have this sidebar. If Reform UK also had this sidebar, I would say this is a sensible addition, but when the party is already described as far-right in the infobox and in the first sentence, I don't see the utility that neccessitates this additional inscription.

Aditionally, I don't think that the average reader is going to read the infobox and put this in the context of far-right politics in Britain, as it is listed as ranging from Reform to the BNP, but is simply going to see the large fascist symbol and take away from that that this is a Fascist party, which is not supported by any reliable sources. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the Reform page until it was unilaterally removed without discussion (and the page is now fully protected, hence it's not been readded). In any case, other pages exists shouldn't be the determining factor of whether it is appropriate or not for this page. nil ^nz 10:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, of course, a removal of a bold edit does not require discussion. Per WP:ONUS a positive consensus will be required to re-add it there too. More generally, and perhaps this discussion should be centralised elsewhere, I feel that SIDEBAR is way too oriented it recentism, overlong, and possibly redundant. Categories are used for taxonomies, and footer navigation templates are to be used when entries in the template are not tightly integrated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that it wasn't as established before removal when I first checked. Ah well, I have no interest in having an additional UK political party talk page end up on my watchlist (one is more that enough...), so I'll leave it at that. Indeed, I'm personally much more of a fan of footer navboxes than sidebars, but that is much broader discussion to be had. nil ^nz 10:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you both about footer navbars and about not really wanting to multiply political pages on my watchlist. Just to note, however, that WP:QUO is just an essay with good advice, but WP:ONUS is the policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I am yet to find a study or article classifying Restore as anything but 'radical right'.

Regardless of how much I hate this party, I think we should refrain until scholars or media outlets reach a defined consensus, instead of Restore's messy classification as 'right-wing' or 'far-right' depending on the outlet. T ^{let's talk!} 07:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as SullyK and Scrollwriter have said, there is something very wrong with stamping a fascists flag on this page, whether this party are so called "far-right" or not, itself problematic as academia do not use the phraseology as the encyclopaedia reading public understand the common-name usage. Breaks NPOV and fuels/supports the left-bias/dishonesty argument against Wikipedia. Halbared (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Halbared & @WriterOfScrolls: The symbol is no longer a part of the template, and agree with you both that it's use as an icon was probably not appropriate. nil ^nz 09:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well then my objection is really not relevant anymore, and it wouldn't be incorrect to keep the catagory. I'm not sure what symbol might be properly used in its stead to represent parties ranging from Reform UK to the BNP. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially something neutral like a flag (national or symbolic) could be used, to avoid any explicit parallels between one group and another. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it's well-cited, and the removal of the fascist flag from the sidebar template makes its inclusion less of an issue. Arguments that the party is "radical right" as opposed to "far-right" don't hold weight, as it's been established that they are synonymous. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this been established? T ^{let's talk!} 08:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just remembered it wasn't technically established on this talk page, but during the last RfC on Reform UK's political position, a source review was undertaken which demonstrated that "radical right" is consistently used in sourcing as either a synonym or a subset of far-right politics, particularly in Europe. Radical right (Europe) has several reliable sources and names multiple academics in the field who have described it as such. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be edit warring in the SIDEBAR while there is active discussion and no consensus. I reverted you and you edit warred it back. WP:ONUS is a clear content policy. It is not an essay, it is policy. It says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. Please self revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self reverting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Multiple reliable sources state that the party far-right. It is thus consistent to have this sidebar. Helper201 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What does the sidebar add, except visual distraction? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (reinstating my struck oppose). There was talk about scholars of the far right above, but no sources have been found. Personally I think this party is probably rightly characterised as far right, but we simply don't have the sourcing to suggest it should be collated as part of a series of articles on the far right. A remonder, we are not talking here about what the text of the article says. We are talking about whether there should be a prominent sidebar collating this as part of a series for readers interested in the subject of the far right in the UK. Such a series should be tightly integrated and focussed. It should avoid recentism and political polemic. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or magazine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hear, hear. T ^{let's talk!} 19:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

should include the distinction between why the polling numbers are so different. it's because in some of the polls Restore Britian is an option and others it's a write in "other" option LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to edit right now, i anyone able to update the elected representatives section from they've never elected anyone but here's who's joined the party to being about the 2026 local election and including the results in great yarmouth(where they won every seats they ran in under GYF) Europa europa 04 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.caldronpool.com/p/history-made-restore-britain-wins

This is one source you can use i quickly looked up, or just the gov website for the results or sum Europa europa 04 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That source looks like a self published blog, if it is, it's probably not suitable as a source per WP:BLOG. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that this party is written as being part of these series with a giant fascist symbol hung there, when other parties on that list with the same listed political position do not have this on their page? Why is this here, if it is not on Reform UK's page, also listed as "right wing to far-right?" WriterOfScrolls (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing discussion as to whether the sidebar should be included, further up the talk page. Your input is most welcome. T ^{let's talk!} 19:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:ONUS it should not be there until the consensus is established. I removed it once, citing ONUS, but Aquillion restored it without a consensus on 3 May. [1] As per the discussion above, 6 days on, we are still waiting to read what the scholars of the far right have to say. I don't greatly object to calling a spade a spade here, but considering the need for positive consensus per ONUS, I'll remove this again. I highly recommend you engage carefully in the discussion above though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Apologies. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the total amount of councillors to 32
Add these council seats to "Restore_Britain#Councillors"
Norfolk County Council: 9
Bassetlaw District Council: 2
Borough of Great Yarmouth Council: 1
City of York Council: 1
Timebenders (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Norfolk County (9): https://elections.norfolk.gov.uk/seats.aspx

-Bassetlaw District: Actually, both of these councillors left Labour to join Restore but were both blocked due to their affiliation, does not count

-Borough of Great Yarmouth (1): https://www.great-yarmouth.gov.uk/article/16777/Results-from-Great-Yarmouth-divisions-for-Norfolk-County-Council-elections-May-7-2026, the last one: Jon Wedon

-City of York (1): Mark Warters, representing the Osbaldwick and Derwent ward who had been independent, joined Restore in March: https://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=2073

In total, the amount of councillors is at 30 as of now. Timebenders (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing? Norfolk County and the Borough of Great Yarmouth pages do not mention Restore at all. The Great Yarmouth First party may also be associated with Lowe, but surely these are different legal entities. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great Yarmouth First is a Local affiliation of the party according to this very page as well as the consensus. Same leader, same policies, just a different name. Also, GYF does not get a single mention in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_make-up_of_local_councils_in_the_United_Kingdom page either (they have 10 councillors technically), for the same reason.

Now I don't know where the current number 23 came from, but right before the elections they had 20, so they have 30 now. Timebenders (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added as an affiliate on 8 May by KGxHeretic [2]. I am unconvinced that we should be counting affiliate numbers as Restore Britain. They are different legal entities. I think we would need secondary sourcing, in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but then update the number from 23 to 20 as I believe York Council was counted twice and the Bassetlaw councillors were kicked out of Restore. And since City of York does mention Restore Britain, that one should be added on the list of Councillors by area. Timebenders (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are Reform Derby candidates counted as part of Reform UK councillors? I'm not sure if it's so, but if so or if not that seems like a reasonable place to draw some precident. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this edit request as answered, given the discussion seems to have concluded two weeks ago. Any editor is welcome to reopen this request if necessary. nil ^nz 00:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As per their spokesperson, Charlie Downes, the Party's official position: https://x.com/cfdownes_/status/2053830281920987281 includes "embarking on an ambitious process of civilised remigration".

This is the first time remigration is accepted as party policy, and presumably this affects the "introduction" and the "platform" section of this page?

Whether or not there is in fact any difference between remigration and civilised remigration. This seems to be a notable turning point in the organisation history / policy platform, which should be noted. ~2026-28800-74 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the 'Platform' section says:

Restore is a far-right[42][17][43][44][45] and right-wing party,[46][47] to the right of Reform,[48][49][50] as part of the radical right.[43]

This is stating opinions as facts which contravenes WP:VOICE.

We've had this discussion before and it was asserted that if it is prefixed with "is described as" it is acceptable. However, that has now been removed as WP:WEASEL.

The alternative seems to be to add inline attribution to the holders of each view per WP:OPINION/WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The platform includes very little information about the party's platform. The first 3 paragraphs are solely dedicated to establishing the party's "far right" label. Whether true or not, this section should be reserved solely for detailing the party platform, in line with the title. ~2026-32063-43 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a no brainer. I agree, especially when those labelling sections are in contention. When in doubt, just describe the hard facts LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

• Support as proposer - the arguments in the previous discussion stated how Restore Britain's policy positions, operations and support base have been outlined as far-right:
  • The National [5] / The Times [6] (20 May 2026): Identifies the party explicitly as a "far-right political party headed by ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe", and documents endorsements from prominent ethnonationalist and neo-fascist movement figures.
  • The Week (6 May 2026 / Updated Mid-May): Published a comprehensive policy profile explicitly framing the group under the headline Restore Britain: is new far-right party a threat to Farage?.
  • HOPE not Hate Investigative Report (21 May 2026): Confirmed that the party's current Makerfield by-election campaign is actively relying on ground support from members of the neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative, solidifying its operational classification on the extreme fringes of British politics.
  • Party leader Rupert Lowe publicly responded to this characterisation on social media (20 May 2026), stating: "If being 'openly far-right' means deporting foreign rapists... then yes, sign us up - that's Restore Britain", demonstrating an explicit, indifference to the far-right label.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said on the Advance UK page: The term far-right is not a stable category and its meaning can shift across countries and periods. And that is a problem for a global encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is clearly not single authored, and the definition on one page is not the definition on another. See the introduction to this work [7] and especially on the problem of definition. The term "far-right" is an analytical shorthand, not a precise legal or ideological classification. The term is often politicised in both academic and popular usage. Note also what they say about the Wikipedia entry, and think critically about it - they are right, because of the way we assemble articles.

But there is hope. Cas Mudde, who is prominently quoted on our page on the far-right, has sought to produce a working definition of the far-right in a manner that has been widely (but not uncritically) accepted. Mudde's three pronged definition (nativism, authoritarianism, populism) is good (Mudde especially stresses nativism), but in the same way as, say, the Bebbington quadrilateral has elicited much debate in another area of history, Mudde's definition is not perfect (one criticism is that nativism and nationalism can be confounded). It will, however, probably (in my opinion) stand the test of time, and with modifications and caveats, will probably be seen to have isolated the defining aspects of the far-right. But look at this book review of Mudde's book: [8]. McGlynn says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Independent, 25 May: [9] - "Rupert Lowe’s party - which was set up as a right-wing challenger to Reform - in a series of posts on X..."
  • The Times, 9 May: [10] - It’s going very well,” Rupert Lowe, the businessman turned Ukip politician, Reform MP, and founder of the challenger right-wing party Restore Britain"
  • The Critic 23 February: [11] "On the thirteenth of this month, Rupert Lowe registered Restore Britain as a political party — only the latest in a series of right-wing parties aiming to outflank the mainstream right to the right.."
  • The Spectator 16 February: [12] "You wait years for a right-wing party – and then a veritable fleet comes along at once."
  • GB News 25 May: [13] (can't be bothered to quote them. It's GB news).
  • The Telegraph 25 May: [14] and again.
  • The Sun 30 May: [15] and again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per my comment above, which I'll largely repeat here (I'm unclear on why a new RFC was opened.) The simple fact is that depending on context, "right-wing" does not contradict "far-right"; the "right-wing to far right" construct is an awkward compromise that isn't really supported by the sources, which lean increasingly clearly to far-right. The idea that we must describe it as a range, when none of the sources do, simply because some less in-depth sources just broadly say that it's right-wing doesn't make any sense; the sources that go into depth on its ideology or which discuss the larger context make it clear that it's far right. In addition to the above, see eg. ^[1] If it was true that the far-right label was controversial or contested, or that coverage saw it as part of a range rather than some being more specific and some less specific, then it would be easy to find at least a few sources directly contesting the far-right label, or ones that clearly position the party eg. closer to the center in some way. No such sources exist, because the party is far-right and this is uncontroversially accepted among any source that discusses the far-right in Britain. The far right is part of the right, which means that arguing that the existence of some sources that only use "right-wing" in passing means we must qualify our well-sourced usage of "far-right" is like arguing that we can't call someone a senator if some sources only refer to them as an elected official; the former is a subcategory of the latter, so they don't contradict. Our role in that case is to just look at the best available sources and its overall direction and choose what degree of specificity to go with; and in this case it's clear that "far-right" is best-supported. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: On Wikipedia, "far-right" and "right-wing" are not mutually exclusive. The far-right is a specific subset of the broader right wing. While "right-wing" covers everything from mainstream conservatives to radicals, "far-right" is a clearer, more precise description for Restore Britain. Reliable sources use it because the party's platform, for example mass deportations, banning religious freedom, and alliances with former BNP leaders, which goes much further beyond standard conservative politics into extreme nativism. HyacinthAmberleaf (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The preponderance of good quality reliable sources goes with far-right. Some sources using "right-wing" does not contradict that. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - source I've found one academic source. Note that although it has a DOI and is published in Sage Journals, the specific journal is Political Insight, which is a public facing journal of the UK's Political Studies Association. Although that is a leading association, it is not their high impact academic journal. Despite that caveat, it's probably the best source so far, as it directly addresses the question here. The paper is here: [16]. See the heading Tracing the migration of fringe ideas into party policy and table 1. Restore Britain / Rupert Lowe is listed as radical right and not far-right.

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

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

I've found 2 more academic sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Because the majority of sources say far right^{[citation needed]} Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per the numerous reasons given above. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew-Hopkins1981, in this edit, has changed the lead and data in the infobox so that they no longer summarise the article body. The reason given was that there is a consensus to do so. The consensus they refer to, Talk:Restore Britain#Political position, is still ongoing [edit: I see they closed it themself whilst I was writing this]. Shouldn't we at least wait for an uninvolved policy-based close?

Even if there is a consensus to change the lead and the infobox, shouldn't the article body be updated first so that the new lead complies with WP:V, WP:LEAD and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and the new infobox data complies with WP:V and WP:INFOBOX?

Also, per WP:CONLEVEL, I don't think Wiki policy recognises a consensus that leads to the article contravening WP:5P2, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My view is irrelevant, the sources and our local consensus confirm that the party is far-right, but there is previous RfC consensus, so I have opened up a new discussion page to establish this first, please participate: Talk:Restore Britain#Request for Comment: Political Position. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An involved close on a discussion less than 6 days old, on a controversial topic, is simply not good enough. It's well below the standards of WP consensus, regardless of the frosty discussion. Next time, please head to WP:CR instead to avoid such re-litigation of the discussion which is now underway. Regards, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to sign your closes next time. That in itself is a reason to revert and send it to CR per WP:CIR, alongside requesting a speedy close of the RfC as moot post reversion. If you wanted broader consensus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom could have been notified for example. I know you mean well but you've made a complete mess. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article describes the party as “right-wing to far-right” however the ideologies section says “Restore is a far-right party, generally considered to be to the right of Reform and part of the radical right.” This is a clear inconsistency and the ideologies section should be changed as such. Cube1ber (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on Talk:Restore Britain#Request for Comment: Political Position. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the Great Yarmouth First councillors in Norfolk listed in the councillors section? I think they should be, considering that GYF functions solely as a local branch of Restore. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a footnote on that would be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them now, with a note. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Platform and ideology, add:

Restore published a paper on Energy Policy which outlines their proposed policies to "restore national energy independence". The party proposes a "mass removal" of all Net Zero commitments and an expansion of offshore oil and gas production. Restore also supports expanding nuclear energy capabilities, including a "nationwide programme of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)".

Citation: https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/energy_policy_paper TheJayomaMaynard (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done needs WP:SECONDARY sourcing to be WP:DUE for inclusion. Ergo the party has said a lot of things, on their website and on X, most of which is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]