This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. London This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Thank you @Wikishovel @Tuncker for all those tidy ups and and kick alongs. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative editing for the win! Thank you for starting the article MD, I hadn't heard of them. Wikishovel (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erasmus Sydney. You've thanked a sock. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the page about ARC on wikipedia is based upon several bibliographic references wich include lots of detractors of ARC, some of them lying in their statments, most of all just biased opinions, not facts 2001:8A0:61B0:D900:C8DF:3E61:C0F8:B12C (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The form of organisation is a company with one shareholder in Dubai and one rightwing investor named Paul Marshall. So it isn't a NGo but a Limited Company registered in England & Wales. This should be change accordingly in the infobox. --Jensbest (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a Limited Company and describes itself as such. However, it also fits the (rather vague) description of International non-governmental organization (INGO). Is registration as a charity required to be called an INGO? In any case, changing the entry in ARC's infobox to a narrower, more precise, term seems reasonable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely support changing the descriptor to Limited Company. Thanks @Jensbest and @Michael Bednarek. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have made that change accordingly. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created many months ago, while the organisation was first being reported. I have the sense that, perhaps because a press release shaped the first reports by journalists, it became (rather lazily) known as the Jordan Peterson thing. This is a bit like saying Woodstock was a Grateful Dead conference, I mean, sure, they were big there, but that's not what Woodstock was about. Okay, not wanting to turn this into a discussion about Grateful Dead. My point is when you look at reliable sources like The Critic and even the primary documents in The Telegraph the idea of the grouping really is about addressing what they see as civilisational decline, and trying to revitalise western culture. Whether they are succeeding at that is another question, but the reporting indicates that's what the group is about and I believe that should be reflected in the lead and the short description. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please change the lead (and the short description) along those lines. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In its current form the lead appears to put forward a more one-dimensional view of ARC than is fair. Bertie deAlfie (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to this remark. The lead seems embody a subjective point of view on the article subject. MariaMKorn (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether they are succeeding at that is another question" Way too soon to have a lasting impact. But Centre-right politics typically involves promoting capitalist policies within a liberal democracy. Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick! I agree there has been some predictability in liberalism. Since the late 70s, definitely. Though I've been doing some reading about liberalism down here in Australia. And in the post-war years, liberalism wasn't that big a friend of capital. The dominant liberal party was big-government, with massive government funded capital works, and huge investments in public education. Another time. Too soon, I agree, to detect whether we're at an inflection point again, but it's possible. Anyway, to the article, I'll proceed along the lines discussed above. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That description was never well-sourced in any case.

The Guardian[1] "Influential rightwingers from around the world are to gather in London from Monday at a major conference to network"

DeSmsog[2] "Executives from some of the world’s biggest oil and gas firms are listed as attendees at a conservative conference in London whose keynote speakers include the leader of the Heritage Foundation – the group that published the Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump term. "

The Independent:[3] "The Conservative leader was accused of “parroting Donald Trump’s dangerous rhetoric” instead of standing up for national security, after addressing the right-wing Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London on Monday."

I'm sure there are other sources. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen@Drmies Here are more. All of DeSmog's coverage[4].

The Financial Times: 'https://www.ft.com/content/7ff1614c-38a2-4b5c-81d3-80cea1196dad Part megachurch, part political rally: inside London’s ‘rightwing Davos’] although that's a headline and can't be used. I can't read the article but we could get it.\\

National Review[5][ "Predictably, the content of the speeches over the three-day conference here leans right-wing," Doug Weller talk 17:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the only mention of its political leaning says centre-right. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Doug Weller, that calls for a serious "however" after that one instance of "centre-right", right? You said it's not well-sourced anyway--I can only see the headline and the first part of the first sentence", and so I see both "Right" and "centre-Right". Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the whole article and it backs the text. What o meant is that we only have one source and that a sympathetic one. And there is nothing balancing it. I avoid “however” however. :) Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources for centre-right, eg MSN. We need to present a variety of descriptions. This discussed the relationship between ARC and GB. News.[6]. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely promotional, or was, before I removed several sections. You might not think so, since many of the references, the ones that I can access (not being subscribed to media like The Sydney Morning Herald) have a highly critical tone. There are for instance references to three articles from The Guardian in the lead alone, and one of them (this) reappears frequently lower down in the article. In it, it's pointed out that ARC's two shareholders, Dubai-based investment management group Legatum Ventures and the British investor and Brexiter Sir Paul Marshall, a billionaire, are major investors in GB News, the rightwing and partisan alternative news outlet. In our article, those two shareholders are mentioned only in the brief and dry section "Organisation", with none of The Guardian''s commentary; instead the Guardian piece is mined purely for its quotes from ARC's "vision document". That seems to be the the overall sourcing principle here: ARC's own vision document is not cited, and the sources actually cited may be respectable, or even left-wing like The Guardian, but sneakily, they are only used for adding ARC's vision statement (compare Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements; this is a way of getting ARC's mission statement in, very fully and uncritically, without actually referring to it) to the article. This for instance, also from The Guardian, is a sarcastic piece focused on ARC's "scepticism" regarding climate change. I quote:

"None of these people have, let’s say, reputations for thinking too far outside of the deeply conservative box on a range of social issues (name pretty much any one). Fine. But it’s their scepticism – or in Howard’s case “agnosticism’’ – on climate change that seems most starkly at odds with a genuine quest to parse the meaning of life."

This Guardian piece appears in our article in the section "Positive geopolitics" (or appeared, before I removed it just now), where the opinion of "one environmental journalist at The Guardian" (provided in one brief sentence) is comprehensively trounced by a much longer overview of how the founders' wish to create a "positive future filled with hope and optimism", created by ""men and women of faith", will overcome such negativity (as indicated by the section header). Sources such as The Guardian, and also mamamia.com here aren't used, they're abused. There are also of course some conservative sources, like The Federalist Papers (although this gives 404 Not Found, at least today — perhaps somebody who is good at that stuff can fix?) and an admiring piece from Premier Christianity. In sum, I've removed what I see as unblushing promotion, in the form of the "Beliefs" section. If somebody wishes to restore it, I urge you to make it a lot shorter and a lot less admiring, per WP:NPOV. But for myself, I think the article is more proportionate without it. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Bishonen, I agree with your edits, which you have explained very well here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, Drmies! I have now also attempted to make the overly enthusiastic tone of the "Conference" section more neutral by bringing in some critical voices. Those voices were already article-adjacent, in the existing references, but not in the text which tended more to take anodyne facts from them. The lead could for sure do with a little NPOV-ing also. Bishonen | tålk 12:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]