Talk:Nigel Farage/Archive 1

Prehaps a nicer picture? http://www.politics.co.uk/photo/nigel-farage-mep-$4001137$300.jpg ? --Collingwood50 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also find this photograph a bit strange. --87.126.5.147 (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

New Photograph Added

I have found the perfect image. Is it suitable? <non-free image removed>(CatCalledJim (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

No, we can't use non-free images of living people, see WP:NFC#UUI. January (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Was he really "threatened with arrest"? Under French law, whatever a MP says in a parliamentary speech, he cannot be legally attacked for it, even if it would constitute libel or slander otherwise. I do not know whether this extends to MEP. Furthermore, the EU parliament is in Belgium and probably has some kind of extraterritoriality attached to it.

I've Googled the info, and there does not seem to be any claim to this arrest threat except from UKIP, which we can validly suspect to enjoy theatrics. Therefore, I've removed the claim, until somebody can confirm it. David.Monniaux 23:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've also checked with French lawyers, who researched the topic: nothing in French law prevents you from saying that a person has been convicted, then amnistied, if it is really the case (otherwise, obviously, accusing people of being criminals exposes you to a libel lawsuit, just like in the UK). I do not know where Mr Farage fished that idea. David.Monniaux 08:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claim about it being illegal under French law to mention Barrot's conviction was made by (or repeated by?) the BBC in this news report: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/europe/4032113.stm The report says: "Mr Barrot, 67, a close ally of French President Jacques Chirac, received a suspended jail term in a party funding case in 2000, but it was automatically erased by a 1995 presidential amnesty. Under French law, no reference may be made to such a sentence, which carries no criminal record." I'll add this reference to the article. Twilde 12/4/05

The law is that no reference can be made to it in an administrative or judicial context (i.e. a judge cannot argue that somebody is a repeat offender on grounds of an amnistied conviction). David.Monniaux 09:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

To avoid an edit war, best bring this issue to the talk page. Someone within the past few weeks added "Former" to "Leader of UKIP" in the infobox. An understandable edit and I can see the reasons for it. However, it is a firm convention for all articles on politicians that we never say "Former" before the title of a political office in an infobox. We do not, for example, say on George Bush's article infobox that he is the "Former President of the United States". Such an identification is completely redundant because the dates demonstrate he's no longer the President, and that is the case here. The dates on the infobox clearly show that Farage is no longer the leader, as does the fact that the word "Incumbent", which is used on infoboxs for this type of article, is not there either. An IP address recently reverted my removal of "Former", and I place money that my reversion of that revert will itself be reverted as well. So, I ask for a clear community message that not saying "Former" is indeed a convention for this type of article. Thank you. HonouraryMix (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional, having "Former Leader of UKIP" doesn't work on another level. Any political title, along with dates, on an infobox represents a political office; hence why we have the words "In office" followed by the dates of service. There is such a political office as "Leader of UKIP", but there's no political office called "Former Leader of UKIP." HonouraryMix (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Hekerui (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As this was the sum of the editor's first contribution I think you were dealing with a random vandal. However this discussion is a useful clarification in case someone tries it again in the future. Road Wizard (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the most-recent "Autotune the News". So far there are 11, and they are funny and popular. This guy was mentioned (what's his name again...)

So anyways, I came here looking for some context to his comments (watch the youtube video, link below) in order to gain some sense of what he meant, etc... as the video makes him look pretty extreme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpYIKF1wuyE 99.137.251.249 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

The bottom of the page is a mess. When editing the bottom section, it says 'Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.' I have no idea what this means nor how to fix the problem. —Half Price 17:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is still a problem. —Half Price 11:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Still a problem. I want to correct the introduction to highlight that Farage received serious injuries according to the AAIB report and the Telegraph article. JRPG (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem fixed: there were three large teplates {{Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009}}, and {{Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014}}, each of which transcluded 700 or so links. I have removed these templates, and will nonminate them for deletion. This is what categories and lists for, and it's an abuse of templates to use them for insanely huge sets like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The problem had to be simple. They are ridiculously huge! —Half Price 20:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Farage was fined about £2700 by the parliament for making the speech" Isn't it a bit weird that a parliament actually fines its members for what they say in parliament (even if they insult the president)? Could someone elaborate on this? (like "under provision X of the Rules of Parliament blah, Farage was..") Joepnl (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't fined for making the speech, but a penalty was obviously applied for breach of parliamentary rules. I haven't seen a published reference to the exact rule he breached so, without a reliable source, I don't think we should specify the rule in the article. It does, however, seem likely that he was penalised in accordance with Rule 153 (3a) and (3b) for breach of rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. --Boson (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Was it that bit where he called Van Rompuy a balding bum boy from Belgium? Fined for excessive alliteration, I fear. A clear breach of EU regulations. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

user 82.38.37.20 has contributed to the Herman Van Rompuy article and says he received many letters of support. If he can provide a link to this, I'll happily help add it to the Farage article. JRPG (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I note the comments by the IP who removed my primary sources tag, albeit with a proper edit summary. In reply, it is self evident that Farage is the World's leading authority on his own beliefs, nor do I challenge the accuracy of the youtube footage. My objection is that someone other than a reliable source has selected the speeches and an indication of their notability and the critique of his ideas necessary to provide a balanced section is missing. Whilst the section was written in good faith by a new contributor, it falls well below the standards required for a neutral point of view. The section is worth having and I believe this BBC Question time program meets the requirements. I intend to replace the text in the section using this source. Please don't remove tags without discussing. JRPG (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just made a quick edit to this section as I found it very confusing - it described John Stevens, the candidate who came 2nd ahead of Nigel Farage in the 2010 General Election, as a "former Conservative MEP (defected to LibDems)". This confused me as I at first assumed he had actually stood as a LibDem, which would be against the usual convention of giving speakers a clear run (since UKIP had already decided not to follow this convention, I thought the LibDems might have as well). But Stevens definitely stood as an independent. I could find no proof he has since defected to the LibDems (nor is such a defection mentioned on his own wikipedia page at the moment), just that he left the Tories to form the now-defunct Pro-Euro Conservative Party. Hope this is ok with everyone! Pitt the elder (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of a section titled "Racism", which contained the quote "Farage reportedly once told Alan Sked that UKIP "will never win...[racist terminology withheld]"", as that statement is stronger than the source, The Guardian, will support. It implies that The Guardian reported it as fact, when what it actually reported was an allegation made by someone else. Also, titling the section "Racism" is synthesis. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Should his recent accident be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.116.233 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we, somehow, mention the Verhofstadt speech in this article? 92.231.206.30 (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it discussed in independent reliable sources as being a significant event in Farage's life or career? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with us chosing specific speeches as the selection process is effectively wp:editorialising. Different of course if it's a program which includes the speech where other viewpoints can be put forward so I agree with Demiurge1000. JRPG (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I find that photograph of Nigel Farage is out of date. (E.P. Davies (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

Can you supply a more recent one, that is also freely licensed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I took that photo in summer 2009. It doesn't seem awfully long ago to me. Incidentally, it was around lunchtime on the Sunday of the Lord's Test. No wonder Nigel is smiling - England were doing very well. See 2009_Ashes_series#Second_Test. --Dweller (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it's 3 years ago now and lets be honest he's aged a fair bit. That's not a bad thing though, he now looks the right age and is looking well for it. The other 3 leaders look as if they could do with going back to school to be honest! I own a picture where he's looking serious, no silly grins or anything. People have a habbt of catching him mid-laugh for some reason!

The question is, how do I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheffno1gunner (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If, as you say, you own the picture (i.e. you took it yourself with your own camera), and you are willing to freely license it, then you would upload it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

New photograh added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheffno1gunner (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We seriously need to get our hands on a decent head and shoulders photo of Nigel Farage. We do not have an appropriate picture, we have full body shots, we have shots of him laughing or holding a pint etc but no straight faced professional looking portrait! He appears in election boxes on a number of pages and we just don't have an appropriate picture! We want something that will fit in with the images of his competitors in this info box>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is a problem on the folowing pages:

• European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)
• European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom)

Depending on how UKIP perform in the coming months and years this could also cause a problem for:

• United Kingdom local elections, 2013
• United Kingdom local elections, 2014
• Next United Kingdom general election

Have managed to crop an existing image that is licensed for editing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sheffno1gunner (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Noticed a user removed that image today and replaced it with one from 2008, which isn't ideal. I searched Flickr to see what else was available and found this, which is recent - is this suitable? January (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I don't like the new image.'s not great for an election box if I'm honest. The tie is far too informal, he shouldn't be smiling like that, he's got a tatty noticeboard behind him and perhaps worst of all, he's wearing his pin-striped suit, people will automatically think used car salesman! Especially when combined with the cheeky grin, it's not the image you want to put out to people whose trust you are asking for! The only way this image meets what I would deem to be the criteria for a fit and properhead and shoulders image, is that it actually includes his head and shoulders! I understand mine's a tad blurry but it's less noticeable in an election box and actually looks reasonable.

However a better current image has been suggested! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think we should only use this image from 2012 onwards, as he has aged a bit since 2009, so do not change the 2009 info box Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Nigel Farage London.jpeg is non-free and can't be used in this article or the election articles (or even on this talk page, I've had to remove it). January (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah right ok, I was unaware of this, it was another user, CatCalledJim who informed me of this image. I was unaware he'd not got the liscensing right, my apologiesSheffno1gunner (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm I do not support use of the Basingstoke image, it is not suitable for my above reasoning!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We have a problem, it is impossible to get a suitable picture for election boxes, this is becoming a real problem when it comes to acts of sabotage!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nigel Farage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

On review, this appears to me to be a bit of a premature nomination.

• The "citation needed" tag in the lead needs to be addressed.
• Also, major information should not be presented in the lead not discussed in more detail in the body.
• All figures and statistics need to be sourced with inline citations, such as the electoral results in the final section.
• All quotations need inline citations, such as in "Views on the Euro" or "Joseph Daul"
• It seems unbalanced to provide a long block quotation from Buzek but not from the article's subject in the Van Rompuy section; this is a minor WP:NPOV issue
• Numerous short sections are discouraged by WP:LAYOUT, as are one-sentence paragraphs; this will need to be reorganized.
• Language like "Farage is presently the leader of" should be rewritten per WP:REALTIME.
• The lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD

You can see the full GA criteria at WP:GA?. Since there's substantial work to be done, I'm not listing the article at this time, but I hope that you'll continue work on this one and consider renominating in the future once these problems have been addressed. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

He has been described as 'totalitarian'. Leadership Style(Coachtripfan (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

I don't think this is the sort of thing that could be included in the article: one single jab from the ex-deputy leader isn't really that notable. — Richard BB 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest adding in a sentence regarding Farage's remark that Belgium is "pretty much a non-country." The statement by Jerzy Buzek refers to this, but at present the section doesn't include it. Feel free to share your thoughts on this contribution. Best, O lockers (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Collect, take it as read we both understand & are both committed to following wp:blp rules. You say illegal implies a far worse crime than the offence admitted but illegal doesn't necessarily imply a crime at all, just any breach of rules. Here is a dictionary definition -contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulation which covers infraction of a trading practices code. Here is a Guardian article referencing "illegal copies" & all proprietary DVDs I've bought in the UK have dire warnings about "illegal copies". Unfortunately the changes now describe perfectly legal copying, Trading Standards investigated something again perfectly legal & then inexplicably Farage "admitted the offence" -what offence? Could you simply restore illegal & no harm done? Any other comments welcome. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The source specifically avoided the use of "illegal." Where a source avoids a word, it is likely there is a reason why the word was not used. It is not up to us to assert an act was "illegal" unless a reliable secondary source makes the claim. Doing something against a trade rule is an "offence" -- jaywalking is an "offence". Failure to sign a form is an "offence". A great many things may be an offence - but the judgement of "illegal" goes one full step beyond what the source stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised these allegations aren't included - http://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter I very much doubt whether any other party leader's wiki page wouldn't include references to school activities of such an extreme nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.85 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. And we do not include such allegations because they may well cause harm to the person - especially allegations not grounded in fact. Collect (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I found this source recently and I plan to incorporate it into the article when I have time: Nigel Farage's relationship with Russian media comes under scrutiny, The Guardian. Given the negative nature I thought I'd give people advance warning. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Related: Nigel Farage is a buffoon for admiring Vladimir Putin, The Telegraph --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And the "Putin bit" is properly presented in the BLP. BLPs are not a place to show how evil any person is, but to neutrally and in a manner compliant with policy to write an encyclopedic biography. Collect (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect , your edit summary "press officer" last I looked is a "living person" and is not Farage, there is no reason to include this tidbit in the Farage BLP" is beyond my comprehension, please enlighten! There are some 50 people who are alive who are referenced in this BLP AND who are not Farage and nothing in wp:BLP forbids this. The paragraph is relevant as Neil was criticising UKIP's behavior as unacceptable -giving by way of an example the words chosen by the party spokesman and asking Farage as party leader for a response. FWIW I've heard much worse words than bitch used but feel free to replace it with something more anodyne even though wp:NOTCENSORED applies. As you've written it the paragraph is complete and utter nonsense, please check! Farage appears to be objecting to Neal's wrong choice of the words "unprofessional, amateur and even unacceptable" Please make a proper summary fit to go in the encyclopedia -as I believe it was before you reverted -or provide cogent reasons for not doing so. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

All references to specific living persons must meet WP:BLP and WP:RS. In the case at hand, we need a strong source for the claim that the press officer used the word "bitch" and that it is specifically relevant to this BLP as I found no sign that Farage used the term "bitch." [1] Nigel Farage calls on Conservative MPs to join UKIP is the source given for the claim. That source does not remotely support the claim that any specific person used the term "bitch" at all. As the source does not support the claim, the claim fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mishae Firstly Greetings. Could you have a look at your edit of 28 March 2014 at 19:37? It archived a number of sources but in the case of Andrew Neal's interview the archive did not contain the interview on which this discussion is based. Could you check if it has affected anything else? Regards JRPG (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: and @JRPG: In my case, the archive doesn't archive videos, if so, its not my fault. In either case, readers will look into an original text either way. The only reason why we archive links is so that link rot will be less likely to occur. For now, I wont reinsert the archive but, the archive is not to blame. As I said earlier, it wasn't intended for videos. However, its presence is a must, read this link on archiving.--Mishae (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: Thanks for the response, Mishae. I'm now aware of the restriction & will look at the link rot article tomorrow. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@JRPG: I reinserted the archive since it goes with our rules. However, instead of removing it, click the original link and you will be transformed to the article with the video. That goes for other users here who are in this discussion.--Mishae (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"In May 2013 Farage led UKIP to its best-ever performance in a UK election. The party took 23% of the vote in the local elections, putting it only 2 points behind the governing Conservative party and 9 points ahead of the Liberal Democrats, and winning it 147 council seats."

This fails to include the corresponding information about the Labour party, which had /better/ results (points, seats) than UKIP.

Usual political spin. Plus ça change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.184.32 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What would actually be political spin is if we added that information. It'd be like saying "yea, sure they did good, but not nearly as good as these guys". It is totally irrelevant, unnecessary, unencyclopedic bias and can be found elsewhere on wikipedia in article already linked on the page.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be a collection of journalistic anecdotes which promote isolationist policies. Shouldn't it be an article about a man called Nigel Farage, instead of being a vehicle for promoting UKIP? Surely that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Francis Hannaway (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done Requests must be in a specific "change x to y" format. Please give us a specific example of what you believe is promotional of "isolationist policies" or what is a "vehicle for promoting UKIP". I read the article, and personally felt that it was neutral, stating facts, and did not seem to be promoting any specific view points. I am certainly keeping an open mind, however. Do yo have any specific suggestions?--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In the introduction, at the end of the sentence "In the 2012 edition of the same list Farage was ranked 17th, and in 2013 he was ranked 2nd behind the Prime Minister", there is a note that reads "While Farage himself pronounces it thus, he has stated that he does not mind if the alternative pronunciation of /ˈfærɪdʒ/ is used by others", which seems to have no relevance to the text at that position. 86.160.86.83 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for that statement? had a quick google search could find anything mentioning it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

46.247.14.7 (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2014 (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. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Racism & Discriminaton of Romanians 141.85.0.106 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

'Farage was born on 3 April 1964 at Downe, near Sevenoaks in Kent, to Guy Justus Oscar Farage by his wife Barbara née Stevens.'

Born 'to Guy', 'by his wife'?

Apart from the obvious biological reversal concerning which sex gives birth, this is the language used by the horse racing fraternity when talking about mares, fillies, 'sired by', blood-stock, etc.

Is the article subtley suggesting that Farage had been bred by careful selection and artificial insemination, as happens with horses? How strange.

Might not this article highlight that - as with Tony Blair - Farage was careful selected and artificially indoctrinated by the neo-cons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.221.83 (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Farage blames 'open-door immigration' for running late to Ukip meeting

Mr Farage told BBC's Sunday Politics Wales: "It took me six hours and 15 minutes to get here - it should have taken three-and-a-half to four.”

"That is nothing to do with professionalism, what it does have to do with is a population that is going through the roof chiefly because of open-door immigration and the fact that the M4 is not as navigable as it used to be." ITN report, 7 December 2014

Are there any good reasons this interesting news story should not be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.221.83 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia doesn't include every news story. In this case, it would depend on whether the news story has gained any lasting significance. Valenciano (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The words "racist" and "also known as IDIOTIC RACISTS" should be removed from the opening paragraph for reasons of obvious bias. 2.241.141.4 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This spot of vandalism has been rectified. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As UKIP have an MLA in N.Ireland, could some one add the template Template:Northern Ireland party leaders 82.18.177.13 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The article mentions "Warsi" but only once and without anything to indicate who "Warsi" is. I suggest changing "Warsi" to "Baroness Warsi" and adding a link to page "Sayeeda_Warsi,_Baroness_Warsi". 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:32 (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done Stickee (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The euro

From taking office as a UKIP MEP in 1999, Farage has often voiced opposition to the "euro project". His argument is that "a one-size-fits-all interest rate" cannot work for countries with structurally different economies, often using the example of Greece and Germany to emphasise contrast.

Stating that he frequently uses Greece and Germany as examples suggests Mr Farage to be prescient, though the linked citation provides no evidence towards that being true on this occasion. I would argue that it is unacceptable bias to be included without reference. 217.115.65.20 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Bear

This article about Mr Farage is nt very informative. It's just a diatribe against him. The bit about James Whale is far too long and in my opinion unnecessary.

I have removed the following paragraph on the grounds that it is untrue: "However, he has not improved the party's electoral performance. On May 3rd 2007, during the British local elections, UKIP was beaten not only by the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, but also by the BNP and Mebyon Kernow." While it is true that UKIP's performance in the 2007 local elections was unspectacular, and that they won fewer council seats nationwide than the BNP or mebyon Kernow, UKIP's performance was certainly better than in the previous three years, ie before Farage became leader. Therefore it is not true to say "he has not improved the party's electoral performance." Therefore I've deleted the first sentence. However, the sole point if the second sentence was to justify the first (which it fails to do), so I've deleted that too. Twilde 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In support of Twilde, I would argue anyway that local government elections are not as reliable a guide to party performance as national general elections, because not all local authorities put their seats up for election at the same time.Cloptonson (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view, I believe its unbalanced how the article on Nigel Farage has a section called "Controversies and whistleblowing". The articles on David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Green leader Natalie Bennett do not have any sections claiming controversies or whistleblowing.(CatCalledJim (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Farage would not be Farage if he didn't stir things up. I believe he is proud of his behaviour towards Prince Charles and Van Rompuy. Every newspaper article is required to "include right of reply" and so long as this is fully and adequately covered there should be no problem. I would support a proposal to move these headings back into into "political career". JRPG (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with everything you have said, especially in the proposal to move the headings into the "Political career" section. One question, how can we reach consensus in order to do this?(CatCalledJim (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

I'm on my way out shortly ..or I would have simply done it as per WP:BRD quoting Wikipedia criticism -Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". I can't believe anyone will object if all the text is left in and the sections are moved. Please feel free to do it -and blame me -or I'll do it tomorrow :) JRPG (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes look good to me. You've improved tha encyclopedic value of this article. JRPG (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The source already in the article calls her Gráinne, but in this excerpt from his own book Nigel calls her "Clare". [2] Which is right? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph, Independent and FT all say Clare? But Huff Po, BBC and same Indy report give Gráinne?! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is madness!. I was going to ask if Gráinne were a Gaelic version of Clare, but I've known plenty enough women of the Emerald Isle named Clare. Is this one of the cases where somebody is referred to more often by their preferred middle name than their actual given name? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No mention of any Clares here, unless maybe hidden here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that a major electoral candidates page has not been locked to seniors for approvals. Or has it? Is it not whom the wiki owners want in power? Its so strange it deserves its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.248.208 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 April 2015‎

It is protected. Next! '''tAD''' (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

143.167.62.206 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

On 12 September 2014, he appeared at a pro-union rally with Scottish UKIP MEP David Coburn ahead of Scotland's independence referendum, which resulted in Scots voting to remain members of the United Kingdom.

I am not sure that the appearance of Nigel Farage and David Coburn at a rally resulted in Scots voting to remain members of the United Kingdom, which is how this reads. I am sure there must have been other factors. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The referendum resulted in Scots voting so the sentence wasn't technically inorrect, but I've removed the potentially confusing clause anyway. I'm sure Farage's campaigning had nothing to do with it; he was regarded as a liability to the 'no' campaign Dtellett (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible we can avert any vandalism from uk election leader pages by temporarily protecting this page. Thanks.Rhumidian (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Rhumidian, thanks for your concern in ensuring the election is played out on a neutral and factual field on our website. I have read about the trolling on other party leaders, which is juvenile and self-defeating. This page is already protected. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks man, Have no party affiliations. Just want to make sure that everyone is represented equally (sans libel).Rhumidian (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why can't he be named, then?

Surely somebody who flew a plane that crashed whilst the person in question was a passenger and then went on to be convicted of trying to kill said person is significant enough to be named on the person in question's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Stowmarket (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ron Stowmarket: Whilst it is true that the pilot was convicted of trying to kill NF, the conviction was not for trying to kill him by crashing the aircraft. IMHO, this means that we do not need to name him. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Although it says "in a separate incident", that shouldn't really be in the same sentence, should it? If the name needs to stay then there needs to be more explanation? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Farage has just stepped down from UKIP leadership following the loss of Thanet South. Please can the page be updated to reflect?

210.10.141.95 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he said he might try and step back up, after a Summer holiday. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It should still be updated, even if Nigel Farage might stand (and win) again as this must be noted in the article. Wetter88 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The only surprise is that it happened so quickly...! But Farage's continued leadership of UKIP is mentioned in the (very lengthy) lead as well as in the UKIP leadership and 2015 UK general election subsections. Triplication of this information is probably overkill here - I went for the UKIP leadership subsection myself, but what do others think? JezGrove (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The plot thickens - Kent police are investigating electoral fraud in the seat and the result may be declared invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.112.224 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that The Pub Landlord may have won fair and square, after all: [3]. Should be added to some article, if not this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, turns out this was all just a storm in a teacup: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32725167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.112.224 (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Or in a pint glass... JezGrove (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Say what you will about Nigel, he has a lot of personality. Not sure if this eminently robust source should be used in the article. Poor Norman. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he spent a little too long in a bar chatting to UKIP sources before going on air.JezGrove (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments in these talk pages make you seem like a very neutral editor Jez. Definitely the sort of person who should be editing a highly political article. EEEEEE1 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382294/Nigel-Farage-s-car-wheels-sabotaged-assassination-attempt-Ukip-leader-lost-control-Volvo-wheel-fell-motorway-police-confirm-foul-play.html

someone removed nuts from his car wheels in an assassination attempt someone should add this

The Daily Mail is not a WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Try this one JRPG (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Truly shocking - he drives a Swedish car??! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed! Given that this is his 5th near death experience, I'm really astonished he didn't note the wheel noise and would want to be certain the mechanics had done up the bolts before deciding this one was notable. JRPG (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we have proof that the French police told him that this was foul play? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday, which originally reported Farage's comments, and its related publications are reliable, which is why The Guardian chose to report them. But neither sources says anything about the incident, just reports what Farage said. I suppose if one were to lose a wheel, a Volvo, with its three-wheel backup braking system would be a good choice. TFD (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. As long ago as March 1967, in fact, as Popular Mechanics]' tells us. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian quoting the Mail fully meets the wp:Suggested sources#current news criteria and I've no objections to anyone reporting it. Since most people would regard excessive noise coming from the car as a reason to stop, an assassination attempt seems improbable. JRPG (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OTOH, Volvos are not especially noted for randomly losing wheels - and it not for us to deem "probable" or "improbable" but only to use facts as reported in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing. The Telegraph now has this JRPG (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For info only. I note that according to Libération, not necessarily the most pro-Farage newspaper, French police and mechanics deny any suspicion of foul play. They blame a faulty repair. JRPG (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this seems to be a case of Farage's imagination going into overdrive (!) AusLondonder (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You just can't trust Johnny Frog, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Have added it in "Farage told the Mail on Sunday..." form at the bottom of the career section, which coincidentally places it in the context of other reported threats. Can be added to if anything interesting comes up to support or cast doubt on the claim, but Volvo seem to have quashed the plausible-sounding speculation it was a recall model. Dtellett (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally as expected, The Times has said Farage's claim is rubbish. I'll add it shortly. The Libération article is fundamentally correct. JRPG (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nigel Farage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071023144434/http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2687 to http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2687

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Zumoarirodoka, AusLondonder and Collect for their work on this section. Whilst there is plenty of useful information, please use sources like wp:Suggested sources#Current news and NOT the Daily Mail or Morning Star which most editors will remove on sight. Also please avoid WP:SYNTH. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This page states the endorsment of Donald Trump by Nigel Farage. I believe this bit should be removed, or at least altered following the statements Farage made on 05/04/2016 at the VNL-event in The Netherlands (starting at 43:56, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsOPSjjIQ_c). Here he says that while he supports some of Trump's policies, he finds other worrisome. In my opinion, this is not an endorsment of any kind. He did, however, earlier endorse Rand Paul. Chain14 (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It depends how much confidence is required to call something an endorsement. If you look at this piece, he would vote for Trump rather than Clinton in the election between the two. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Gain consensus. tAD raises a good point. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In the direct source of Farage I linked to he calls "much of what Trump says very worrying", I think that's enough argument against calling it an endorsement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chain14 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made the change. In addition to the reasonable objection made above, the "endorsement" was sourced to the Star and the Express, which are low quality tabloids not usually accepted for sourcing purposes here. Dtellett (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dtellett Farage is a writer for the Express which is owned by the same publisher as the Star. However, I have replaced what you removed, with the more recent and balanced view '''tAD''' (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen an interesting tweet about Farage holding fascist/neo-fascist views at school: https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/743792666647867392. Perhaps there's a secondary source about it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Twitter is not a source (highly partisan) and something like this would need exceptional evidence, rather than just one person's word. I remember this story, and one person's anecdote does not make a fact. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately I didn't suggest using Twitter as a source -- I posed the question as to whether there might be a secondary source... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Kind Tennis Fan removed material relating to Farage's position as an influential conservative, subsequently reinstated by Marquis de Faux. The Almightey Drill has added a wp:RS item about his place in history which has far more informational value. I propose deleting the poll position data as marginal and I hope everyone agrees. JRPG (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. These polls are arbitrary and the views of one columnist. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The source's summary says, "The Daily Telegraph's list of the Top 100 most influential Right-wingers has been compiled by Iain Dale with the help of an expert panel." That's more than the opinion of a columnist. Certainly it is not contentious that Farage is more influential than the number of elected UKIP MPs would suggest. Incidentally, it says "right-wingers" not conservatives. The list may be dated though, it puts Farage second to Cameron. TFD (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There is line saying that Farage withdraw resignation twice. This not true. In 2009 hi did resign and after he entered new contest. He did not un-resign. Bellow is text which should be changed.

Farage resigned as UKIP leader on 4 July 2016 with the following comment, "During the [Brexit] referendum I said I wanted my country back … now I want my life back"[41] and added that this resignation was final: "I won’t be changing my mind again, I can promise you",[42] apparently referring to two previous withdrawals of his resignation (in 2009 and 2015).[43]

it should read: apparently referring to previous withdrawal of his resignation in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9A16:3100:41F5:9943:F80E:E7D (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have changed it to refer to two previous resignations, without mention of withdrawal. The referenced article mentions both 2009 and 2015, but doesn't discuss how these comments relate to those resignations. In either case it's stretching the meaning of the reference - not ideal, but I think it's a step forwards. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he MEP after 28 June 2016 ? The Chairman of the European Parliament said him the last farewell that evening --Nat Flanders (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page needs update. Nigel Farage resigned as UKIP leader today, 4 July 2016. Commentary should include reference to facts that Farage lead movement for UK to leave European Union, stated during his resignation press conference that was his objective and never intended to be a career politician, and stepped down with no plan proffered or in place to transition UK's relationship as EU member to non-member sovereign state.

71.165.54.88 (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Jillian Alexander ^[1]

@Nat Flanders: I'm not exactly sure, but I think that he remains as a UKIP MEP until Britain actually leaves the EU; he's resigned as leader of the party, but hasn't left the party or the European Parliament. Don't hold me to that though.    Seagull123  Φ  20:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nat Flanders:, He is, currently, a MEP. My source is his updated profile in the EP webite. Indeed, it can be checked there that he is the co-chair of his parliamentary group. I have not looked for reference saying that he did or did not attend to further sessions of the EP, which is not very relevant at this point.

However, a very interesting point (Cf. theweek) of which none of us has a clear precedent or a certainty on what will happen is whether the MEPs from the UK will remain as MEPs until the day the UK effectively leaves the EU (Brexit day) or if their mandate will terminate when this parliament is dissolved (by 2019, when the next EP election will take place). The treaties of the EU state that MEPs do not represent their countries. They are elected within their countries, according to the rules that their countries set, but they are representatives of the whole Union. Hence, it can be argued that they should remain until 2019. The logic would say that, like newcomers (e.g. Romania in 2007) did hold a by-election to send their MEPs and they had to wait for the following (2009) election, leavers' MEPs mandate should terminate with their exit. Rule 4.2 of the procedure of the EP says that 'Every Member shall remain in office until the opening of the first sitting of Parliament following the elections.' But the Act concerning the elections of the MEP (20 Sep 1976) says that 'The UK will apply the provisions of this Act only in respect of the UK,' and the requirements for MEPs to be nationals of a member state would complicate the lot.

The problematic would disappear if the British MEPs resigned and the UK did not elect any member to replace them. Sorry for all the legalese but I want to make clear that this matter does not seem to be clear at the present time. Sam10rc (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The article makes reference to /ˈfærɑːʒ/ versus /ˈfærɪdʒ/, but actually this is not usual uncertainty. The usual uncertainty is whether it should be /ˈfærɑːʒ/ or /færˈɑːʒ/. This ought to be mentioned. I thought I remembered hearing that the stress was properly on the second syllable, but I could be wrong. 31.49.180.229 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to "With enormous intelligence". Is there any rigorous definition of "enormous intelligence" and is there any evidence that Mr Farage meets that criterion?

I don't know who put this above comment here, though as a person interested in this British character, I have seen a few interviews that surprised me. Mr. Farage could be a historian if he wishes. A mere internet search can yield a few interviews and articles, though I'm afraid I like the guy too much in order to be unbiased in editing here.

Also, I noticed that the size of this article really took off after that referendum result. Couldn't help but comment. MgWd (talk)MgWd —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of notable people think Nigel Farage is a stupid nasty racist, who's racist agenda is going to destroy Britain. I think that this point of view should be reflected in the Lead. A quote about how intelligent he is from a non notable racist isn't very balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.205.68 (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can reliably source the " lots of notable people" by all means do. However, do not include an edited version of Rod Liddle's quote. Either put it in unaltered or not at all. Britmax (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick google of "nigel farage racist" seems to confirm my suspicions, notable people including Tim Farron the leader of the Liberal Democrats believe Nigel Farage to be a raciest. Britmax I'd be grateful if you could add a paragraph or two to the lead to give it more balance. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.205.68 (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately British politics is permeated with opportunists who make use of the power the mere accusation of racism has in this country - just the suggestion that you might be racist and you're in trouble. I'm not sure Tim Farron is in any way notable, but perhaps one way of letting the reader assess his accusation of racism is to state what evidence is offered in support of it. If there is none, then should wiki really be reporting that Farage's opponents say nasty personal remarks about him - as though it's an authoritative source? 2A00:23C4:AC83:CE00:3101:C6E4:C1B6:DCD5 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Farage is one of the most controversial figures in the UK which is why we all need to be careful. Tim Farron is notable as an MP and the leader of the Lib Dems. Wikipedia rules simply require us to attribute POV if we quote him, we don't need to justify his statement. I note, however the horror expressed by Gove, Johnson etc. when that poster of immigrants so reminiscent of The Eternal Jew (1940 film) appeared. I suggest you look at this. Gove said he shuddered and he is not a left winger. Be aware also that the political neutrality of Google searches has been questioned -the suggestion is that results are filtered.

JRPG (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

MgWd Don't worry about being biased -everybody has bias and sometimes 2 or more people with opposing views actually helps. Feel free to add a good source and try to summarise it fairly. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Section Early Life, Education and Career. Last line. Typo : the company he worked for last is spelled Natixis Metals (pls also see link below which refers to company with correctly spelled name. Thetruthisoutthere19 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm declining this request because, from what I can tell, the company was named Natexis Metals Limited when Farage joined in 2003.[4][5] Only in 2006 was the name changed to Natixis. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Farage is or was a member of one or more committees of the European Parliament, including the Fisheries Committee. According to Greenpeace he had an "appalling attendance record" ("Over the three years that Nigel Farage was a member of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, he attended one out of 42 meetings."). Should this be mentioned in the article? TraceyR (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have previously modified this but feel its still just absurd, no other journalist has ever said anything resembling this. Farage is clearly highly intelligent -as are MPs and ministers but The most important British politician of the last decade and the most successful?? He's not won a parliamentary seat despite 7 attempts, he won't be an MEP much longer, he's divided the country and whilst there is a financial penalty, it's not clear how many of the benefits he promised will be met. I suggest we remove it. JRPG (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I note the left wing New Statesman just this week says "Even without the vote for Brexit, Farage would have been one of the most transformative politicians of these turbulent new times." There are plenty of other similar assessments. Whatever one's view of the referendum, his 'success' judged by Liddle, who is no friend, clearly lies in achieving, against huge odds, the dramatic rejection of the EU which he has stood for over 25 years. I would strongly oppose the removal of the Liddle quote. There are also of course plenty of critical quotes about him in the article.GooglerW (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your useful comments GooglerW & the New Statesman quote. Liddle's article suggested to me that he's more right wing than you think but I suspect he was over generous with his praise purely because he believed Farage had bowed out. The Newstatesman seems an altogether better article. Have you any problems using it to replace Liddle? JRPG (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think a case has been made for removing/replacing the Liddle quote as in any sense unsuitable. We must agree to differ as to whether he was over-generous - Liddle explains exactly what lies behind his assessment - and now that it has moved from the lead and is followed by Farron, Gina Miller etc I really think it should stand.GooglerW (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify GooglerW, on re-reading I agreed it was adequately balanced. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The article gives his office as Leader of UKIP. This is misleading, because it is untrue. An edit to "Ex-Leader ..." was reverted, because no such office exists. So what can be done about this? TraceyR (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be standard formatting for politicians, even those long gone. But I agree, yes it is very misleading, perhaps more so for contemporary politicians. Just out of interest, Zac Goldsmith is still "shown" as an MP and his occupation is still shown as "Politician", even though he resigned six weeks ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Be bold :-) TraceyR (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"Although he was a member of the European Parliament, Farage campaigned to leave the EU..." This doesn't need an a 'Although he was a member of the European Parliaments' as UKIP was campaigning for independence from the EU.

"Polls on the day of the vote suggested defeat for the leave campaign, though they were successful with 52 per cent of the vote."

Not sure that "Polls on the day of the vote suggested defeat for the leave campaign..." is actually relevant.

"Jean-Claude Juncker promptly told all UKIP members to leave the Parliament.[109] Farage also made the suggestion of a future second referendum in an interview with the Daily Mirror if Brexit lost but the result was closer than 52-48.[110]"

Again not sure that "Farage also made the suggestion of a future second referendum" is actually relevant, of course he did as they are the UK INDEPENDENCE party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/fr/124796/DAVID_BORRELLI_history.html since january 2017 David Borrelli is NOT the co-president of EFDD, please delete "serving with David Borrelli" in the Infobox officeholder. Please... now can you delete |alongside3 = [[David Borrelli (politician)|David Borrelli]] in the Infobox officeholder? Many thanks for your attention, see you later. --151.67.44.111 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this up! I've updated the infobox with what I could think of looks best. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For some time, the infobox has been File:Nigel Farage MEP 1, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg, an official EU portrait. However, I personally felt File:Nigel Farage in Conservative Political Action Conference 2015 (cropped).jpg was a better picture as it was closer, more recent, and a slightly more accurate portrayal of Farage "in action" speaking in public. What do other people think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My own preference for any WP:BLP photo is an official one or one the subject is known to prefer. The 2015 one as you say is more recent & hence more accurate. JRPG (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The official photo is less than a year older than the image you are trying to add. An image where his mouth is agape, and is far from being a neutral presentation of the subject. Stop this immediately and go find something else to do that is more worthwhile. Calibrador (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally feel the more neutral and official EU portrait is preferable. The newer picture is still two years old, from March 2015. The previous neutral official picture is from 2014, so there is not a big difference in terms of the dates of the two pictures. I don't think it is necessary for him to be seen "in action". If a newer picture is needed at some stage, my own view is it would be better to wait for a new official portrait of him. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The current image, with the red background, looks goofy. The image with the grey background seems more appropriate. --2601:CD:C104:17A0:A0DA:83CC:6CDD:572E (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally favour the official EU portrait picture. It seems like a much better quality photo and is not much older than the newly added one. AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

From reading the comments, I believe there is a majority in favour of switching back. JRPG (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DaltonCastle. I note you reverted several edits by new user EditsEditsEditsEdits and en-passant reverted my link fillings on grounds of wp:pov. The reference provided evidence that Farage sang songs associated with the National Front -something Farage didn't deny. His response was fully included and I'm at a complete loss as to why you reverted. If it was a mistake -no worries just change it back. The entire UK has their own opinion of Farage but my understanding is that a short factual summary from a WP:RS, properly attributed, should not be deleted unless its shown to be wrong. Perhaps zzuuzz could advise if I've misunderstood otherwise could you explain your reasons further? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about that aspect of the revert as well... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"User-generated content", such as letters to the editor are not reliable sources and should not be used, which it was. The Independent did run an article which mentioned the letter, which is the only source that should be used for the assertion. However, you need to show that the story has gained traction rather than just being reported in the paper that published the letter. Also, there is already mention of Farage's right-wing views in secondary school and further detail may lead to unbalance in the various aspects of the subject. TFD (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks The Four Deuces. I would have ignored a simple letter to the editor. This however was an article about an open letter to which Farage responded. To his credit he didn't attempt to deny what happened. He didn't respond to the other comments you mention and in any case teachers will not normally make adverse comments in public about pupils. This is different & much stronger. I've no problems removing the earlier stuff re school if that helps agreement. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The article already says, "According to a letter written in 1981 by a teacher at the school, plans to make Farage a prefect were opposed by some staff because of his allegedly racist and fascist leanings." His response was it was because of his support of Enoch Powell, which actually makes the allegation more likely. I wonder how far we want to get into his political position while at Dulwich. The significance of the letter needs to be established by showing that other media, having read it and the response, decided it was worth reporting. Do you know if the other broadsheets covered it? TFD (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The reversal was clearly warranted, not just on POV but for other WP breaches as well. The reverted comments were unbalanced, paint Farage as a goose-stepping NAZI (intentionally or otherwise), and are totally third or fourth party opinion that does not meet WP citation rules as reliable source material. For goodness sake, that is what the letters columns in newspapers is all about: they are often little better than Facebook rants! Finally, how fair is it to use what someone said or did as a schoolboy to tarnish their reputation for life? Everybody experiments as a youth with various ideas - it's called growing up. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Roger 8 Roger. Note this is NOT a “letter to the editor” –it’s an open letter subject to English libel law. Based on my experience -I myself have made allegations in articles in two wp:RS newspapers -the Independent will know the writer’s name & will have other witnesses who are willing to corroborate the story. Their lawyers will have checked every single sentence and ensured –as we must – that they have printed Farage’s “right to reply.” Farage hasn’t sued, and in my view gains respect for admitting what happened & then saying this was a common viewpoint –something our readers can decide for themselves. This is much more significant than the 1981 letter as confidentiality rules require teachers not to make public comments about former pupils.

I had expected DaltonCastle to respond to the talk page before making further edits but will shortly add a single line which I hope takes into account people’s views. Regards JRPG (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The question at hand is nothing about the reliability of the source, its Notability & Weight, as well as neutral tone. Is a letter pinned by a schoolmate really notable enough to justify the near-paragraph? Is it appropriate to give this much weight to such a minor detail in the grand scheme, especially in the wake of the UK political mudslinging where it became convenient for impassioned people to throw around labels about people on the other side? On the other side of the spectrum, it generally would not be appropriate. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DaltonCastle. Are you aware that you are supposed to discuss on the talk page before reverting -see WP:BRD -please check you understand as we may need to ask for dispute resolution. There's no need whatsoever to worry about the reliability of the source. I have a reasonably good understanding of the draconian English libel law and Farage would have sued without hesitation had he had a case. From his unwillingness to do so, there is an automatic historic presumption that every fact presented is -on balance of probability -correct. Farage's reply makes this also clear. I had provided a shorter version until you reverted. We do need to look at our objectives & ensure we are writing an educational article which is reasonably independent of the political views we all have. JRPG (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WP policy is clear - contentious material about living persons requires an actual positive consensus for inclusion. In the case at hand, I suggest you start an RfC if you wish the contentious anecdote included in the BLP. Collect (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Collect, I've been waiting for several years to find a single article on Farage that isn't -or rather shouldn't be -contentious in many places. This I thought was it; a statement about facts from a WP:RS which Farage himself agrees is correct. He really should know but if you don't agree, look at his "right of reply" and explain what you understand it to mean? You will then be the 1st to answer this important point. Also Farage hasn't sued. I believe you are not a UK citizen and it's unreasonable to expect you to understand English libel law but please note that it trumps the freedom of speech enjoyed in the US stopping speculative allegations against wealthy people pretty well dead. Final point, I added 2 lines -revision 754586379 @ 13:04 13 December -including his right of reply. I regard this as the minimum necessary to show he accepts what was said. Who are we to disagree with Nigel? Regards JRPG (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On a much lighter note, I like the irony that we can't even agree whether it's contentious! JRPG (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"Not suing" is not the same as "admission of truth" in the US or in the UK. I suggest you read the discussions about "Piggate" on Wikipedia. Also you might have an interest in User:Collect/BLP which shows why I tend to be stricter in defining "contentious" than some others are. Collect (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

English libel law was reformed by the Defamation Act 2013 which among other things says, "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant." Note too that letter does not say Farage "supported Mosley," but that the writer heard him mention his name. (I just mentioned Mosley's name, it does not mean I support him.) He does not say he sang fascist songs, but heard him singing "the song starting with the words “gas them all, gas ‘em all, gas them all”". (I cannot find any song beginning that way.) In any case, there is nothing in policy or guidelines that says statements are assumed to be true because if they were false the publishers could be sued for libel. And it is a matter of weight, not reliability. Certainly the letter is a reliable source for what the anonymous person said and there are no reliability issues if we merely report what was said rather than report it as fact. TFD (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

DaltonCastle So the reversion as a whole removed references to two news stories – one regarding a letter about Farage by a teacher (which had been on the page for some time) and the other regarding an open letter from a schoolfriend. To focus on the former for now...it was initially removed on the grounds it was “speculation”. I reverted it with with added references as it was reported by multiple credible sources (see my comment below) and it has now been removed again for reasons of “weight” and “coatracking”, despite the fact prior to the reversion it sat uncontested on the Wikipedia page for some time. It it is hard to see how a single line on the adolescent politics of a major political figure, widely reported and discussed, meets the criteria of “undue weight” or indeed coatracking, since it pertains directly to the subject of the article. I share JRPG and Nomoskedasticity's concerns about the reversion, and feel omission of this widely discussed episode makes the article less balanced, neutral and impartial.

I notice the following line from another editor has been removed as part of a larger reversion on the grounds that it's speculation: “According to a letter written in 1981 by a teacher at the school, plans to make Farage a prefect were opposed by some staff because of his allegedly racist and fascist leanings”. The letter was reported by multiple sources (The Independent, The Telegraph, Channel 4 News), and Nigel Farage himself said he had seen it (see 1 minute 24 seconds into the interview on the Channel 4 news site https://www.channel4.com/news/nigel-farage-ukip-letter-school-concerns-racism-fascism), responding, “I’ve seen it before…of course I said some ridiculous things…not necessarily racist things…it depends how you define it.” I have therefore reinstated this line, with more extensive references. I hope this addresses the editor's concerns. EditsEditsEditsEdits (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Collect, firstly we are in full agreement on Piggate which I regarded as speculative tabloid drivel & utter irrelevant to Cameron's political role. I also saw his response as a denial though no one takes the Daily Mail seriously and its not used in Farage's article. Re your blp stuff, I've seen enough of your work to expect to find this informative, so thank you & I'll read. TFD I'd missed the 2013 Libel act which I assume was brought in following the infamous McLibel case so thanks also.
I find editing Ukip related articles uniquely and unnecessarily stressful and I'm sorry to note another editor admits to suffering anxiety. This is silly. I propose a Christmas and New Year truce -please all enjoy -and then a return to discussion following rules which do actually work. Hopefully we are all in agreement we want a better encyclopaedia. I think even Nigel would agree, the current article is wrong but I think it can be fixed by people with the right attitude and knowledge. I will ask for advice. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, EditsEditsEditsEdits, Collect, RoverTheBendInSussex, DaltonCastle, Roger 8 Roger, The Four Deuces, and Sam Blacketer:

Greetings all. Thanks again to TFD for drawing my attention to the change in libel law –Defamation Act 2013 which I’ve read carefully. The new law prevents repetition of the notorious McLibel case, but would not stop Farage from suing to protect his reputation –action taken (pre 2014) by Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken and historically by [[Oscar Wilde].

I intend to re-insert this based on the arguments below unless someone complains beforehand in which case I’ll take it arbitration. Sam, you have edited this page before and know UK sources well. If you have time, your comments would be really helpful –even if you don’t agree with me.

Rover, you say on your user page that you are a spokesman for Ukip. My observation is that’s it’s mostly Ukip articles that you edit -& you provide useful facts so thank you. However removing experienced editors contributions from a WP:RS, unless wp:undue is an entirely different matter & a type of wp:Editorialising. In your case, as a native Brit, it suggests WP:COI. Please don’t do it, Ukip won’t criticise you for keeping within the rules and avoiding the edit wars which plague Ukip articles still.

Collect, and Dalton, UK newspapers are available nationally and are very familiar to all UK readers. It’s very different in the US where I understand readership tends to be local to the state. The US to its credit values freedom of speech whilst in the UK protection of reputation is traditionally deemed more important. I always use Wikipedia:Suggested sources#Current news which happen to be sources I’ve been reading most my life. FWIW Piggate was tabloid Daily Mail at its worst -repudiated by Cameron as “utter nonsense.” More importantly -my understanding is that no pig is currently in danger & the story had no bearing –even if true –on Cameron’s agricultural policies. Conversely Leave.EU ‘s infamous ‘Breaking point’ poster showing Farage was described by George Osborn as Nazi propaganda and the article adds ..“a string of leading figures from all sides of the referendum debate criticised the poster. “ Baroness Warsi abandoned leave precisely because of the poster. Please note both sources quoted are wp:rs. Please also note EditsEditsEditsEdits’s contribution .. Channel 4’s summary saying that Ukip has a problem showing it’s not racist Roger 8 Roger -his alleged school behaviour, which he didn’t deny -is relevant. Re the UK-US culture difference –I know better than to believe what the Daily Mail says & given it’s not a WP:RS, I remove it on sight. I don’t have the knowledge to do the same for US journals and based on this conversation, you have a similar lack of knowledge of UK sources and should not remove WP:RS material. If Farage was showing racist behaviour at school that is something our encyclopedia readers should know & they can form their own judgement. Since Farage has neither denied nor sued, it is not contentious or controversial & I’d only expect this debate on a Ukip related UK political article.

Based on my own experience, the newspaper lawyers will have insisted the letter writer provides witness names who can collaborate each and every potentially damaging phrase in every sentence in the story. Farage will be aware of that and neutral editors should have no cause for concern. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Speculation. No evidence.User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2017 (GMT)

As we don't seem to be getting closer to an agreement on whether this incident should be included, would it be helpful to take this to arbitration?EditsEditsEditsEditsEdits (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@EditsEditsEditsEditsEdits: Ahh ..was just about to do this but I'd be delighted if you go ahead. I think only Rover is still objecting and all the issues have been discussed. It should be very one sided. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@RoverTheBendInSussex and EditsEditsEditsEditsEdits: Greetings both, I had hoped EditsEditsEditsEditsEdits was going to take this up but it looks as if I'll have to do it and I'll start by asking for advice on procedure. Ukip articles are the only ones I edit where Wikipedia:Suggested sources#Current news items appear to be censored hence my lack of knowledge. Don't get stressed, I'm basically a peaceful person! Regards JRPG (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@JRPG:Morning. I submitted a Dispute Resolution noticeboard/request about a month ago but have heard nothing back, so perhaps there is a better avenue.EditsEditsEditsEditsEdits (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@EditsEditsEditsEditsEdits:. Afternoon -the thread was closed by Robert McClenon on 18 March 2017 at 19:39 with the following note.

(UTC) Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing here. Also, has the filing unregistered editor been involved in the discussion? If so, they should list themselves as a party also. (Maybe they filed this case logged out and are one of the editors.) Other editors have also been engaged in recent discussions about Farage on the talk page and should also be included and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon also suggested getting help but I can't find where he said that that. I'm afraid I've been laid low from a chest infection for the last week and still haven't fully recovered -could you let me know when you got the message? Regards JRPG (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JRPG - In view of the contentious nature of this dispute, I would suggest that you consider either a Request for Comments or requesting formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, I will take this up forthwith. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't see anythng about the controversy about who exactly funded the Leave campaign, his famous tetchiness when ties with Russia are brought up, and why he visited Assange, the Putin stooge, at whose behest. Why is this article protected, can only Farage lovers write this article.

Not only them, people who can sign their posts (4x~) and provide reliable sources have also been known to, on occasions. Britmax (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add in section on Russian links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who can reliably source them can add them. Britmax (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering the trouble CNN is in for fabricating Russian stories at the moment, I can't imagine there being much solid evidence for little old Nigel Farage at the moment.. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the section on his political career has 23 subsections says a lot about this article and the problem that Wikipedia has with such articles - people who are consistently in the public eye have piecemeal updates to their article every time they're back on the news. It would be a big task, but I would suggest some thorough culling and reorganising. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The term private school is not normally used by the public in the UK. A school in the private sector is most often called an independent school. An independent secondary school is traditionally also known as a public School. An academy in England is independent of local authority control and is funded and controlled directly by central government. However, it is not referred to as an independent school. Dulwich College could be referred to as a "public school" or as a "private school" but the term "independent school" is most current and is the one used by the school itself.Weburbia (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Garageland66: Spot on Weburbia. I agree the term is counter-intuitive though very well understood by UK citizens. This page is edited by people of all political beliefs, major requirements being to assume good faith and maintain a neutral point of view. I was about to put a note on this page as hopefully the most likely reason for questioning my honesty was that you weren't from the UK. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that most schools in the UK are now academies. Academies are also independent. 'Independent' is a very vague term. It's obviously much clearer to state that Dulwich is a fee-paying private-sector school. Clear and transparent. Garageland66 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Garageland66, academies can simply be called academies -end of problem. "Public school" is totally misleading but we're not going to solve a 500 year issue by altering one page of Wikipedia. Private school tends to suggest something not regulated by the Department for Education and Skills (United Kingdom). Perhaps the best bet would be to describe/link it thus:- independent and await for comments from others before changing. JRPG (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nigel Farage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012180508/http://news.sky.com/story/817965/nigel-farage-re-elected-ukip-party-leader to http://news.sky.com/story/817965/nigel-farage-re-elected-ukip-party-leader
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414104724/http://www.lbc.co.uk/will-nigel-farage-publish-tax-return-absolutely-not-128442 to http://www.lbc.co.uk/will-nigel-farage-publish-tax-return-absolutely-not-128442
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818232824/http://www.lbc.co.uk/farage-we-need-to-re-appraise-our-relationship-with-saudi-arabia---122465 to http://www.lbc.co.uk/farage-we-need-to-re-appraise-our-relationship-with-saudi-arabia---122465

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This entire section was removed here, with the edit summary "emoved section due to being undue weight and commentary". But I don't think it is £ undue weight and commentary", it's just a relevant political position that Farage has vocally espoused. I think this should be discussed fully here, by interested editors, before it's removed again. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nigel Farage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116065904/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aFq2hOeCcYZc&refer=europe to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aFq2hOeCcYZc&refer=europe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709123259/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/f/20684/Nigel%20Paul+FARAGE.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/f/20684/Nigel%20Paul+FARAGE.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Link needed. Wikipietime (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised to find nothing about the NHS claims done by him and his party in the brexit discussion. This was some what of a scandal. So how come nothing of this is mentioned here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA3XTYfzd1I https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-nigel-farage-latest-vote-leave-nhs-promises-350m-mildly-irresponsible-a7304081.html Garnhami (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That was an official Vote Leave campaign "promise" by the designated Leave group, which Nigel Farage was not a part of. FYI "him and his party" were in rival organisation's like Leave.EU or/and Grassroots Out, to the best of my knowledge made no such promise. --Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon: I know it was part of their campaign, but he also made claims about this. Check the links I provided. He was pretty strong on this claim. I'll see if I can find more, better references, such as this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html Here it is already shown he was telling lies.Garnhami (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The first three links you provided had none of these claims only him stating that it was a mistake and shouldn't have been made, I quote if he could guarantee that the £350 million (that he didn't "promise") instead of going to the EU would now go the NHS; “No I can’t, I would never have made that claim” and “That was one of the mistakes made by the Leave campaign”.

The fourth and last link provided from the Independent during a BBC Question Time debate on 9 June of 2016 and he states it's higher than £350 million a week I quote; “We should spend that money here, in our own country, on our own people,” and “Do you know what I’d like to do with the £10 billion? I’d like that £10 billion to be spent helping the communities in Britain that [the] Government damaged so badly by opening up the doors to former communist countries. What people need is schools, hospitals, and GPs. That’s what they need”. The £10 billion is net yearly, he states. --Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon::well isn't that worth mentioning? He promised money, but where is it? It was a huge scandal and it still is. The NHS is suffering in the UK and rather than getting more money (which was a theme for the brexit campaign they got nothing.

You put the cart before the horse, saying "claims done" that he/party made about money currently going to the EU would go to the NHS instead. But only provided links stating the official Vote Leave campaign made that pledge and Nigel Farage calling it a mistake and shouldn't have been done. Then being pressed on it provided one link that partly backed your claim (that he personally would like to see the money spent in British communities, e.g. on schools, hospitals, and GPs). Make of that what you will.

So yeah, if we are now to believe that someone stating what there'd like to do with something is a "promise" and that someone isn't a member of the Government/Health Secretary with the power to do it. Then, by all means, source it and add it.

Also, £125 billion has gone into the NHS in England this year and is to get more money thanks to pressure from Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/27/theresa-may-pledges-to-accelerate-nhs-long-term-funding-plan & https://www.ft.com/content/ea571a86-3341-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498 --Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon:: the point is not so much the money (the number itself) but the fact they misled the british voters with making statements they knew they couldnt deliver. Out flat said: they lied.Garnhami (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes "they" as in the official Vote Leave campaign (not Nigel Farage) made a "promise"/"pledge" for the NHS money. And as I have already stated Boris Johnson who was a leading member of the organisation (who is now the Foreign Secretary, i.e. now with "power") has made statements and pushed for the Government to give more money to the NHS. So I think I'm going to leave it there, as I have tried to put my point to you as straightforwardly as possible and we are just going around in circles here. Have a good day/night. --Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon and Garnhami: Farage didn't promise the money -not that he was or will ever be in a position to implement it -but he didn't denounce it either until a couple of days after the referendum. In practice it doesn't matter as the 500km Irish border is unpoliceable as a customs border and this would have been obvious had Farage Cameron & the brexiteers paid the attention they should have done before the referendum. The technology 'solution' that Johnson has referred to of course is the well known magic wand. Brexit won't go ahead. JRPG (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

His new official website: http://www.nfarage.com/ Arunvtt (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In January of 2017 Nigel has divorced with his wife because of cheating.. Why nobody update this information in his wikipedia profile source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/nigel-farage-admitted-chants-english-football-songs-second-world/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laimis.gsxr (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Add the fact he has resigned from UKIP. Many thanks. Semaj060606 (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead section currently says: "On 4 December 2018, Farage announced his resignation from UKIP over the appointment of Tommy Robinson as an adviser to the UKIP leader Gerard Batten and the decision of the National Executive of UKIP to keep Batten as leader of the party." So already there? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2019 (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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

NF speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. I think this is a nice photo, and that it should be used somewhere. --Edelseider (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I done the best extensive edits on this page but then somebody wrongly and foolishly undid them. can somebody put them back to where I left it off. KingTintin (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Editors need to see clearly the nature of changes that are made to an article. I would recommend not making your edits individually so extensive, because that makes it difficult for editors to see what changes you have made, so it is more likely the changes will be reverted. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

can you just see for yourself my edits and then put them back. nothing was wrong with the edits. KingTintin (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but such extensive edits need a better description than none. Please try to edit in smaller chunks, using Edit summaries, so that us amateurs can keep track of them. Britmax (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please change the section heading "Farage's political views" to just "Political views" and each of the section's subsection headings from "Farage on the Economy" to "The Economy" etc. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says "section headings should: Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, e.g. Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life."

Thank you. 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:EA (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC) 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:EA (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done – Þjarkur (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst the article was marked as an opinion piece in 2012, key pieces are now facts. The referendum on the Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was won by a 60-40 majority. It is the only section of the Farage article which mentions the Ukip campaign and the results speak for themselves. Farage has never claimed to be a statesman but it is an unwritten rule that you don't carry out political campaigns in a foreign country, particularly one you have recently been at war with. Smuggling remains a serious problem, no serious solution to the border issue has been proposed and the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland warned in a Newsnight interview of problems if infrastructure is imposed. It's another irony that the Brexit campaign is likely to mean that Brexiteers are not safe in Ireland.BBC Newsnight 6 mins in. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There are so many things that I could set out here in response to the above that I hesitate to even start. I have no intention of becoming bogged down in a he said she said kind of time-wasting exchange with an editor who is not of a NPOV. The article was an opinion piece and still is. There is no escaping that, it is clear from the way that it is written. If an opinion piece is cited, then what is taken from it must be edited in a neutral fashion, otherwise WP:NPOV is violated.

These words of JRPG make it crystal clear that a non-neutral point of view is at risk: "It's another irony that the Brexit campaign is likely to mean that Brexiteers are not safe in Ireland." That is opinion, period. Boscaswell talk 23:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The current article is very focused on Nigel's time in politics. Little exists about his career pre-politics.

This article (^[1]) talks to Nigel's time pre-politics. I think we should add reference to this stating:

Farage and his brother both followed their father into trading in the City. Farage's brother, Andrew, became a broker on the London Metal Exchange.

In 1994 Farage setup his own broker business, Farage Futures. The business was successful over its eight year history, making £874,000 ^[2]. The business was dissolved in 2004, a year after the launch of his next broker business venture, with his brother (Farage Limited).

According to accounts filed at Companies House, Farage Limited made an Operating Profit of £1.4m up to February 2010. The 2011 accounts however show little sign that trading took place from February 2010 to February 2011 ^[3]. Farage, now elected to the European Parliament for the third time, resigned his directorship of the business in February 2011, but remained on as Company Secretary ^[4]. In July 2011, Farage Limited agreed to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to resolve outstanding debts. Farage resigned as Company Secretary in February 2012. Farage Limited is currently in liquidation ^[5].

2A02:C7D:59AB:A700:1501:C830:8538:F28D (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. Is it advisable to use companieshouse.gov.uk as a source or does this fail WP:PRIMARY? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinevans123. Whilst theoretically a primary source (in that Farage influenced the source as Director and Company Secretary), Companies House are the official UK government view of the financial position of a UK company. Financial accounts submitted are subject to UK HMRC audit, and any manipulation identified would be a serious criminal offence. If financial figures are to be quoted, I don't believe a more official/trustworthy source could exist. I used "Companies House" in the wording however, to make the source plainly clear to readers that the figures are official UK government figures. Thanks for your super quick response! 10:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)2A02:C7D:59AB:A700:1501:C830:8538:F28D (talk)rm

No worries. Always happy to be standing by with light refreshments. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have never ever seen a Wiki article with so much detail as that proposed in this talk section. A summary would be more than adequate. Perhaps the reason for the detail being all about his politics is that he is first and foremost a politician and political thinker? The stuff about his business career is mundane, to put it bluntly. There's nothing remotely exceptional, whereas his political career has been anything but. Boscaswell talk 11:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

[6] - it's Alex Jones' talk show. "repeatedly uses words and phrases such as “globalists” and “new world order”, which regularly feature in antisemitic ideas.

In the interviews, Farage also says:

Members of the annual Bilderberg gathering of political and business leaders are plotting a global government.

The banking and political systems are working “hand in glove” in an attempt to disband nation states.

“Globalists” are trying to engineer a world war as a means to introduce a worldwide government.

Climate change is a “scam” intended to push forward this transnational government."

Doug Weller talk 18:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And [7]and [8] his response. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, The Guardian is the only major publication that carried the story, so it lacks weight for inclusion at present. TFD (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. It's being suggested that the use of the phrases "globalism" and "new world order" are anti-Semitic? Are you having a laugh? In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" Boscaswell talk 11:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Farage was discussed in a citation with a dead link (currently citation #4, though it could change). The source was the Newsnight video, this time located here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqmxgRqfrM (YouTube user TheIronsides) Michaelopolis (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The end of the passage in the Early Years section "Farage later stated that some teachers were hostile to him because he was an admirer of Enoch Powell. Farage said: "Any accusation I was ever involved in far right politics is utterly untrue."[33]" for accuracy should add "although this contradicts the evidence that he "was a follower of the National Front, boasting that they shared the same initials". (c.f.[31] above) 62.30.198.73 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

[9] - it's Alex Jones' talk show. "repeatedly uses words and phrases such as “globalists” and “new world order”, which regularly feature in antisemitic ideas.

In the interviews, Farage also says:

Members of the annual Bilderberg gathering of political and business leaders are plotting a global government.

The banking and political systems are working “hand in glove” in an attempt to disband nation states.

“Globalists” are trying to engineer a world war as a means to introduce a worldwide government.

Climate change is a “scam” intended to push forward this transnational government."

Doug Weller talk 18:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And [10]and [11] his response. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, The Guardian is the only major publication that carried the story, so it lacks weight for inclusion at present. TFD (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. It's being suggested that the use of the phrases "globalism" and "new world order" are anti-Semitic? Are you having a laugh? In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" Boscaswell talk 11:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Farage was discussed in a citation with a dead link (currently citation #4, though it could change). The source was the Newsnight video, this time located here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqmxgRqfrM (YouTube user TheIronsides) Michaelopolis (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The end of the passage in the Early Years section "Farage later stated that some teachers were hostile to him because he was an admirer of Enoch Powell. Farage said: "Any accusation I was ever involved in far right politics is utterly untrue."[33]" for accuracy should add "although this contradicts the evidence that he "was a follower of the National Front, boasting that they shared the same initials". (c.f.[31] above) 62.30.198.73 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian source here, by John Crace, says this: "... discover Farage’s great-great-grandfather Nikolaus Schrod married a Bina Göring, who was born just outside Frankfurt in about 1837." He only mentions this to try and connect Bina with "... Hermann Göring, the leading Nazi and commander of the Luftwaffe during the second world war, who was born about 80 miles away in Rosenheim some 55 years later." As far as I can see, the other source from the Daily Express here makes no mention of Frankfurt at all. I'm not quite sure why Frankfurt or "the Frankfurt area" is in any way significant to Farage. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ana Stelline, would you care to comment? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Describing someone as being from "Germany" in the mid 19th century is as precise as describing someone as coming from "the British isles" rather than "Ireland" or "Northern Ireland", or "Southern Europe" rather than "Spain". Germany didn't even exist as a country in the mid 19th century; Frankfurt on the other hand was an independent country. Culturally Germany is a huge and diverse area, ranging from the Protestant north to the Catholic south. It's certainly a relevant fact which part we're talking about. The fact that both were from the Frankfurt area was supported by the sources that I added. As you correctly point out, the Guardian article is somewhat polemical, but it wasn't used as a source for any spurious discussion of Hermann Göring. The other source wasn't polemical. While I'm aware that some editors have an obsession with the Daily Mail for unclear reasons, there isn't an absolute prohibition against using it as a source (as was made clear in the warning shown when adding the source). The Daily Mail is generally accurate and often has in-depth coverage of human interest topics like celebrities' great-great-grandparents. On the other hand there are good reasons to avoid it as a source if there are less tabloid sources available. The Daily Mail is no less reliable than the Daily Express, rather the other way round. There is also no reason to use quotation marks when discussing the Frankfurt area, the broader region that includes Frankfurt and its surroundings. --Ana Stelline (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A very valid point about "Germany" in the 1830s. It seems you and me both (although I had forgotten) know more than the newspaper political dirt-mongers. You may wish to re-add that Daily Mail source, but I suspect other editors will also be keen to remove it again. Regardless of our personal views, that's just Wikipedia policy. As it currently stands, the claim is just not supported by the sources. All one of them says is that Bina came from somewhere near the city. that But I'd ask again, why does it matter so much exactly where Farage's great-great-grandparents came from? The notable pint is that it wasn't Great Britain? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

When I read about Farage's German ancestry the first thing I wanted to learn more about was which part of Germany. Then I came across the Daily Mail article. From a continental perspective at least, "Germany" (especially before modern Germany was founded) is very vague. --Ana Stelline (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, from a "Daily Mail-reading continental perspective" I expect a lot of English Wikipedia might look a bit odd. I'm just trying to get the text to match the sources. That's kind of a basic policy here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't deliberately read the Daily Mail, but when I look for sources the newspaper often has in-depth coverage of this kind of material as less tabloid newspapers seldom write at length about people's great-great-grandparents. An article in The Mail on Sunday also refers to Nicholas Schrod as Farage's "Frankfurt born great-great-grandfather" ("The gag's on you, my lord", 13 Jan 2013). The Daily Mail discussion doesn't seem to address the question of the appropriateness of using the The Mail on Sunday as a source, but since it has its own article here I assume that it should be treated as a separate newspaper. --Ana Stelline (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. The Mail on Sunday doesn't appear at WP:RSP, so we may be ok with using that one? With regard to Bina, do we know for sure where she was born? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still looking at German sources to find out more precisely when and where they were born. So far I've found the name Schrodt and a number of people named Nikolaus Schrodt in Frankfurt, at least. --Ana Stelline (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's highly likely that German sources might prove to be best for this detail. I'm sure Farage would be high on the BBC's list of candidate subjects for Who Do You Think You Are? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

When researching the history of Nicholas Schrod I also came across the only mention of him in British newspapers, which is kind of entertaining:

A German named Nicholas Schrod was charged at Bow-street this morning with assaulting two young men named Glanfield and Collins. The complainants were bidding each other good night in Francis-street when the conversation turned upon the war. One of them said that 40 Englishmen could beat 80 Germans. It appeared that the prisoner was leaning from the window and heard this. He came down stairs, charged the complainants with improper conduct, and assaulted them.

— "News of the day," The Globe, Tuesday, 6 September 1870, p. 7

--Ana Stelline (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hah. I'm surprised that The Globe of the 1870s didn't describe Schrod as "A Hun". Although, apparently, this never happened before 1900 --Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But how can we be sure that was the same person?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There was only one person by that name in the census, the Nicholas Schrod who is cited as his g-g-grandfather in the other coverage. (He accepted a small fine, and the matter was closed). --Ana Stelline (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. I know we are not meant to believe it, but Christopher Wilson in the DM tells us here that Nicholas and Bina "moved to England in 1850s". Presumably he first appears in the 1861 UK census, together with wife Bina? I'm not sure when their son Carl was born. I see you have carefully avoided the only online link to that Mail on Sunday story, which is via the banned Daily Mail. All that information about piano-cabinet making Schrod may be true, but it looks a little too detailed to be included in the article here as per WP:WEIGHT. I mean, why don't we specifically also mention e.g. "Farage's 18th Century ancestor on his father’s side, Georgius Ferauge, from the Franco-Belgian region of Ardennes"? Don't all 16 of his great-great-grandparents deserve a mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I found the story via pressreader.com and not via the Daily Mail website. Considering that this is a very long and detailed article, the family material is fairly short compared to comparable articles. It could be moved to a separate ancestry section further below if it comes across as too dominant too early in the article (see Donald Trump#Family and personal life for an example of that).

Coverage of ancestors isn't about being fair to the ancestors themselves, but about whether there is something interesting to say about them, so all 16 are seldom equally important. An ancestor born in the 17th century like Georgius Ferauge is generally less relevant than ancestors who still lived in the 20th century in the case of Bena. But I wouldn't oppose mentioning Ferauge too, perhaps mainly as an example of ancestry from that part of Europe. --Ana Stelline (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem quite reasonable. I am still left with doubt over the details reported in The Globe for Nicholas Schrod. There seems to be nothing, apart from your own private WP:OR, that identifies him as Farage's g-g-grandfather. Circumstantially, of course, that connection is entirely plausible and seems very likely. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

When the press reports on Nicholas Schrod, described as a German in central London (Francis St area), and there is only one person in London, and in the UK, by that name at that time, there isn't any reasonable room for doubt as to "which" Nicholas Schrod we're talking about imo. --Ana Stelline (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No doubt, in my opinion, either. But is this enough for WP:V? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Few things are absolutely certain. Very hypothetically, a newspaper article on "Donald Trump" could be about someone other than the US president. But unless there is a particular reason, however small, for doubt, we would assume that such an article discussed the president. In a situation in which exactly one person in the country has a name (which is fairly uncommon, and with a particular, apparently unique spelling not used by anyone else, in the UK or elsewhere), I do not see any such reason for even the slightest doubt when a newspaper article mentions him by name and even mentions his German background and location in central London (the coverage of Farage's family mentioned that they lived in central London). --Ana Stelline (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd ever compare Nicholas Schrod with Donald Trump, unless perhaps it was in a discussion on the dangers of racism. But I'd be happy to see the opinions of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is Nigel Farage listed as a "broadcaster" and "political analyst" when his reputation is built upon him being an MEP and British politician? Hosting a single episode of a radio episode, and being hired for something last year, hardly define a person, especially when the way that information is presented in this article implies that he has been defined by many years experience as a broadcaster (ie, presenting his own TV programs) and many years as a political analyst, when neither is true.

user:80.234.229.197, I agree that it was a stretch, and removed the offending term.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are two sources for Roger Helmer's suspension after the 2005 the Kirkhope incident:

• Rennie, David (26 May 2005). "Euro Tories suspend MEP in row over EU president". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
• Hix, Simon; Noury, Abdul G.; Roland, Gérard (2007). Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge University Press. pp. 135–135. ISBN 978-0521872881.

I expect sources could also be found, very easily, for all the other material that's just been removed. 86.187.169.54 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

On February 5, 2020, an honorary doctorate of laws degree was presented to Farage by Jerry Falwell Jr. during Liberty University's weekly convocation for his role in Brexit and support of freedom in Europe and the United States.^[1] Jcatlin1 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make (or why this is noteworthy). This should also be sourced to a secondary source, not a video of the event. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  DoneThanks, Deacon Vorbis. I added the honorary doctorate, not because it's notable, but because it says a great deal about Farage. Feel free to revert me.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to add the recent controversy over Farage's neglect of Covid travel guidelines to film a video in Dover attacking migrant workers. There is a lot to talk about, his trip, the video, how it relates to UK lockdown guidelines and the diverse media responses. The only problem is I don't know where on the wiki it belongs. It can't go under personal life because he was filming a political video and I'm not sure it would fit under political views because his views on migrants are already covered well.

Do other editors have any suggestions?

BulgeUwU (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it. Has he been charged with anything? I'm not aware that he has. As he is a broadcaster, it could be argued that he was merely working. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Although you'll be pleased to know he was "visited by police officers". One wonders how else he now manages to fill his time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite. Mr Farage was not arrested, charged or fined. The police have not stated that he committed any offence. To include this seems undue weight in my view. There might have been a fuss on social media, with complaints and criticism about the video, but that doesn't necessarily make it a hugely important event. Also, as far as I'm aware he was not "attacking migrant workers" in Dover. He was expressing concerns about what he regards as people illegally crossing the channel to the UK. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should read: In March 2021, Farage announced in an interview with the Telegraph that he would be withdrawing from politics and resigning as leader of Reform UK.^[1][2] 92.239.25.185 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Amend opening para to reflect resignation from Reform party Scienceenforced2019 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done Andysmith248 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)