Talk:Nigel Farage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cameo

Should Nigel Farage's bizarre career on the app Cameo, where you can pay him to say pretty much whatever, be mentioned, alongside some of the stranger stuff he has been made to say? It's been widely covered (and mocked) in the media, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on singing of neo-nazi songs

@ Earl of Arundel: Friendly greetings Earl, I very rarely get reverted as I only ever use RS, avoid opinion pieces and I've been editing since 2005. My objective is always to get a better article so please lets cooperate and count victory as a better article. We can both win. The Independent article isn't gossip, nor is it an opinion piece. After the murder of Jo Cox, a number of people felt intimidated.

To those who know their propaganda history, Farage's video of refugees in a long line is remarkably evocative of rats coming out of the gutter interspersed with pictures of Jews as depicted in the Eternal Jew. I visited the Hitler's mountain residence but much material has been taken down to minimise the risk of Hitler worship. Note in South Thanet where Farage stood, both Tory and Labour combined to block Farage. Michael Howard himself is a Jew as are the Miliband brothers.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/inside-the-tory-battle-to-stop-nigel-farage-becoming-an-mp.

Regards JRPG (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

[Not Earl, but] That his schoolfriend said that he sung that nazi song is certainly verifiable and sourced to adequately reliable sources, the problem is with including an incendiary accusation by a schoolfriend of his in the early life section of a BLP, especially with that specific wording (e.g. saying it was "confirmed" by his old friend). The problem is that it's undue, and problematic for a BLP – whether the accusatoin is true or not – to include every bit of gossip thrown around like that by people someone went to school with. The guidelines at WP:BLPGOSSIP are probably helpful here: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; [yes] whether the material is being presented as true [no, it's something he was accused of by a friend from his old school] and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject [debatable, but we should probably trust the judgement of the level of coverage in reliable sources]

If this garnered a large amount of attention in other secondary sources it could plausibly be due and treated appropriately, but googling around I don't think that it did. Only good RS I can find on this really is Hareetz and the article from The Independent you used in your edit (+Channel 4 probably qualifies too: ). I don't really think gossip-y stuff like this should find its way into a BLP without good reason, especially when it seems barely covered by reliable sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Farage Place of Birth

Farnborough is in Hampshire not in Kent as stated in the summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.167.75 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a different Farnborough. Hogweard (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

He was born in this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Farage was born in Farnborough when it was in Kent, this because he was born prior to 1965 and the formation of the County of Greater London which took over the area removing it from Kent. Crayboi (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Nigel Farage duped into saying pro Provisional IRA slogan in Cameo service video, which made international headlines:

https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-pro-ira-message-birthday-cameo-video/amp/

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/nigel-farage-i-was-hoaxed-into-up-the-ra-birthday-greeting-40939610.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/up-the-ra-nigel-farage-duped-into-using-republican-slogan-in-birthday-video-message-1.4698180 212.129.78.206 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"International" headlines, as in "UK and Ireland" headlines? He will literally say wherever you want for €87? It sounds like the man is a complete fool. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Preston Grasshoppers R.F.C.

"A rugby club has cancelled an upcoming event featuring Nigel Farage following backlash from members and the community. Preston Grasshoppers RFC has now cancelled the charity event, billed as ‘An evening with Nigel Farage: The man not the myth’. me after the event sparked outrage on social media with supporters and members of the club voicing their anger, and some resorting to cutting up their membership cards." Not sure how notable this is. Perhaps it happens all the time? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Stress in the surname

I've heard Farage being mentioned by other people a lot of times and each time I heard it as stress-final, something like /fəˈɹɑʒ/. As I watched this video on YouTube, I felt like they don't really mind the stress, though I noticed that in the end Nigel himself pronounced both «Farage» and «garage» rather stress-initial, more like /ˈfærɑːʒ/. Still I can't help noticing that a big set of people pronounce it stress-final, so I think that /fəˈɹɑʒ/ should be added next to /ˈfærɑːʒ/, at best with an explanation if one can be found from a reliable source. Артём Кочкин (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Air crash.

The air crash and injury should be added to the personal section. 2A02:C7C:E085:8D00:1023:BE69:1A57:F565 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Covered under 2010 general election. — Czello 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Farage, not Farange

EOM. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed — Czello ^(music) 07:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

NatWest

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NatWest_Group&diff=1166122455&oldid=1156343870 In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Dodgy dealings

In the European Parliament section there's this bit:

The BBC spent four months filming a documentary about his European election campaign in 1999, but did not air it. Farage, then head of the UKIP's South East office, asked for a video and had friends make copies which were sold for £5 through the UKIP's magazine. Surrey Trading Standards investigated and Farage admitted the offence (what offence?).[14/41]

I added the numbers at the end, forgot which citation it was. That leads to a archived news article that clearly states that Ukip did sell those films & Farage telling that it shouldn't have happened. So the (what offence?) is utterly ridiculous there. Hope it will be removed soon. 85.148.147.144 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. I am not opposed to it being re-added if we can find better sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

He's far-right\alt-right

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:91ab:bc01:38dc:1ba2:b2e:c3c (talk) 2023-09-26T21:45:36 (UTC) – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 21:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

References

What house was Nigel in at Dulwich College?

Worth enquiring. 82.71.2.184 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I note an entry has been removed from his early days when it was reported whilst in air cadets he marched through local village singing Hitler youth songs

update 194.75.90.69 (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was removed for 1) not being notable and 2) no definitive proof of it even being true. — Czello ^(music) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you got that claim mixed with this 2019 report in The Independent where a "close school friend" claimed that ".. the teenage Mr Farage sang “gas 'em all, gas 'em all”, a neo-Nazi song about Jewish people."? Although there is also this report in Morning Star which says: ""A recently unearthed letter from the rabid rightwingers's time at posh public school Dulwich College alleges that he "marched through a quiet Sussex village very late at night shouting Hitler Youth songs."" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Short description

As pointed out in this revert, WP:SDAVOID says avoid time-specific adjectives like "former". However, in this case the phrase exactly mirrors the opening sentence of the article. It's a fact that Farage is a "former politician"? Or else the opening sentence should also be changed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

SPAVOID also says 'editors should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead'. It's just meant to give an idea as to what the subject is known for. You look up Nigel and it tells you he's known as a broadcaster and politician. I think of it the same way Mike Tyson's SD doesnt say 'former boxer', because its not what hes known for being. Nswix (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

For enough. Although now it's probably more like "broadcaster, politician and reality-TV celebrity". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Change all tALKSPORT to Talksport to this way please? 86.191.233.190 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I could find only one instance. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Celeb

Should this be mentioned in the lead? Pinging @Martinevans123 per his edit summary. I've no real view on it, but if it's included it shouldn't stick out like it currently is doing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It sticks out in a similar way in the lead section of Nick Hancock Matt Hancock, not so much at Nadine Dorries and Kezia Dugdale. Perhaps there will soon come a day when all MPs will be obliged to compete. Until that day comes, I think it's notable and thus lead-worthy. One might argue that Farage's alleged fee of up to £1.5 million makes it even more notable. Happy to hear what other editors think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick Hancock? Sure, he nicked someone else's wife, but for now, "Matt"'ll probably do ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"They Think It's All Over.... it will be if Nigel gets hold of them." (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Following his very cheeky contribution, perhaps his appearance deserves to be right at the bottom? As disturbing as George Galloway's Big Brother cat antics. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024

Edit the other political affiliations section on the infobox to include the Anti-Federalist League from 1992–1993. Currently, the infobox states that Farage was a member of the Conservatives until 1993, this is incorrect and also contradicts the body of the article.

195.99.8.88 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you! Irltoad (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

Now that Farage is leader again, and the name of the party in the infobox has been changed to reflect that, I would suggest changing the note from:

"The party was renamed Reform UK in January 2021 and Farage led the renamed party until March 2021."

to

"The party was named the Brexit Party from its founding in November 2018 to January 2021, when it was renamed Reform UK. Farage led the renamed party until March 2021." 195.213.249.33 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Disregard, no longer necessary. 195.213.249.33 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

Change June 2024 to June 3rd 2024 2A02:C7C:5802:DA00:B1BC:8200:9238:703 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The infobox says the date he became party leader already, I'm not sure that the lead needs that clarification. Irltoad (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

New picture for Farage?

The picture of Farage in the infobox is 6 years old, there isn't much in the public domain but there is a 2020 picture from Gage Skidmore:

Nigel Farage (2020)

Dingers5Days (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the previous 2018 image was better quality. I feel this image has him too focused away from the body of the article, which should generally be discouraged. It would probably be better to wait as there will possibly be more images emerging during the election campaign. (and, if he were to be elected, an official portrait) 148.252.146.70 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will revert the edit; I agree that we may get a better one during the campaign. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Greenhayes was not a grammar school

"Farage's first school was Greenhayes School for Boys (Grammar School) in West Wickham" - this cannot be correct. Grammar schools in the UK cover secondary school ages, starting in Year 7 at age 11. Other sources describe the school as independent and fee-paying. The gov.uk listing describes Greenhayes as "Other independent school" at the time of its closure in 1999, see - https://www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/101689 Additionally, this 1998 article in The News Shopper (local paper to West Wickham) also describes Greenhayes as an independent school and details the then headmaster Derek Cozens suing the parents of a former pupil in a dispute over fees. https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/6504051.stalemate-in-school-bullies-dispute/ Unless there is evidence to the contrary, "grammar school" should be removed. 62.3.76.159 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The current source is this 2015 blog, by a Stuart Pedley-Smith, which indeed just says "Greenhayes School for Boys (Grammar School) in West Wickham". So no current justification. I guess Farage will have attended from 1975? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please fix typo error

He later said he "miscaulated" the popularity of Bercow in the constituency.

Change to

He later said he "miscalculated" the popularity of Bercow in the constituency. Dick Turpin (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Alarics (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Bias

Needs serious revision. Reads like has been written by a biased political commentator. Example: first sentence claims he is “most famous politician never to be elected to commons” 77.97.252.158 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That claim has now been removed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede image

There has been some reversion of the lede image.

It was suggested in June that a new image was needed, which I agree with, as the longer standing image is:

• out of date, being 6 years old
• isn't a particularly good image because of the position of the subject's head

I uploaded two current images, taken with professional equipment, and which represent him giving a speech, which is probably what he is best known for. The one in use was him against a background of a Reform party branding, but there is also one with a (natural) black background which makes him stand out more.

• 
  Black background version
• 
  Version used in page through June
• 
  Original page picture

I think it does need an up-to-date image. Views are welcome

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

He will get a MP portrait whenever Parliament reconvenes, so I suggest keeping the original 2018 version for now. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Now it's been changed to another one with a red background. Why can't people wait for the official MP picture? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Now to one from about ten years ago. If I'm not mistaken parliament will reconvene on Tuesday. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• The current image (as of this comment) looks clownish. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think either the 2018 one or this until a official gets sourced, not one from 2014 Mewhen123 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Current picture is very bad, we better return the 2018 picture and wait until his official portrait as MP is released. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  another option is this Mewhen123 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Much better than the clownish one Shadow4dark (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Mewhen123 That works, pending the official photo for MPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• I prefer "Original page picture" I dont think the new photos in the white are an improvement. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think use the black one. The original one is 6 years old and the one with the branding has diffucult head placement DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform UK section, no mention that he more or less owns the company

It’s a weird section anyway, seems mainly about him. What does gin have with it? Why nothing about his shares in the party or rather the Reform UK Party Limited? Doug Weller talk 17:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Army Cadet Force" to his infobox?

Im not knowledged fully on the standards or the etiquite of infoboxes, however it was stated by Farage that he was a regimental sergeant major in the army cadets which is a youth organisation sponsored by the Ministry of Defence and actively puts cadets on British army assets. 82.19.124.65 (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox is already very crowded and have had to create a collapsable section. In any case, whilst the cadets are sponsored by the MoD, the rank you reference is not a military office in the traditional sense with formal responsibilities. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Names of web works

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

Hello,

(1) The article by Nick Cohen is in The Observer, which shares the Guardian website. This is indicated above the headline at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/11/farage-rees-mogg-claire-fox-britain-is-seduced-by-politicians-who-are-characters

(2) The name of the London online newspaper is The Independent. The "The" is part of its title - see its masthead. -- Alarics (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alarics, the names of the web works cited appear in the headers of the pages, right at the top. On my screen I see "The Guardian" for the first (the one you liked in) and "Independant" for the second (here's an example). When a reader clicks on a source the name they see on the webpage should be the same as they see in the cited reference. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How was my edit not supported by the cited sources?

"Reform UK Party Limited was founded in November 2018 as an “entrepreneurial political start-up”. Mr Farage owns 53 per cent of the company." "'But with 115,00 paying supporters with no voting power to influence policy, Reform has admitted its structure might not be sustainable in the long-term - something that could change after this year’s election."

How about their website? "'Promoted by Paul Oakden - Copyright © 2024 Reform UK Party Limited Company number 11694875 | Registered in England & Wales" Or https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875 {https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sunak-is-in-farages-pocket-peter-kellner-polling/] "The key thing is that Reform UK is not a conventional political party. It is a registered company, “Reform UK Party Limited”. Eight of the 15 issued shares in the company belong to Farage. Tice has five of the other seven. (Michael Crick, Farage’s unauthorised biographer, tells me that Tice confirms Farage is still the majority shareholder.) Farage has the sole legal right “to appoint and remove directors”. Tice leads the party, but Farage owns it." Doug Weller talk 09:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at what I removed.

The first reference was cited for the first three sentences:

• Reform UK Party Ltd. a rename of the earlier company, has fifteen shares.

• There is no mention of "Reform UK Party Ltd." in the source, no mention of it being a rename and no mention of there being 15 shares.

• Farage owns eight of these, giving him a controlling majority.

• There is no mention of him owning 8 shares.

• The other shareholders are Tice, who holds five, and Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtash A'Zami who each hold one share.

• There is no mention of Tice holding 5 shares or of the other two holding one each.

The second reference was cited for the fourth sentence:

• Since 2021, the party has options to become a member, rather than a supporter.

• There is no mention of "since 2021" in the source.

So I'd say that my edit summary (per WP:OR as not supported by the cited sources) was correct. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto You are right about the second source, but although the first doesn't mention the number of shares I was about to source that when you reverted. It clearly mentions Reform UK ltd."What is Reform UK?

Reform UK Party Limited was founded in November 2018 as an “entrepreneurial political start-up”. Mr Farage owns 53 per cent of the company." "Meanwhile, Mr Tice has a minority holding of around one-third of shares, and chief executive Paul Oakden and party treasurer Mehrtash A’zami each hold less than 7 per cent." and "But with 115,00 paying supporters with no voting power to influence policy, Reform has admitted its structure might not be sustainable in the long-term - something that could change after this year’s election."

This is public knowledge. It's websites, all of them, say "Promoted by Paul Oakden - Copyright © 2024 Reform UK Party Limited Company number 11694875 | Registered in England & Wales"

Shareholders: {https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sunak-is-in-farages-pocket-peter-kellner-polling/] "The key thing is that Reform UK is not a conventional political party. It is a registered company, “Reform UK Party Limited”. Eight of the 15 issued shares in the company belong to Farage. Tice has five of the other seven. (Michael Crick, Farage’s unauthorised biographer, tells me that Tice confirms Farage is still the majority shareholder.) Farage has the sole legal right “to appoint and remove directors”. Tice leads the party, but Farage owns it." Doug Weller talk 10:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Financial Times doesn't number the shares either quoting again the percentage owned. "Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

https://www.ft.com/content/4059c92f-9bb3-484a-b8aa-e42f5c5cc797

But as Farage owns 53 per cent of Reform UK Ltd, according to company filings, he is able to remove Tice as a director or take the decision to unilaterally dissolve the organisation, marking him as the party’s ultimate kingmaker. Tice has a minority holding of around one-third of all shares, while chief executive Paul Oakden and party treasurer Mehrtash A’zami each hold less than 7 per cent." But Ben Habib did say " he conceded that a private company, where control is vested in two people, was likely to be unsustainable in the long term." Note that FT article is before the election.

The Conservative post "The Reform UK Party Ltd. has 15 shares. The shareholders are Nigel Farage, who holds 8, and Richard Tice, who holds 5. Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtahs A’Zami hold 1 share each."

This is all public knowledge and a key aspect of the party and admitted by their websites. How can this be a BLP violation. Do I really have to go to RSN? Or tag the article as NPOV? Doug Weller talk 11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The first source didn't support any of the three sentences it was used for. If you think it does, please quote the part of that source that supports each of the following:

• "Reform UK Party Ltd." (which is not the same as "Reform UK Party Limited")
• That it was renamed to that
• That it has 15 shares
• That Farage holds 8 shares
• That Tice holds 5 shares
• That Oakden holds 1 share
• That A'Zami holds 1 share

Please research a wide cross-section of RSes, and if you think the consensus amongst them is that the structure of the party is notable, then summarise that into a balanced and impartial couple of sentences, and bring them here, with the supporting sources, to see if there is a consensus to include them. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I missed the fact that the statement by Habib was folloed by "Tice noted the party was likely to change its structure eventually but did not consider the move urgent as members input, though welcome, was not always necessary. “Overall advisers advise, directors decide,”

You are nit picking about Ltd and Limited. Their website says Limited. Bloomberg doesn't mention details, just says "Reform Uk Party Ltd was founded in 2018. The company's line of business includes membership organization established to promote the interests of a national, State, and local political party and candidate"https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1974888D:LN?embedded-checkout=true] Again, Ltd and Limited mean the same. There is NO doubt at all about the company status. It's mentioned in many sources.

The European says "The key thing is that Reform UK is not a conventional political party. It is a registered company, “Reform UK Party Limited”. Eight of the 15 issued shares in the company belong to Farage. Tice has five of the other seven. (Michael Crick, Farage’s unauthorised biographer, tells me that Tice confirms Farage is still the majority shareholder.) Farage has the sole legal right “to appoint and remove directors”. Tice leads the party, but Farage owns it."

The Guardian: "The tensions go back to the formation in March 2019 of the Brexit party, which was renamed Reform UK in 2021. Determined to avoid the rebellions that had disrupted the Ukip party, Farage and others created a company that he could control rather than a conventional political party that had to be managed. "Farage owns a majority of shares in Reform UK Party Ltd, which is registered with Companies House. While four officers are named on the register, Farage is the only one named there as a “person with significant control”."

Do you agree that it is a limited company?

How many sources would satisfy you"

What is the exact BLP violation? Come on, User:DeFacto this belongs in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, the problem I had is that what was written could not be verified from the sources that were cited to support it, and thus it contravened the WP:BLPRS section, at least, in WP:BLP.

If this discussion about the party's structure is covered by a significant number of reliable sources, then it should probably be included in the article. But if it is included, it needs to comply Wikipedia policy, which the version I removed did not. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto But you knew that the Reform Party is a company, right? So your role should have been to fix it, not remove it hiding the fact proclaimed on every website owned by Reform. Yes, I took a link from the party's wikipedia page without a thorough check recalling that the details of share numbers existed but forgetting they were in the bylinetimes.com article I diidn't think there was an RS. But there was NO BLP violation in saying it's a company or that Farage is the main owner. You also claimed that sources did not back text even though they did.

This fact, one even discussed by Farage himself, should be in every article mentioning the party. It's unique and a very major difference from other parties. Are you going to help or hinder? Doug Weller talk 07:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I am not here to fix your, or anyone else's breaches of BLP policy - see WP:BURDEN. However, if I come across a breach of it, I may choose to remove it per WP:BLPRESTORE, especially as in this case, where none of the sentences in the original were supported by the cited source.

The best strategy when adding content is to read it back, one sentence at a time, and check that a reader who has never heard of Farage or Reform, pehaps 10 year on, is able to fully verify each assertion from the cited source(s). And if there is a gap in verifiabilty, fill it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto But it wasn't a breach of BLP policy as the basic statement, that the party is a limited company, is accurate. You could argue for removal as the source didn't fully support the claim the claim I guess, or tag it as a dubious source, or better yet as cn. A WP: BLP can only be contentious material about a living person, and the only thing wrong with my post was the share numbers, the sources backed the main factual statement that it is a limited company. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, a breach is a breach, and the policy is clear on the options for dealing with a breach. It's better to ensure it's correct in the first place, or at least to graciously accept and address any good-faith challenge(s) made. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violation, and the issue is very notable (indeed, far more notable than "a couple of sentences"). I see nothing wrong with the sourcing and I would restore the material. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The BLP violation was that the content wasn't supported by the cited sources - see WP:BLPRS. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It is notable and should be included in the article using the proposed sourcing. John (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is notable and should be included. I've reverted the removal and added a source which specifically states the number of shares held by each shareholder. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In reverting, you should, per WP:BLPRESTORE, have made sure the reasons for the removal were fixed. The first part of the first sentence still isn't sourced, so I have tagged it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRESTORE, [i]f it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. It's apparent to myself that consensus is obtained per above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, Have you ever read WP:CONSENSUS? There it says of 'consensus', It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So policy cannot be ignored (such as WP:BLPRS which says Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed).

Also discussion, or even 'consensus' on this talkpage, cannot overrule WP:BLPRS, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS say, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

So that first part of the first sentence needs sourcing, regardless of your interpretaion of 'consensus', and must be deleted without that. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto, you've been warned about this behaviour before. It took Black Kite and Doug barely any time to reword. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You agree it needed rewording then. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto, don't undo my comments again. WP:TPO is clear on this. TarnishedPath^talk 11:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Such personal attacks are not allowed here, or anywhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks. Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONs without specific evidence demonstrating your claims. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my behaviour in two different discussions (as a means of attacking me, rather than the points I made) fails WP:WIAPA, which includes Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence as a form of personal attack. So, yes, you did make a personal attack. Now let's not diverge from this topic any further, please, especially as all the content in question has now been replaced by fully-source stuff that does not contravene BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto And yet I note that you could have gone to WP:BLPN and didn't. I think it's obvious why you did not.go there. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's obvious too. Why would I go there with such a clear-cut contravention? Stuff needs sourcing and it wasn't. Is that what you were thinking? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

ĕ

Not sure why these are only categories, there being no mention in the article at all, but I doubt 'English libertarians' and 'Christian libertarians' are appropriate (and, if they are, then reference them, but then that usually is within articles, not just in categories) - he's fascist, regardless of whether people want to include that here despite there being lots of references for it (and, oh, he's currently instigating riots... which is totally libertarian, or not...) - really wish people would stop misusing it for its opposite... 92.18.126.226 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Ok, the statement that "At the 2014 EP election, UKIP won the most seats in the UK, pressuring David Cameron to call the 2016 EU membership referendum" is hilarious but also wildly misleading.

The second part of the lead section detailing Farage's election results mixes domestic and European elections, which is obscured by the bizarre abbreviation of European Parliament to EP, resulting in wildly misleading sentences like "At the 2014 EP election, UKIP won the most seats in the UK".

EP is not a common abbreviation for European Parliament in the UK (the EP disambiguation pages lists over a hundred meanings) and as the quoted sentence is sandwiched between sentences about the general election (the one that most people have heard of), it seems a deliberate attempt to imply that UKIP have ever won a domestic election - or at best, to hide the fact that they've never won a single seat.

Obviously, I propose removing the EP abbreviation, which I think most people assume is a type of record, and separating the domestic from European election results.

(This is presumably related to the fact that the UKIP Wikipedia page [UKIP] lead is full of unsourced claims like the fantastic general election results they got in 2013 and 2015 - how on earth was this allowed?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moubliezpas (talk • contribs) 11:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that EP is a WP:NEOLOGISM that simply isn't used by anyone, and I've changed that. However I see nothing wrong with putting the facts in chronological order that he lost in general elections and his party did better in European elections. The page David Cameron, for example, doesn't separate elections/referendums by which he succeeded in, and not. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Farage riots" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Farage riots has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 6 § Farage riots until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 08:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Multiple repetition of same statement

There are atleast three references in separate sections about Farage receiving over £ 1mil. a year from his work on the GB News television channel. Apart from some misleading statements and my questioning of the relevance of this fact, I doubt it is needed to mention this at least 3 times in three different sections. Reading the article it sounds like an accusation of wrong-doing instead of a mere fact statement. 2A02:2454:7D24:6B00:B1C9:3861:3CB3:404F (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear single-edit-anon-IP-editor-geolocating-to-Berlin, as far as I can see, the figure of £1m was mentioned only once, at the end of the "Personal life" section. But thank you for highlighting this. This is so much more than most MPs earn that I think it's quite notable and so, on this basis, I have now added it to the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's at least four times now - as £1.2m twice and as £1m twice (including once in the lead). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want to go for a fifth? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC) p.s. what are the "some misleading statements"?

Well I think the fairest mentioning happens under GB News section, where context about the income is provided from Farage.

That context is missing in the "Member of Parliament" section as well as in the last paragraph of the "personal life" section leading to believe it is net income. (apart from being superfluous) 2A02:2454:7D24:6B00:E0A7:E8AB:CF91:FEFB (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant to the "Member of Parliament" section, as it was revealed as part of his obligation to the Register of Members' Financial Interests, once he entered parliament. Otherwise no-one else might ever know. Additionally, the estimate that the sum is "significantly higher than that of any other member of parliament", is what makes it notable, and why I think it also belongs in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fox News

Maybe he was involved in 2017, but I'm going to remove it without evidence about how long he was involved as he doesn't seem to be now. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Faragista" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Faragista has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16 § Faragista until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 00:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"Figel Narage" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Figel Narage has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 5 § Figel Narage until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2025

In the infobox, the "after 2019" next to Reform UK should really say "since 2019", otherwise it implies Farage joined the party in 2020 which is obviously incorrect. 148.252.144.187 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2025

Change age from 60 to 61 as today is Nigel's birthday and so he has turned 61 today. 2A02:C7C:BCF3:BC00:CF2:68D:FE15:AF10 (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Has now updated. Sometimes helps to clear the cache. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Brexit reference in paragraph

As Nigel Farage was a key Brexit campaigner, I find it strange that there is only an indirect reference to the main https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit article itself through the Reform UK article link - where again it is not directly referenced but only through Brexit process & no-deal Brexit article links instead of the main article. Though most readers will be aware of what the term Brexit means, Wikipedia should also inform the non-informed reader.

Suggested section to add the link:

In 2018 he co-founded the Brexit Party (renamed Reform UK in 2021), which drew support from those frustrated by the delayed implementation of Brexit by Theresa May's government, and won the most votes at the 2019 European Parliament election, becoming the largest single party in the parliament; Camrodam (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 local elections results

These elections were described as a sweeping victory for Reform UK, winning the most seats and took control of a number of local authorities. Seems like a noteworthy thing to include here. 87.114.4.246 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Political views section

A section here summarising Farage's political views with a link to the subarticle would be of more use to readers than the "support for donald trump" section. 87.114.4.246 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with you. It would make sense to have one but I'll have to ask another editor to help out. CS012831 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Support for Donald Trump

Seems a little weird to have a full section for this. Wouldn’t it be better to keep this under some other section, such as a foreign policy or political views section? 46.110.31.126 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Dogs

Farage has two dogs, named Pebble and Baxter, who apparently are able to vote. Might explain a lot. The black one (apparently "Baxter") famously appeared, as his campaign companion (but sadly was not named or asked to give an opinion). And look, there's also a Mini-me Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

domestic partner

Can we change domestic partner to just partner in infobox? Partner is a more common and simple word, and it works for all types of relationships. Unless there's a legal reason to keep domestic partner, I think partner would be better.Washi198 10:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Washi189 {{Infobox officeholder}}, which generates the infobox, is used in over a quarter-million articles, so you'd have to present an illustration in the template's sandbox and get consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder because of the widespread scope of the change. —C.Fred (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

(ec) "Partner" alone might be misunderstood as "business partner". You would need to raise the question at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, but many other infoboxes also use this parameter in this way. Furthermore "works for all types of relationships" is not necessarily so. Married people legally are spouses, not just domestic partners. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Article length

The current article length (at the time of this edit) is 211,789 bytes, which is more than double that of James Callaghan – the longest-lived former UK prime minister (he died one day before his 93rd birthday), an MP for 42 years and a life peer after that. Up until 20 July 2024, the Farage article was actually a huge 268,000 bytes, considerably longer than that of Winston Churchill, until about 75,000 bytes were removed by another editor to the new article Political positions of Nigel Farage.

One could suggest that in comparison to the article on James Callaghan, this article on Nigel Farage is still lengthy at over 211,000 bytes and at risk of WP:RECENTISM as well as including content which may come under the label of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Callaghan was an MP at Westminster for about 41 years longer than Farage's current period and Callaghan remains the only person in history to have held all four Great Offices of State. Is it really needed to have Farage's views from a Sky News interview about Donald Trump in both the Political positions of Nigel Farage article and this Nigel Farage article? In my view, I don't think it is.

Content has been added today to this article from a reference in The Guardian stating "In the time from Farage being elected as an MP in July 2024 to May 2025, he went abroad at least nine times and went on holiday to France while Parliament was sitting in May 2025."

The reference states that Farage said (in relation to his holiday in France) that he was taking his first overseas break for three years apart from his stint in the I'm a Celebrity jungle.

Are his recent various overseas non-holiday trips between July 2024 to May 2025 important enough to be added to more than 211,000 bytes? Many MPs do have second jobs. It may be argued that none of them should have second jobs and they should all be completely devoted to just one job as an MP. But the fact remains that many MPs do have second jobs and go abroad on various trips and weekend breaks. If there were multiple sources such as from BBC News and The Times also referring to the content about Farage's overseas trips between July 2024 to May 2025 then it would give more weight for inclusion. Currently there is only one reference to it in The Guardian. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Amphibian fame

Has he not also be likened, on satirical TV, to Mr Toad? Perhaps I just imagined it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• In my view it is probably not important enough to include in this article. It would need reliable secondary sources and even if there is a secondary source available it's still questionable whether the content is genuinely encyclopedic or a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I'm inclined to think it's the latter and not sufficiently important. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your reverts were concerned with a frog characterisation? I'm thinking of a distinctive Mr Toad satirical depiction. There just seemed to be a pattern emerging... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Correction for HIV-positive and those with tuberculosis

"In October 2014, Farage said that people who are HIV-positive and those with tuberculosis shouldn't be let into the UK and that "I do not think people with life-threatening diseases should be treated by our National Health Service".[104]" This is missing a crucial caveat. The reference is related to immigrants who are HIV-positive and immigrants with tuberculosis. The current way it is written is suggesting Farage wants no one to be given support for these conditions on the NHS.Caitpj (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Hello Caitpj. I have today made the content clearer. Farage said that immigrants who are HIV-positive and those with tuberculosis should not be let into the UK. He said that the UK's public services could not cope with extra demand created by people with severe medical conditions coming to Britain. This content may though be more appropriate for the Political positions of Nigel Farage article rather than this lengthy biography which currently consists of over 200,000 bytes. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Kind Tennis Fan. I agree it should probably go into Political positions of Nigel Farage. Caitpj (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also, the first part of that paragraph, "In 2013, Farage voiced opposition to same-sex marriage." makes no sense to be part of the same paragraph as the immigrants with HIV or tuberculosis. Caitpj (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Signature

I’m not sure the signature in the Infobox is Farage’s actual one, but more likely just how he signs his name. Zia Yusuf posted an image on his Instagram dated 27 August with him and Farage holding a poster which they have both signed; Farage’s signature looks completely different to the current Infobox image. Mac Edmunds (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I just glanced a couple examples of Farage's signature and I agree with User:Mac Edmunds

Seems completely different than what we have on this article. Looks like the source for the signature we have today is Investor Daily. I don't really know if his signature has changed or Investor Daily got it wrong or something. Honestly, I don't really know if we have policies, or what policies we have, surrounding signatures on BLP's their verifiability..... NickCT (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Did he publish it himself and is it supported by a reliable secondary source? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you see the "Investor Daily" link above? NickCT (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

House in Clacton

The article says: "In September 2024, Farage was in the process of purchasing a property in Clacton." Did he buy this property? Or was it his wife (who lives abroad)? And does anyone know if it attracted the normal rate of stamp duty)? Thank you. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read into this topic at all, but glancing briefly at this Observer piece it looks like Farage is now saying the property in question is wholly owned by his domestic partner, Ferrari. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Over a million pounds a year

The text "Farage disclosed to the Register of Members' Financial Interests in August 2024 that he earns well over a million pounds a year from work other than being an MP" has just been removed from the lead section with the edit summary "hardly lead-worthy". I disagree. I think this is definitely lead-worthy. I'd suggest the text should read: "He is one of the highest-paid MPs and he disclosed, to the Register of Members' Financial Interests in August 2024, that he earns well over a million pounds a year from work other than being an MP." The sources for these claims should just be in the main body. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:BLPLEAD says "The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person". His earnings do not fit into any of those categories.
• MOS:FIRSTBIO says "MoS guidelines for opening paragraphs and lead sentences should generally be followed. The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." His earnings clearly do not conform with that either.
• MOS:OPEN says "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Does the specificity of that one year's earnings fit with that requirement? I don't think so.

-- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Why isn't his salary an essential part of "his life and works"? He is notable for being one of the highest-paid MPs. If this can't go in the first paragraph, it should go elsewhere in the lead section. His declared earnings are just a plain fact and so wholly "neutral". Please stop trying to whitewash away key facts about Farage.1 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This isn't splitting hairs; it would be WP:UNDUE to go into the lead. It's not exactly a defining point about him, and we didn't include this information about whoever the wealthiest MP was before Farage. The fact that you're talking about "whitewashing" implies to me you might want to be including this for POV reasons. — Czello ^(music) 10:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

We already say: "He is one of the highest-paid MPs" at the end of the first paragraph. This is a current claim, written in the present tense. The additional detail just supports this. A more succinct version could be: "He is one of the highest-paid MPs and he disclosed in 2024 that he earns well over a million pounds a year from work other than being an MP." It could be moved to the last paragraph of the lead section, if necessary. I do not see how this is UNDUE. And why do we not give the actual figure? The BBC source says "...presenting on the GB News television channel - which alone pays him almost £1.2m a year." £200,000 a year is quite a lot of money to most people? User DeFacto seems very keen to remove or rephrase any material which casts Farage in a negative light, so your concerns about POV should be addressed to him. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to offer two cents; I think I agree with Czello and Defacto here. I'd avoid mentioning the actual figure in the lead. That information would be good in the body. There are lots of reasons putting the figure in the lead would be UNDUE. One reason (and admittidly this is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument) is that we don't really mention the actual figure amount politicians earn in other BLP leads.

Plus, there's also a WP:RECENTISM angle to this. The amount Farage earns is going to change year-to-year, and I doubt we're going to update the figure constantly to keep track of his earnings.

I agree with IP that the sums Farage earns (and the sources he earns it from) are a bit scandalous, but those scandals should be parsed out in the body. Not the lead.

As a sidenote here, I'm cetainly no Farage fan, and I doubt DeFacto is either. Let's all not go accusing each other of POV problems just cause we disagree about whether some detail belongs in the LEAD. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not advocating the exact figure in the lead. My suggestion is still "well over a million pounds a year". The main body should have an exact figure, at least for GB News, which the BBC says is "almost £1.2m a year". Again, the phrase in the lead is "He is one of the highest-paid...". This implies a degree of recentism that is unavoidable. If it needs to be updated year on year, so be it. These are simple facts. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel like knowing he's the highest paid is appropriately concise detail for the lead. The whole "disclosed, to the Register of Members' Financial Interests in August 2024, that he earns well over a million pounds a year from work other than being an MP" is simply too verbose and too much detail for the lead. It's a factoid. Factoids go in the body. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggested a shorter version. His date of birth is "a factoid"? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I might be supportive of something even more concise than your suggestion (e.g. He is one of the highest-paid MPs earning well over a million pounds yearly in private income."). I don't get your DoB comment. Yes DoB would be a factoid. No it wouldn't be appropriate in a lead. Is it currently in this article's lead? NickCT (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I would support your more concise version as being better than nothing for something that I think is lead-worthy. You really can't see "born 3 April 1964" in the first sentence of the lead?? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh.... in the paranthesis. That appears to be a MOS:FIRSTBIO thing. I agree it's silly, but apparently, it's also policy.... NickCT (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I too support including, "He is one of the highest-paid MPs earning well over a million pounds yearly in private income". Helper201 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Hi DeFacto. I saw you removed the sentence, "Farage disclosed to the Register of Members' Financial Interests in August 2024 that he earns well over a million pounds a year from work other than being an MP.", saying "hardly lead-worthy". However, you did not remove the sentence, "He is one of the highest-paid MPs." All the sentence did that you removed was briefly expand upon the prior sentence, which by itself is pretty vague. If you had no problem with the former sentence, I see no logic in why you removed the second that expanded upon it. If being one of the highest-paid MPs is noteworthy then it is noteworthy to explain briefly how much this is. Helper201 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201, please see the discussion immediately above at #Over a million pounds a year, which discussed exactly this a couple of days ago. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

So how do you now see consensus here on this point? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Four days later, we await some kind of response. Do we want a full RfC on this? Or just a quick vote? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no current consensus to include this in the lead, and the discussion about it is still open above. You could request a close of that discussion if you feel it is necessary. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to include, in some form. Only you are refusing. So should we have an RfC to clarify matters? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Refusing what? I see others supporting my view and no consensus for inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Quite obviously refusing to allow any mention £1 million in the lead. Who else do you see as supporting your refusal? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not in my gift to refuse to allow anything though. I just gave my policy/guideline-based argument. If you have more to add, the open discussion above is the place to add it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Once again, who do you see as supporting your argument that £1 million should not be mentioned in the lead? I'm not quite sure how "adding to the open discussion above" will move things forward. At least an RfC would formalise editors' positions and allow other editors to comment. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"He is one of the highest-paid MPs." This seems sufficient.Halbared (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can make that judgement without knowing how many other MPs earn as much as Farage, i.e. more than £1 million. Surely the notability of this figure depends on how much larger it is than the next highest? How many MPs are part of this notional "highest paid" group? The figure is sufficiently notable for it to be reported by a number of RS sources. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not our role to "make that judgement". We include in the article body what the reliable sources say and per Wiki's policies and guidelines. What we then put into the lead should only summarise the body of the article, and with appropriate weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

RS sources say that he earns over £1 million. That in itself is a summary of all the information reported and already included in the main body. It's an additional four words. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Greenhayes School for Boys in West Wickham

There is no mention of Greenhayes School for Boys at the West Wickham article. For how long did it exist? Did it become part of the one of the other schools there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This source Greenhayes School for Boys - GOV.UK says it was located at 83 Corkscrew Hill and that "This establishment closed on 26 July 1999." There are no linked establishments. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Please restore content on allegations of racism as a schoolboy

Hi @DeFacto, I hope you're doing well.

Please can you undo your edit which removed content on allegations of Farage being racist as a schoolboy?

You cited WP:BLPGOSSIP for doing so, but news articles in WP:RS - WP:Suggested sources at that - are not gossip. You also cited the allegations being anonymous. However, if you read the news articles used as references, several of those making these allegations are named. Even then, the reliable sources that have vetted and published them aren't anonymous either. Under UK law, alleged victims of some crimes get lifelong anonymity. Even if such alleged crimes are described in reliable sources, due to the anonymity of the alleged victims, do you think they are gossip? Moreover, Farage and other publicly named people denied them too. Objectively, therefore, these allegations are a matter of public record. Their inclusion is entirely warranted.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@13tez, some are named, but others remain anonymous, and that is the problem. All I'm doing is applying a Wiki policy ("Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources"). If you want to question the policy then you should probably go to its talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for getting back to me. The policy says:

• "don't repeat gossip"
  • these are published news articles in reliable sources, not gossip
• "be wary of relying on sources that...attribute material to anonymous sources"
  • Again, not all the sources are anonymous - as you acknowledged - so this can't be used to remove all the content because it doesn't apply to every reference from which it's sourced. Furthermore, these claims are sourced to news articles from reputable outlets, which will have vetted the claims by journalists and legal teams before publishing them. We can rely on their burden of proof and thus meet the "be wary" standard.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Which of the content has an identified source? News outlets, even reliable ones, often use anonymous sources. Wiki policy frowns on them though. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Several of the sources for the allegations and rebuttals are named in the references used, for example, Chloe Deakin, Matt Sinha, Farage himself, and the former headteacher and deputy headteacher at the school. The wording of the policy is not a blanket ban on using references that cite anonymous sources: it says to "be wary". We are being: the anonymous claims that are included have passed vetting before being published in reliable and reputable sources. They are not just hearsay or gossip. 13tez (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Guidelines at WP:BLP state: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." It appears that an anonymous former school pupil alleged that Nigel Farage sang a Nazi song as a schoolboy – an allegation which Farage strongly denied. My view is that this type of scurrilous allegation with no proof whatsoever does not belong in a BLP, which according to guidelines must be written conservatively. I support the removal of the content by DeFacto. Also please see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your thoughts!

The way you've characterised the references used for the content in question isn't accurate. They aren't sensationalist tabloid pieces, they're balanced (including those who disagree with the allegations) and from reliable sources (which means the articles will have passed vetting before being published). The allegations they discuss aren't all from a single anonymous former pupil, they're from numerous teachers and pupils (and in different independent reliable sources), some of whom are anonymous.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with 13tez. This content is fine and not "gossip", it reported on by multiple reliable sources and newspapers of record. Helper201 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Obviously this conversation seems a little stale, but just to offer my two cents; after glancing at this briefly, I think I side with DeFacto on this one. The fact that the letter exists may not be gossip, but the letter itself contains gossip. Hence, reporting on the existience letter is basically reporting on gossip.

This whole thing is a pretty classic example of hearsay. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting discussion above. To be honest I wouldn't have imagine this would be controversial, since there are so many diverse sources for it. These include several reliable and well-established sources. Specially the letter from his youth. It is one of the most direct sources imaginable to understand Farage's views from those times. Most definitively not gossip. At least some of the teacher's discussion must be included.

If these criteria (non-anonymous, well established reliable sources, and from the same time as the event took place) are not enough, then most of Farage biography would be end up being deleted from this article.

Extremal combinatorics editor 12:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, the existence of the letter is not contraversial. There are lots of sources for that.

There are no reliable sources for the material contained within the letter. The only source of information for the content in the letter, is the person who wrote the letter. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Swans

I will shortly make an amendment to the sentence in the article about this for a neutral tone and to include Farage's comments about carp.

The sentence currently states: "In September 2025, Farage was criticised for falsely accusing eastern European migrants of eating swans from The Royal Parks."

According to the reference in The Spectator, with the headline "Nigel Farage has a point about migrants eating swans", the article mentions an RSPCA investigation into a migrant family suspected of hunting and cooking a swan. The Spectator also states "the fact that Eastern Europeans have been plundering British carp has long been widely known."

I didn't know this myself about British carp being allegedly taken by Eastern Europeans, but The Spectator is a reliable source.

The reference in The Guardian with the headline "Nigel Farage swans around peddling hate on Nick Ferrari's phone-in" seemed to have a rather frivolous / not very serious tone with the opening paragraph "Attention all swans! Attention all swans! You are not safe! Immigrants from inferior cultures have been seen loitering with intent to kill in royal parks. They want to eat you alive. Be very vigilant. All offenders who are caught will be punishable under sharia law."

So I'll be making an amendment to the sentence. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The statement about swans was false. See Full Fact's analysis: There’s no evidence to support this specific claim—the Royal Parks charity says no such incidents have been reported. SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It would be good if we had an article covering migrants eating animals myths as this has been going on for > 20 years, just like Euromyth#Straight_bananas. SmartSE (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

They’re Eating Cats & Dogs In Springfield?! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There were stories like this in the Israeli press in the 1990s, about Thai workers eating people's pets. If you (or someone else) create an article along these lines (great idea!), let me know and I'll try to dig up the media coverage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Here are a few news reports relating to immigrants eating swan and carp: The Telegraph 2013 - Immigrants may be behind swan attack, says RSPCA, The Standard 2012 - 'Immigrant was cooking swan amid bird bodies', BBC News 2013 - Swan body parts found along Lincoln canal, The Telegraph 2010 - Immigrants blamed for pillaging fish and swans from river, Portsmouth News - Angry confrontation as men caught 'eating fish' out of pond at Southsea Rock Gardens -- DeFacto (talk). 15:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No, those are a few news reports relating to immigrants being blamed for eating swan and carp. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Your "no" is incorrect as your phrasing doesn't contradict mine. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"Some say they did, others say they didn't". "Report the controversy!!" "We report, you decide." Christ what a shitshow... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Great use of the word "pillaging" there. Shame they were carp and not pilchards... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a page Immigrants eating animals Brits wouldn't, is needed?Halbared (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Surprised to see anyone carping on about this. I doubt it will be Nigel's swansong.... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think he's goosed.Halbared (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've seen these Eastern types, down the Royal Park corner shop, nickin' the odd box of swans.... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't carp on about it though.Halbared (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

On the basis of their headline "Nigel Farage has a point about migrants eating swans", I'd suggest the much more sensible course of action to take is to revisit the idea that The Spectator amounts to a reliable source. Publishing shit like this brings them into disrepute, surely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I really can't remember who the current editor of The Spectator is, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No, not really -- though I have vague impression it's someone known for being willing to sell his soul & do the bidding of right-wing media barons... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Was just wonderin' though.... can you get halal swan in Westminster?? We wouldn't want to break any Sharia law, would we (askin' for a friend). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Mention of notable post-2024 election activities in lead

He's been more politically active than ever since the 2024 election, his party doing well in the 2025 local elections for example. 209.93.85.118 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Biased

Some elements of this are biased. Fourdaystime (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2025

Change Nigel Farage MP to The Rt. Hon. Nigel Farage MP ~2025-31611-56 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Farage does not use this title. — Czello ^(music) 09:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

See also MOS:REV. Valenciano (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Mention of Farage's Controversial Tax Affairs

Should we include "In September 2025, Farage was accused of avoiding more than £44,250 in additional stamp duty on the purchase of his new constituency home by putting it in his partner Laure Ferrari's name, due to the stamp duty surcharge for second home purchases. suggested that she was able to afford to buy the four-bedroom home, which was bought without a mortgage, because she comes from a wealthy French family. However, there is no evidence that Ferrari's parents have the means to give their daughter a significant contribution towards the purchase of the home." Sources (Nigel Farage faces questions over who funded £885,000 Clacton constituency home - BBC News) back this up. Gordonltycall (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No, because its wording is not neutral and it misrepresents what the cited source says. You have either misread or misrepresented that carefully crafted, mischief-making, piece from BBC News.

All that we know for sure from that source is that a house in Clacton was bought and put into the name of Farage's partner. Why would a couple not choose the most tax efficient solution when buying a property? The rest of that story is based on journalists and/or political opponents of his hypothesising, in bad faith, to formulate allegations that gullible readers might wrongly construe to be analogous to law-breaking activities that he has criticised previously. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Should did be reworded to make it clear that it is just alleged? Gordonltycall (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the allegation is? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be make clear that there is possible tax evasion.@ Gordonltycall (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in that source that even suggests that there was a possible 'tax evasion'. In fact the source says "If the Reform leader was the source of funds used for the home, which he has previously denied, it would be legal for his partner to use them to buy the property in her name and pay the lower rate of stamp duty". That makes it quite clear that it would be nothing more than perfectly normal and legal tax avoidance and not illegal tax evasion. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction of name of Nigel Farage domestic partner needed

Correction of domestic partner of Nigel farage needed, should it be Laure Ferrari ~2025-36460-74 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - that was vandalism, but already fixed. SmartSE (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Other ventures

I'm considering some reorganisation to create an "Other ventures" section or similar, to put cameo, gin, newsletters, paid speeches etc in. Broadcasting could be a subsection with in it? Any thoughts? SmartSE (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

GB news certainly helps his platform as a politician, but I think that counts as a venture (maybe it might deserve its own section?) T. 19:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Upon further review I think broadcasting definitely deserves its own section because of 1. the extent of his career and 2. how it adds to his platform as a politician. T. 19:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Broadcasting is one of his other equal weight avenues of work, and theoretically should come under 'other ventures', but that list seems minimal (in comparison) and the sort of small stuff politicians do (for cash, appeal, spread the message whatever) so in practise is dwarfed by the broadcasting career. Broadcasting may need to stay in it's own column.Halbared (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Early Education

Are people happy with this change:

From: "Some of his former schoolmates at Dulwich have alleged that he espoused racist and antisemitic views during his time there, as well as support for fascist and neo-fascist politicians and parties. Other former pupils who knew Farage said that they do not recall any of the behaviour described. Farage denied making any of the comments that were attributed to him. In 1981, Dulwich staff debated whether his views ought to exclude him from becoming a prefect; ultimately he was appointed. In his 2010 autobiography, Farage wrote that the outrage was because staff "deplored my spirited defence of Enoch Powell". A deputy headmaster later summarised Farage's argumentation as intentionally antagonistic but facetious. Responding in 2013, Farage stated: "Of course I said some ridiculous things. Not necessarily racist things. It depends how you define it." He acknowledged that his statements as a pupil "would offend deeply"."

To: Several of his former schoolmates at Dulwich College have alleged that he espoused racist and antisemitic views during his time there, as well as support for fascist and neo-fascist parties and politicians, including leader of the Nazi party, Adolf Hitler. Other former pupils who knew Farage said that they do not recall any of the behaviour described. Farage denied making any of the comments that were attributed to him. In 1981, Dulwich staff debated whether his views ought to exclude him from becoming a prefect; ultimately he was appointed. In his 2010 autobiography, Farage wrote that the outrage was because staff "deplored my spirited defence of Enoch Powell". A deputy headmaster later summarised Farage's argumentation as intentionally antagonistic but facetious. Responding in 2013, Farage stated: "Of course I said some ridiculous things. Not necessarily racist things. It depends how you define it." He acknowledged that his statements as a pupil "would offend deeply".

Please feedback. Gordonltycall (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gordonltycall, could you say why you think this would be an improvement please. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Because it is significant that he supported/supports Hitler, otherwise he wouldn't say he was right. Also, there are enough people remembering the incidents that several would be more appropriate than some. Also, saying support for Nazist views is an important knowledge for people wanting to learn more about who he is. Gordonltycall (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

In light of the feedbacks, more revelations, and the recent edits, is this a fair wording?

Some of his former schoolmates at Dulwich College have alleged that he espoused racist and antisemitic views during his time there, as well as support for fascist and neo-fascist parties and politicians, allegedly including leader of the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler according to multiple sources. Other former pupils who knew Farage said that they do not recall the behaviour described. Farage denied making any of the comments that were attributed to him. In November 2025, One Jewish classmate of Farage, Peter Ettedgui alleged that Farage repeatedly made antisemitic remarks targeting him, including "Hitler was right" and "gas 'em". The Guardian reported that eight other pupils have corroborated Ettedgui's account. One Black classmate of Farage, Yinka Bankole, a Nigerian engineer, alleged that Farage repeatedly made racist remarks targeting him, including "That's the way back to Africa", just because of his looks.Farage responded to the allegation by stating: "I categorically deny saying those things." In 1981, Dulwich staff debated whether his views ought to exclude him from becoming a prefect; ultimately he was appointed. In his 2010 autobiography, Farage wrote that the outrage was because staff "deplored my spirited defence of Enoch Powell". A deputy headmaster later summarised Farage's argumentation as intentionally antagonistic but facetious. Responding in 2013, Farage stated: "Of course I said some ridiculous things. Not necessarily racist things. It depends how you define it." He acknowledged that his statements as a pupil "would offend deeply".

Where it said "support for fascist and neo-fascist parties and politicians", should it be changed to "support for fascist, neo-fascist and Nazist parties and politicians"? Gordonltycall (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

From reading the main sources the neo-fascist bit comes from the teacher who alleges on neo-fascist views of Farage. Changing/enlarging the direct quote of this named person to support of parties seems like OR. We also have direct quotes on what is claimed Farage said about Hitler too. These actual claims are disputed, it's best to stick to the actual quotes attributed as claimed by parties involved, instead of editorialising to gild the lily with.Halbared (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Should the phrase "as well as support for fascist and neo-fascist parties and politicians, allegedly including Adolf Hitler" be included in the "Dulwich College" section? Gordonltycall (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Halbared [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/05/holocaust-survivors-call-on-nigel-farage-to-apologise-over-alleged-antisemitic-comments] : "But in a letter to Farage seen by the Guardian, the 11 survivors said: 'As Holocaust survivors, we understand the danger of hateful words – because we have seen where such words lead.' Let us be clear: praising Hitler, mocking gas chambers, or hurling racist abuse is not banter. Not in a playground. Not anywhere." "Peter Ettedgui, a Bafta and Emmy-winning director, who is Jewish, has said that a teenage Farage would sidle up to him and say 'Hitler was right' and 'gas them', sometimes adding a long hiss to simulate the sound of the gas chambers." The source clearly says that some accuse him of having supported Hitler. Médicis (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The first source is a group who want answers about "praising Hitler" based on the allegations. The sources that deal with the accusations themselves from the "accusers" do not say "support Hitler". It's best not to synth these claims and stick to the actual quotes. Halbared (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently telling a Jewish student "Hitler was right" is different from "supporting Hitler". Who knew?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Telling Hitler was right means you support him. Gordonltycall (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no proof that Farage said "Hitler was right". Other former pupils who knew Farage said that they do not recall any of the behaviour described. I do not support the inclusion of the exceptional claim in the article about "Hitler was right" and the offensive accusation of "gas 'em" as I think this is undue weight. It is sufficient in my view to state that Farage was accused of expressing racist and antisemitic views and he has denied making the comments that were attributed to him. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Whether there is proof is irrelevant. There are numerous RS using these exact phrases, so I fail to see how it can be considered undue. As I said in the section above, it is far preferable to include specific allegations rather than vague accusations of being racist. The claims of Ettedgui have been corroborated by multiple other pupils e.g. https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-04/former-classmate-alleges-he-witnessed-nigel-farage-racially-abuse-his-friend (the Guardian were reporting 8 but I can't find the source at the moment). We already include that other students say they never witnessed such behaviour. SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: -- it's astonishing to see an editor with >110,000 edits say "there is no proof". As Smartse says, there is excellent support for the material as we present it: ~20 of his former schoolmates assert that he said these things. To avoid wasting time, please be precise and don't mislead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

::::::Exactly, there is a whole swathe of RS reporting the accusations and the accusations are what is being recorded here. His and other pupil's denials are also already included. Tax-xewk (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Halbared (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

To get an idea of the weight of coverage:

• How many of the ~20 different people alleging something have alleged that he said "Hitler was right"?
• How many suggest that whatever they allege was said, was said with malice?
• How many different sources have reported accusations first-hand rather than re-reporting what the Guardian had reported?

-- DeFacto (talk). 17:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

As I've just added, there are 8 corroborations of Ettedgui's specific accusation and there is another named individual corroborating the same phrases to ITV. Another two named individuals have spoken to The Guardian saying the comments were "personal [and] vindictive" and that "I remember him [Ettedgui] being tormented". Ettedgui has also spoken to CNN and the BBC. Need I go on? SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To summarise then, we are saying there is one named person making the allegations (covered by The Guardian, BBC News and CNN), a second named person supporting the first one (covered by ITV News), eight corroborators (covered by The Guardian) and a third and fourth named persons alleging malice (covered by The Guardian).

We seem to be heavily reliant on The Guardian here, an unashamedly pro-Labour and anti-Reform/anti-Farage source of which WP:GUARDIAN says: "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics". Hmm. Not quite the "high-quality reliable sources" (plural) that WP:BLP insists on then, especially for contentious content such as this. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There are other reliable sources mentioned within this Talk page alone, so that's not an accurate summary. ~2025-38277-90 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38277-90, I was responding to SmartSE's answer to my three questions just above. If you think you can add fuller answers, then please do. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to worry about bias in this case, as we are just quoting what Guardian's interviewees say, not what their journalists produced. ~2025-38864-51 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

When discussing weight, we do very much need to worry about bias. How were the 'interviewees' selected? Did the journalists cherry-pick what they included and excluded? And so on, are influenced by bias. With a spectrum of sources we get a spectrum of biases, and we can better judge weight. Currently, most of what we include is from The Guardian. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Textbook WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I suppose it's no real surprise, coming from someone who doesn't understand WP:PRIMARY vs. WP:SECONDARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, OR? Where?

All I was was saying is why I think the bias of a news media brand can influence their articles even if they are "just quoting what Guardian's interviewees say"; which was said in the post I was replying to to be reason why the bias of The Guardian isn't relevant.

And please leave out the scornful remarks and inflammatory allegations next time. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity – I'm concerned by the wording of a couple of posts on this talk page. For example, an editor earlier stated "Because it is significant that he supported/supports Hitler." There should be an allegedly in front of "he supported/supports Hitler" and arguably it's a potential BLP violation to state "he supported/supports Hitler" without an allegedly in front of it. My statement was made in light of this. Please assume good faith. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Racism and anti-semitism ("alleged", naturally)

Hey there -- -- this one isn't anonymous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:I just came here to add this to the discussion, we have multiple on the record now that some reference to should be included. 
:Seems to be son of Joseph Ettedgui:
:It is the hectoring tone, the “jeering quality”, in Nigel Farage’s voice today that brings it all back for Peter Ettedgui. “He would sidle up to me and growl: ‘Hitler was right,’ or ‘Gas them,’ sometimes adding a long hiss to simulate the sound of the gas showers,” Ettedgui says of his experience of being in a class with Farage at Dulwich college in south London."
:Tim France, 61, was in the same year as Farage and sat near him in the final year as a consequence of the class being organised alphabetically. For him, Farage’s behaviour did stand out. He recalled a similar song being performed by Farage, who would also “regularly” perform the Nazi “Sieg heil” salute, he claimed. [...] France claimed: “He would chant, ‘BM, BM, we are British Nazi men,’ that really sticks in my mind.”
:Andy Field, 61, an NHS doctor who said he knew Farage well because they took the same train to school, has similarly clear memories. “When I became a prefect, he [Farage] said, ‘I’ll show you how to do it,’” claimed Field. “He took me for a walk up to the lower school playground, where all the children from about nine years old to 12 would be. And he singled out, completely at random, a kid of Asian extraction, and just put him in detention for no reason whatsoever. I was flabbergasted, absolutely stunned. I was just disgusted, really. No rhyme or reason, just purely based on the colour of his skin.”
:Mark Haward, 61, a driving instructor [...]  He claimed: “He loved the sound of his own voice; he would come in usually chanting something. He always wanted to be listened to – I distinctly remember him coming in several times chanting ‘Oswald Ernald Mosley’ [the name of the far-right leader of the British Union of Fascists].”
:This one appears to be David Edmonds (philosopher):
:Prof Dave Edmonds, 61, another Jewish pupil, claimed: “I have a very strong memory of him using the W-word for what we now call people of Afro-Caribbean origin and the P-word for those of south Asian origin. Silencio x (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Halbared (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
::More here, including backing Ettedgui's claims
::BBC, ITV, and the Independent have covered it now also. Thisawful (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Halbared (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:::To add my tuppenth, it is now clearly due for inclusion and I support it remaining and perhaps being fleshed out further. It is multiple allegations by named accusers who back each other's recollections, collected into a reliable secondary source. This has then been reported in other secondary sources, and commented on by the PM in parliament, which has also been reported on. As mentioned Farage has denied the exact accusations, but also previously said he did say "outlandish" things to provoke which seems relevant to cover also. Were this another politician this would be under less discussion and scrutiny, and some editors here seem to be more protective of this man's reputation than is due for an encyclopedia, but these allegations are clearly noteworthy and being treated as such by papers of record. Even the Telegraph and The Spectator have chimed in to call them smears, which can be added also. Thisawful (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Halbared (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The people revering the addition of material supported by WP:RS should really be explaining it, rather than reverting sometimes even without edit summaries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and WP:BLPBALANCE says Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. The content I removed in this edit did not comply with that policy requirement. The source was primary (so not secondary) per WP:PRIMARY (specified in note e) and the material was a non-neutral interpretation of that source and it omitted important context. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have any hope of being taken seriously, you could try to make a case that the The Guardian is a primary source. That is not what WP:PRIMARY says; it only says that Duke University says that it "may" be. What WP:PRIMARY actually says is the following: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." No neutral observer here is going to agree with you that the source in question is anything other than entirely normal for this sort of purpose. But I expect you are not open to persuasion about it and so we will likely have to use other means. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a report of a first-hand account is a primary source, even when it's in The Guardian. As WP:PRIMARY says, primary sources "offer an insider's view of an event". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

What a bizarre post -- you really don't understand, do you. (Or are you pretending...) An example of a primary source here would be Peter Ettedgui writing & publishing his own account of Farage. The fact that it's an uninvolved news organization publishing a news article instead is exactly what makes it a secondary source. I can't believe it's necessary to explain this to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - there's no way that that is a primary source. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Newspaper articles recording accounts by interviewees are not primary sources, this a tendentious, WP:WIKILAWYERING way of reading WP:PRIMARY. By this logic, we should have omitted the sexual assault allegations from Harvey Weinsteins article when they initially came out in 2017 because they were simiarly based on primary accounts. One could the make the argument that it's likely to be undue given that it's only a single newspaper story and no other newspapers appear to have run with it, but that's not the argument you have made here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a report of a first-hand account is a secondary source. The primary source is the first hand account itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments: The reference I clicked on stated: "In legal letters to the Guardian, he [Farage] has emphatically denied saying anything racist or antisemitic when he was a teenager."

Reform UK gave a statement. "These allegations are entirely without foundation,” they said. "The Guardian has produced no contemporaneous record or corroborating evidence to support these disputed recollections from nearly 50 years ago."

The Guardian reports that "Others who knew Farage then remember he was bumptious, rude, provocative and enjoyed being the centre of attention, but do not recall the behaviour described by Peter Ettedgui and others."

I think there's a serious question mark as to whether these disputed accusations constitute WP:DUE weight for a neutral BLP. Personally, three questions spring to mind. 1) Why do organisations such as BBC News Online not seem to be reporting these accusations if they are very important? 2) Where are the multiple reliable sources to back up what The Guardian (a very strong critic of Farage for many years) has alleged? 3) Farage has been in the public eye for over 25 years since being elected to the European Parliament in 1999. Why is it only now, in 2025, that some of these people, such as Peter Ettedgui, seem to be keen to speak out about their accusations? Why didn't they speak out 25 years ago, or is it possibly connected now to what The Guardian refers to as "the man whose party is leading in all major opinion polls."

In my view the due weight of these accusations, referring to events from the 1970s, is questionable and I wouldn't support them being included in the article unless 1) Multiple reliable sources such as BBC News Online report on them and 2) The denial from Farage is included, stating that he has emphatically denied saying anything racist or antisemitic when he was a teenager. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

No objection to including his response (that he made one indicates this is noteworthy) but there are indeed multiple sources, eg Channel 4, Hope not Hate, The Evening Standard. The Ettedgui: interview has also been picked up by the Mirror, Morning Star, Turkey’s By TV, Albania’s TV Klan, and the Italian Globalist syndication service, but I don’t know if they’re RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: Your first point has some validity, but this isn't the first time this has come to light is it? The second point is irrelevant - the Guardian is an RS and that's the end of it. The third is your own musings which have zero weight here. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted a revert by Halbared as it contains no edit summary justifying its bold action, and then came here and see the topic is under discussion. I don’t think it’s correct to remove material without explanation, but revert me with an explanation if policy says onus is on those arguing for inclusion to get consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

We now have The Independent repeating the claims. The Channel 4 above link is the original source of the letter written by a teacher. The article should clarify that these accusations have come from teachers and students over an extended period. This from The Week in 2014 might also be worth including. Interesting that states I did say things that would offend deeply but rejects he was involved in far right politics, which is different to his flat out denial of the claims made in the Guardian and contradicts the current article. My preference would be to expand this to provide some of the actual examples of behaviour so that the reader can judge for themselves. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Alleged behaviour, this is still just accusations.Halbared (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

So what? That's not a problem unless we are presenting it as fact. SmartSE (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Quite.Halbared (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS does say exactly that. I returned to the QUO while this dispute persists. The wording/inclusion can be sorted on here on the talk before changing article space. Keep in mind there is no deadline. Just10A (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a completely ridiculous reason to revert and is the opposite of what WP:QUO says to do. There doesn't seem to be any dispute at the moment, unless you have a policy-based reason not to include reliably-sourced content? SmartSE (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

1.) The previous editor literally said to revert them with explanation if policy says onus is on those arguing for inclusion to get consensus. (which is exactly what ONUS says). It's legitimately following their instructions lmfao.

2.) Unless you are unaware what status quo antebellum means, that's quite literally exactly what QUO says to do, particularly for a BLP. We're talking about an addition mere hours old. It's an essay so there's no use getting into an argument over it, but that's on you. No reason to come in with this over-aggressive "That's a completely ridiculous reason" language. There seems to clearly be a dispute here based on the talk discussion and version history, and the degree to whether this is notable or flash-in-the-pan ish is yet to be seen, similar to the reasoning of WP:TDS. Regardless, calm down and sort it out on the talk. Just10A (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:SOCKSTRIKE apply here? The original edit was by a sockpuppet, now blocked.Halbared (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Just10A: The reason I said it was ridiculous was because it was the second revert with no justification as to what the problem with the content is. Reverting just because the content has been reverted before is pointless edit warring. You also reverted my other edit which was unrelated to this with no justification. SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the reason you said it was ridiculous was for the exact reasons you articulated in your first comment, which were ignorant of the past comments of other editors and this talk page. If you think that's edit warring, then I can't imagine what you think your reversion re-introducing hours-old disputed content into a BLP is. Regardless, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with an admin who's clearly emotionally charged on this topic and having self-control civility issues. Multiple people (including me now) have voiced their content objections to this to the point that it's clearly disputed and/or without consensus at the moment, and policy is clear in that instance. Beyond that, there's not much to say. Just10A (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Halbared: Yes, but which part? If you're saying it should be removed from the article, the answer is no per Wikipedia:Dealing_with_sockpuppets#Reverting_edits. SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyone waiting for the BBC -- wait no longer, . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

And when the prime minister comments, that’s noteworthy for sure. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, it might be notable for this article if Starmer did what he would probably have done if it was himself or one of his cabinet being implicated, and stood up for him. But this sort of blatant opportunism, based on a set of allegations curated by a Labour-supporting newspaper against Starmer's arch-rival, would be more suitable for the article on political posturing, I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this again, in light of the new sources reporting on the polemic published in The Guardian, it seems clear to me that the story is based entirely on unsubstantiated tittle-tattle. Some pupils say he did and some say he did not, say, or do, those things. WP:BLP sets high bars for what can be included in articles about individuals, and stuff based on nothing more than rumour and title-tattle, even if published in a 'reliable source', does not reach that bar.

Without more concrete substantiation (as well as a consensus to include it), per WP:BLPRESTORE (and WP:BRD and WP:ONUS), this content should be removed from the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Well hey, at least you're no longer imagining it's a primary source... Your formulation is wrong: in reality, some people say he did, and others say they don't remember anything like that. The more important fact here is that there is now a wide range of sources for it. On that basis it easily meets the bar for inclusion. Of course, you'll no doubt try to raise the bar... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It now is supported by secondary sources, so that provocative first sentence is moot. We have moved on, and I'm worried about whether that material complies with WP:BLP, the essence of which is clear, Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. The "greatest care and attention" had certainly not been given to the content that was originally added, or to improving it much in the two days it was there before I tweaked it earlier this evening. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:PUBLICFIGURE section of BLP? It states In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you're going to quote WP:BLP, at least make sure you've read the whole thing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern Hemiauchenia, but yep, I've read that bit. Have you read the bit that says Wikipedia must get the article right? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You say that a lot, but which specific part of BLP supports leaving out content that editors judge to be tittle-tattle? The gist of BLP is that content must be reliably sourced. We are doing exactly what WP:WELLKNOWN says to: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.. The next sentence says we need multiple RS and those have existed for over a decade. SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention. It seems we are in such a hurry to add anything negative to this article that we do not give enough care and attention as to whether what we add truly complies with the spirit and essence of BLP (verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research). The problem with tittle-tattle is that it depends on the spin and loading that its purveyor puts on it as to what you take away from it. We should wait until a spectrum of sources have covered the material and compare and contrast how they cover it and then try to duly inform our readers of context and the angles taken, to allow them to reach their own conclusions, rather than leading them to reach the conclusion that one's favourite media outlet is skilfully trying to lead their readers to reach. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused what it is you're suggesting? Previously it seemed to be to remove it entirely, now you're saying that we just haven't done it carefully enough. Waiting for a spectrum of sources to report something (or not) is not policy-based. Where there are many sources we need to weight them, but we don't need every RS to report on something before including material in an article. As I said before, I'd prefer to explain in detail what it is he is alleged to have done and by who, so that readers can decide for themselves what it means. I don't favour completely hiding the controversy from our readers. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Previously there was just one source, published by a Labour supporting outlet, reporting 1970s hearsay, about Labour's most feared opposition party leader. It was the only source of the rumours and was not supported by any secondary sources. At that point I felt that the story was not suitable for inclusion. Now that there are secondary sources giving the story more weight, we have a chance of composing something more encyclopaedic, but we haven't done that yet. I agree we need to detail the allegations, but I think we need to be careful and pay attention to giving the full context to the allegations too, and details of the denials and third-party analysis of the story itself. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That's nonsense - The Telegraph were reporting on this in 2013. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't checked the dates on the additional cited sources, and had (wrongly) assumed, because nothing had been added to the article when they were added, that they were the ones published a few days ago that I had read, and that were referring to the Guardian source already cited. When I realised that they were 2013 and unused by the article, I replaced them with one of the recent ones that I had (wrongly) assumed they were, and which I thought I was referring to above. Sorry about the confusion - I thought I had clarified it with that pair of edits though. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk about moving the goalposts? There's robust sourcing covering this, it should stay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No, just moving forward as more sources emerge and the material develops. It should surely only stay if it fully complies with Wiki policies, and that is what we should be ensuring, with the greatest care and attention - there is no rush! -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: If you have concerns about WEIGHT, please see Crick's biography which devotes several pages to this. I think that puts any doubts to rest. As for the expansion, I agree that is tricky, but where there are disputed allegations, we often need to devote more space to it, so that we can explain both sides of the argument. SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

One thing which I noticed many sources mention (including Crick) is that these events coincided with the 1981 Brixton riot only a few miles away from the school. Is that useful context to include here as well? I'm also not sure that our current wording of "alleged that he espoused racist and antisemitic views" is correct, because even Farage (in 2010 and 2013 at least) admitted that he had said offensive things and supported Powell. Crick's biography says that Walsh (the deputy head) agreed that Farage might sometimes express support for the National Front, or the even more extreme neo-Nazi British Movement, ‘among his contemporaries, and probably to some members of staff, because he knew it would rile them’. i.e. that he said those things isn't in dispute, but the dispute seems to be about whether those were truly held views, or just said to be provocative. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

A new summary article, with 11 named sources: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the recent coverage has mentioned the antisemitism bullying of Peter Ettedgui with e.g. the BBC using specific statements including "Hitler was right" and "gas them". Farage also responded saying he is not telling the truth. I'm mindful of due weight, but I think these specific allegations might merit inclusion and help to clarify our vague wording, where it is left to the reader to guess on the specifics. Continuing from my previous comment RE "alleged that he espoused racist and antisemitic views", these bullying claims are distinct too. i.e. saying "black people should be deported" is different from telling a black person to "go home" and I feel that we should try to accurately convey the accounts. SmartSE (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, currently there is also no mention of bullying which seems amiss when this and Ettedgui's specific allegations have been a big part of the more recent coverage. See: ~2025-38519-26 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems more letters from former Dulwich pupils have now been written in defence of Farage. Probably ought be added in some way, part of Farage's refutation.Halbared (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless, I'm mistaken, that's a single letter from an anonymous person, seen only by Farage. On the other side, the Guardian are now reporting 28 corroborations. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It's "many letters" from pupils, maybe we'll learn more as it rolls on.Halbared (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Reform UK and quoting their grievance

Regarding "the left-wing media and deeply unpopular Labour Party are now using 50-year-old smears in a last act of desperation." (attributed to Reform UK, cited to ITV), added by User:Kind Tennis Fan and reversions by me and by User:DeFacto: in an article and section that aren't about Reform, we don't need to hear them pontificate about how, specifically, they think they are being smeared by the Left. It just isn't relevant, and serves primarily to distract from the issue of Nigel Farage's early life and education. I don't dispute that the edited version accurately attributes their words in their own voice, but the issue is that beyond their comment on the issue at hand ("a naked attempt to discredit Reform and Nigel Farage"; same source), what value does quoting them have? I would be willing to compromise on something written from the secondary source perspective, e.g. Reform UK responded to the open letter by describing it as "a naked attempt to discredit Reform and Nigel Farage" orchestrated by leftists. That summarizes what they think, without giving undue credence to the specific framing of their grievance. TheFeds 17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Farage is the leader of Reform and their take on attacks on their leader by other parties is relevant and required for balance. The allegations are being made today, not during his "early life and education" though, and describing their framing of it wrt today is valid. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto. Including the response as per the reference to the accusations made in 2025 seems reasonable in my view. If the response in the reference had been from Farage rather than Reform UK, then Farage's response could've been included. But Farage is the leader of Reform and a response from the party seems fair to include. The inclusion of the response from Reform UK doesn't necessarily mean that what they say is 100% accurate. Likewise, the various accusations from others may not be fully accurate. Individual readers of the article are fully entitled to profoundly disagree with the views of Farage and Reform if they choose to do so. People can make up their own minds. But as per WP:BLP, all biographies must be written conservatively – in the non-political sense of the word. It seems fair and reasonable in my view to include a response to accusations – either from Farage or from the party that he is the leader of. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere else in the section is Labour mentioned; balance therefore seems not to be presently an issue. Is the proposal to state each party's reaction, and thus maintain balance? (If we quoted several party reactions, and cited some journalistic/academic/strategic analysis of their reasoning, then I would agree the entire quotation could appear within that balanced paragraph—though I might question the wisdom of including quite so much.)
Farage's response is included; he is the WP:BLP subject whose characterization matters. Reform's response is supplementary and need not enjoy the privilege of digressing all over our article. I think the green-tinted example text above is a completely sufficient response from the Reform Party: factual, on-topic, concise. (We're not obliged to hear from the party every time an individual politician is criticized in a BLP article. Why would this allegation be special?) TheFeds 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)