Talk:Restore Britain

"Political party"

Lowe has been quoted as saying that Restore Britain is "not a political party" but "a movement". However, the duck test principle strongly suggests that it is one: it has a leader, it has political goals, policies, and seeks to raise funds and recruit members. I've categorised it as such. — The Anome (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. It's not registered as a party and Lowe still sits as an independent. — Czello ^(music) 21:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Czello it’s not registered as a party and Lowe is still sitting as an independent so I would say it’s not one. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Lowe says it isn't a political party and it is not immediately acting like one. So say WP:RS. So, I don't think we should categorise it as one and, indeed, we need to change the infobox, which is an infobox for political parties. Bondegezou (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I changed the infobox from the political party template to the organisation template to reflect that Restore Britain is not a political party. Finlayy has now changed it back.

What do other editors think? Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think regardless of whether it's a "political party" or not, the political party infobox still fits it best with info such as where it split from, colours, political position etc. Finlayy (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The orginisation template fits it best as Restore is not a political party. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that the political party template pretty easily fits it, since as Anome mentioned, it's pretty clearly acting like a political party. As they said with the duck test principle, if it walks like a party and talks like a party then for these purposes it's a party. Overall also the template for a party pretty easily fits it, as the template for an organisation is very different and not specifically tailored to political entities like Restore in how it operates. CIN I&II (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, acting like a party would mean registering as a party. And as such I disagree it walks or talks like a party the parties actions can apply to an org too. What about he org template fits worde than the party one? GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not acting like a political party. It has not registered as such. It has an advisory board involving people from different parties. It is WP:OR to conclude it is effectively a political party. We should stick to WP:RS coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that describes Restore Britain as or similar to a political party? I haven't seen any. That's how we answer this question. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the defining property of a political party, if not to seek election? Restore Britain is not so far as their statements or even the statements of others indicate, seeking election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.97.88 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I still see no reliable source reporting that Restore Britain is a political party. If it can't be supported, as per WP:V, I think we need to remove any suggestion that Restore Britain is a political party. The Anome and CIN I&II, you are the two that have argued it is a party: do you have anything to add?

Separately to that we have Finlayy's argument (also supported by CIN I&II) that the political party template works well, even if Restore Britain is not a political party. Do editors agree to that? I think it is misleading, because it leads to people putting in a House of Commons banner claiming Restore Britain has 1 MP, when no RS supports this. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that it is misleading to use a party template not the org one and it does show when people are trying to put them as having an mp when as you say no RS says that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems for more akin to Momentum (organisation), albeit from different prospective. Restore Britain is certainly not a political party. I would suggest organisation infobox. Knitsey (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's misleading to put the house of commons banner, since that's completely useless, but I think that it is good to use the political party template for this since it has put itself as an opposition to the political party Reform UK. I think that the political party template works well with it. Also I would agree that legally it is not a political party. I think that the party template is a good fit for showing it's political nature and positions. Also I would say that it is acting like a party in terms of having it be predominantly led by one individual who is a politician (a party leader), operating as a supposed opposition to an existing political party as a breakaway party, and having party members vote on policy after paying into the group.

I do think that we need to add text inside the template through the hidden html text bit to state that editors should not add the house of commons banner claiming they have one MP. CIN I&II (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Political position

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)

Neutrality concerns

There appears to be an influx of editors possibly referred here from an external forum (X.) Concerned about neutrality.

—> https://x.com/roryofwatford/status/1941762921161232440?s=46 Sussywussy (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Ideologies section

I have added 3 ideologies as a basic starting on what the party believes in, I included right-wing populism, national conservatism, and nativism, as the party has already advocated for these things pretty consistently in cited sources. Am opening talk on this on debate on if specifically "Anti-Immigration" should be added rather than simply nativism. CIN I&II (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: since you (most likely correctly) removed the ideologies section, could you give some theorising on the correct ideologies tab section bits? Since I added those as a pretty basic start to the section to be deliberated. I think an anti-immigration one is pretty well substantiated per The Independent article, and the right-wing populism is also included in the article (see the "extreme-right populist" tag added under the section titled "Anyone else on the extreme-right populist bandwagon?"). Need a bit of help on that section for the article. CIN I&II (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Infobox content also has to be in the article (as per MOS:INFOBOX) and material has to be sourced. So, I suggest not starting with an ideology section in an infobox. Add content to the article with citations. If everyone's happy with those edits and they stick, then something can be summarised in the infobox.

If, that is, we stick with the current infobox template. I think that's the wrong template as Restore Britain is not a political party (see above). But that's a separate discussion. Either way, let's get the article content right first. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah my point on the anti-immigration one is that it is in the article, as it is sourced and directly shown in the article under the lead paragraph including the advocacy for deporting all illegal immigrants, and the article including discussion of their advocacy for net negative migration. As for the right-wing populism I can develop some thing in the article to discuss that since while re-reading it again I am shocked to see it doesn't mention populism by name. Also I more am saying under the current template we should write down the ideologies section, if we are to keep it or not is a whole other discussion as you said, more just wanting to look at the current way things are and fit within them for now. Right now do you think an ideology just put as "anti-immigration" with a link to the opposition to immigration article would be good, since it is mentioned 3 times in the article? CIN I&II (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Restore Britain is anti-immigration, as per sourced text in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I would support adding anti immigration as an ideology as it’s supported in the sources. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I've removed libertarianism since the only source was not in line with WP:INDY, and I can't find any third party source from a reliable publication showing libertarianism as an ideology behind it, I cited the Independent article from Sean O'Grady in the infobox for anti-immigration, that article also sources it as right-wing populist, which I think might be good to add in the infobox if there is sourced text in the article eventually that may show it, as there is ample citation for it. CIN I&II (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This article is a total mess. Nathan.bessler (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Whats a mess about it? GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I concur, 6 of the citations are directly from the organisation themselves, that's no way to identify a party's position. It should be based off independent sources. I've tried to flag a lot as . Quinby (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC on political position

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

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 [1]. 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)

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)

Far right

@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? [2] 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)

Ethnonationalism

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)

Colour

As we've discussed above, Restore Britain is not a political party, but some editors want to use a political party infobox. This has a slot for party colour. Emfri1188 added a colour (dark blue) to the infobox. I reverted. GothicGolem29 has restored.

We are agreed that Restore Britain is not a political party. We don't give a colour for other think-tanks or political organisations, so why should we here? Moreover, all Emfri1188 has done is copy the colour of the logo. This is WP:OR. There is no style guide connected with the party, no campaigning with coloured rosettes. It's just observing the colour of a logo, something the reader can do themselves without us having an infobox slot.

Can we stop this nonsense? Restore Britain are not a party. Let's stop having a political party infobox with colours and numbers of MPs etc. Let's stick to WP:V. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

We should give the organisations colour as it is more info about it. Other pages not having it does not mean this one should not(unless theres a specific policy against colours for orgs.)Why would the logos colour not be the party's colour? Plus their website in general seems to use that colour. I agree they Aren't a party but while I agree on the number of mps should not be included I don't see why the colour of the org should not be included. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There are two reasons why we should not purport to give a colour. Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of facts and not a database. Encyclopaedias don't list colours for thinktanks. Moreover, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should only contain the key facts about something. This is not a key fact about Restore Britain.

Secondly, we don't know that this is Restore Britain's colour. It's a presumption someone has made, it's original research. We know nothing about Restore Britain's marketing strategy. We can see the website currently uses that colour, but we don't know what it will use tomorrow.

Us looking at the logo and saying it's a particular colour adds nothing (readers can already see the logo) and presumes things we don't know. That is not how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree on your first reason because This is a political organisation not a think tank. Also,I would disagree that an enclycopedia can't include a colour for this type of orginisation(and my point about other pages not determining what we do on this page stands.)

However, I think your second reason has merit for now(if years later the website uses this colour and any campaign of theirs uses it then I will consider it their colour) so I will restore your version. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge

It's been nearly a month since this was announced, and still the only sources we have are breaking news articles (other than this July 15 New Statesman piece which devotes one paragraph to it, and Restore Britain's website which is not independent). Breaking news articles can't contribute to notability, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. The RfC above where all we have is one decent media source on its political position is pretty telling, and it isn't even a registered political party.

Imo it should be merged to Rupert Lowe#Restore Britain, with this page redirecting there. Once/if we get more sources it can be spun off. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Support as per your points and the RFC discussion further above. There just isn't the media coverage on this at the moment to really write much about it at all. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Support it's a one man political "movement", until it becomes more established it's would be best served as a subsection of Lowe's page. Nil🥝^Talk 08:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Support the sources only discuss it in the context of Lowe, and it seems to have had a minor impact on UK political scene since its founding Quinby (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Support The lack of further coverage does suggest that a merge is more in order. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2025

It is not far right and regardless of opinion a neutral stance should be taken 86.156.13.246 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: While I'm not a fan of the far-right label myself, it is supported by sources. Neutrality means reflecting what the sources say, not declining to use a label altogether. — Czello ^(music) 07:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)