Talk:Nigel Farage

include tricked into supporting sex offender?

Should it be included in the short paragraph about his Cameo that he was tricked into paying tribute to the child sex offender Ian Watkins? Editor083 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it should. It was reliably sourced and the demand that it has to be sourced to the BBC or ITV is ridiculous. It was mentioned in several reliable sources and a brief mention in the context of his Cameo seems reasonable. It's certainly not a BLP problem as suggested when it was removed. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The reference is from an article in The Guardian in January 2026. The Guardian is a reliable source, but I'm not convinced that the content about a video prank is important enough to include or meets the WP:10YT. Will it be regarded as important content in ten years time? In my view no, but other editors are free to disagree. I mentioned in my edit summary that I didn't think it had been reported by multiple high-quality sources and gave two examples such as BBC News and ITV News. I could've also given examples such as Sky News, Channel 4 News, The Times or The Daily Telegraph. My suggestion that content also covered by BBC News or ITV News might be an indicator of notability is not the same as demanding that it has to be sourced to the BBC or ITV. I didn't make that demand, but is the content about a video prank particularly important? I don't think it is.

The Nigel Farage article currently consists of over 250,000 bytes which is more than Winston Churchill and more than double that of James Callaghan, a former prime minister and MP at Westminster for over 40 years. Farage has been a Westminster MP for only about 20 months.

The reference in The Guardian quotes Farage as saying: "Thank him for the money. There are lots of Ian Watkins."

Indeed there are lots of Ian Watkins, but the perpetrator of the prank intended it to relate to the vile child sex offender Ian Watkins, whereas it seems Farage assumed there are multiple people with the same name and didn't immediately make the connection. Should Farage have realised it was a prank? In my view, yes, but I don't seek to defend Farage. The issue is whether the content about the prank is important and encyclopedic. I'd be surprised if, for example, encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica or the Oxford Research Encyclopedia thought that this type of prank was significant enough to include. Guidelines at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER state: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

While I personally dislike Farage, Wikipedia is a place that must be strictly neutral, and this feels more like its trying to make some kind of point than actually give useful, unbiased facts. I highly doubt that Farage was aware of Ian Watkins, nor is what he did particularly unique in the grand scheme of things. BlueOtaku8000 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

More newspaper content added about Cameo videos

On 17 March 2026, more content was added to the article by another editor about Cameo videos from a report in The Guardian.

Apart from The Guardian, as far as I'm aware this latest recent content has not been covered by multiple reliable sources such as BBC News, ITV News, Sky News, The Times or The Daily Telegraph.

A spokesperson for Farage responded to the latest report in The Guardian by stating: "Mr Farage has recorded many thousands of videos for genuine supporters to celebrate weddings, congratulate friends or send novelty messages. At that scale, the occasional mistake can occur."

As I stated in my edit summary:

As per WP:BLP guidelines, all biographies should be written cautiously. I think this latest report in The Guardian is another case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which probably doesn't meet the WP:10YT. Guidelines state that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. However, if this newspaper content is deemed by other editors to be very important (which I don't think it is) then a response to the newspaper report should be included because all BLP's should be written cautiously. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

254,603, for Nigel and 205,037 for Winnie. This page does seem to be sliding into a trivia website. Halbared (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The recent additions of a possible future series of events (in regards to a by-election ) seems like WP:SPECULATION, based on consecutive what's and ifs. Instead of removing I thought I'd bring it up here.

Likewise the latest job of Farage (advertising gold) seems like WP:NOTNEWS.

Thought I'd put it here as it leans into more newspaper clippings Halbared (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

£5 million donation

The article previously read, "In April 2026, it was reported that Farage had accepted a personal donation of £5 million in early 2024 from British cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne, who lives in Thailand." DeFacto added the phrase "before he was an MP" to that, with an edit summary saying "added context wrt the £5m". I then revised that to "shortly before announcing that he would stand in the 2024 general election", using the wording from a citation and adding that citation (the Guardian article). I also added to the end of the paragraph, "The Parliamentary Code of Conduct requires financial benefits received in the 12 months before becoming an MP to be declared." This, again, was raised in the same citation, which I cited.

DeFacto has now reverted that, saying "NPOV - over editorialised and loaded to cast doubt". DeFacto: you know I respect much of your editing, but please WP:AGF and don't cast aspersions on other editor's motives. It seems harsh to me that you get to add context without using a citation, but when I add more context, using wording from a citation and giving that citation, this should be seen as NPOV!

It does not seem to me inappropriate to be more precise about the timing, nor to explain what the rules say about the timing. These events have attracted a lot of reliable source coverage, and going into a bit more detail is warranted.

Could other editors weigh in here? What wording seems appropriate to you? Bondegezou (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought your edit was good. I agree with your point -- I don't know why DeFacto's context was okay but yours somehow isn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

NPOV means following the sources, not maintaining neutrality, so I also do not see why the edit was reverted. I would also suggest moving this to Nigel_Farage#2024_general_election. Per the Guardian, he had previously said he would not stand, then decided to after receiving this donation. The article should cover events chronologically, not when they became publicly known. SmartSE (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The context was required as without it readers might assume it was after he became an MP, and it is supported by the cited source. The Guardian's spin, implying doubt about Farage's version, and the editorialisation applied to it, contravenes WP:POV IMHO. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That's horseshit. Your so-called context is meant to imply that not reporting the donation was okay because (after all) he wasn't an MP. Bondegezou's edit is also context and is also supported by the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Coutts section

I think the following phrasing is misleading: In a front-page story on 20 July, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Coutts CEO, Dame Alison Rose, had dined with Simon Jack, the business editor for BBC News, on the evening before he published an article saying that the decision had been "for commercial reasons

'Dined with' suggests to me that it was a dinner with just the two of them. In fact they were sitting together at a BBC charity dinner. Inisdom (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Inisdom It may suggest that to you, but not to me. Since when would the verb “dine” apply only to some arbitrarily limited number of participants? -- CRConrad (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Article length

On 7 July 2026 a template was placed by another editor that the article may be too long to read. I think, as per WP:10YT there are probably too many words related to the Chagos Archipelago in February 2026 and too many words (four paragraphs) about Cameo videos. Is content from a September 2025 interview with Zia Yusuf very important in relation to Nigel Farage? I'm not sure it is and I feel the content is more appropriate for the Reform UK article.

For now, all I've done is to delete a long quote from Jerzy Buzek as per WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:QUOTEFARM and undue weight for the length of the quote. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we probably need to make a new article to move some of the bloat to. How about Non-political activities of Nigel Farage? That could encompass the media career section and potentially some of personal life too. The Coutts section also seems overly detailed to me especially when there is already a separate article about it. And the £5 million gift is probably worthy of a separate article too. SmartSE (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem with a non-political activities article is that Farage doesn't set clear boundaries. Look at the Cameo thing...is it purely private, or is he offering it as a perk mainly for political supporters? If it's private and not political, why is Reform UK chiming in with statements on the record—and why are we repeating them? If Reform is opining because other politicians did too, then doesn't that make it a political controversy?

As for Chagos, the bottom line is that Farage was supporting illegal migration (like a hypocrite) in a situation where it was politically convenient.

Yusuf is being referenced as a person close to Farage who is explicitly summarizing Farage's thinking and intentions; it directly relates to the text that was added about the so-called "frontbench team". I don't think we can dispute that coverage of Farage's intentions when in higher office is relevant. TheFeds 19:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Sections

Several headings and subheading have been removed. This makes the article harder to follow. S C Cheese (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

website

"The UK Parliament website hasn’t been updated to reflect this. Therefore he’s still a sitting member of parliament"

This logic doesn't follow - the action of webmaster@parliament.uk in updating the website does not in fact expel people from the house. It is one of several lagging indicators. Morwen (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"First term as Leader of Reform UK"

This is used as a section reading. Is this a position that has terms? S C Cheese (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Amended S C Cheese (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Resignation as MP"

I've undone the undo. "Resignation as MP" is more precise than "Resignation from Parliament" as the UK has two chambers of Parliament. S C Cheese (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

if we're being precise perhaps we should note that the actual title you have given the section is "resignation from being an MP" and not "resignation as mp". both seem a bit clunky to me but the shorter one seems marginally better. Morwen (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

How about: "Resignation as Member of Parliament"? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You didn't change it to "Resignation as MP" though, check your own edits. "Resignation from Parliament" was more concise than "Resignation from being an MP" (your edit). If general consensus is that "Resignation as MP" is better then go for that. Ighs (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just going to comment on the options here. The section title should preferably be kept short, so (of the proposed options) the best two would be "Resignation from Parliament" and "Resignation as MP". Considering that the focus of the section is on Farage's resignation itself, and not the house of parliament in which he held a seat, "Resignation from Parliament" is the simpler, more natural-sounding option. Ighs (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Resignation from Parliament" is ambiguous, so not sufficiently precise, and not a common term for this in British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed x2 S C Cheese (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@S C Cheese But since they are both chambers of Parliament, aren't members of the House of Lords members of parliament — i.e. MPs — too? At least logically it seems they must be. But maybe their titles of nobility kind of “override” that, so by convention they're not called (“mere”) MPs? But if they are, “as MP” is just as ambiguous as “from Parliament”. -- CRConrad (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Members of the House of Lords are not referred to as MPs. Unless you have a source... S C Cheese (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's convention. Being born to the purple implicitly meant you could sit in Parliament/govern (things have changed a bit since 1999), becoming a Member of Parliament was/is a 'title/honorific' to show a commoner has been chosen to sit in Parliament/govern. Halbared (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No, members of the House of Lords are never described as being members of Parliament - that term is only used for members of the House of Commons. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Belgium and Farage's political philosophy

The content referring to Farage's statements about Belgium in 2010 and 2018 (added by @SanjiXzist and then reverted by @Kind Tennis Fan) was fascinating. Is Farage referring to the characteristics of a nation (in the cultural sense), while framing it as a denunciation of the state (in the political sense)? Does he misunderstand, equate the two for principled reasons of political philosophy, or did our text misrepresent the whole situation? It also raises the spectre of hypocrisy, given that Farage's own United Kingdom is a...united kingdom, by many definitions consisting of several nations or parts of nations in a political union. TheFeds 23:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I deemed it was necessary to add his remarks about Belgium there but apparently someone was too quick to revert it. SanjiXzist (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Should this article include Farage's opinion about Belgium being a "non-country", "not a nation", and "an artificial construct", considering that it was uttered in the context of a notable EU political debate. Also, should we simply quote Farage, or do we have justification for explaining what political philosophy underpins those opinions? And does Farage apply that political philosophy to the UK, and if not, why not (and should that contrast be stated in the article)? TheFeds 00:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

do we have justification for explaining what political philosophy underpins those opinions? And does Farage apply that political philosophy to the UK, and if not, why not (and should that contrast be stated in the article) Well, do we have sources for any of that analysis? Morwen (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

London home

So the south London home mentioned in relation to the investigation of the incendiary device" and his 2025 report to the police was the one in Bromley? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)