Talk:Nigel Farage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cameo

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

Reversion of my edit on singing of neo-nazi songs

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

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

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

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

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

If this garnered a large amount of attention in other secondary sources it could plausibly be due and treated appropriately, but googling around I don't think that it did. Only good RS I can find on this really is Hareetz and the article from The Independent you used in your edit (+Channel 4 probably qualifies too: [1]). I don't really think gossip-y stuff like this should find its way into a BLP without good reason, especially when it seems barely covered by reliable sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Farage Place of Birth

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preston Grasshoppers R.F.C.

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

Stress in the surname

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

Air crash.

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

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

Farage, not Farange

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

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

NatWest

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

Dodgy dealings

In the European Parliament section there's this bit:

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

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

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

He's far-right\alt-right

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

References

What house was Nigel in at Dulwich College?

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

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

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

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

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

Short description

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

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

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

I'm a Celeb

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

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

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

to

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

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

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

New picture for Farage?

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

Nigel Farage (2020)

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

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

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

Greenhayes was not a grammar school

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

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

Please fix typo error

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

Change to

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

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

Bias

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

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

Lede image

There has been some reversion of the lede image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a weird section anyway, seems mainly about him. What does gin have with it? Why nothing about his shares in the party or rather the Reform UK Party Limited?[2] Doug Weller talk 17:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Army Cadet Force" to his infobox?

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

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

Names of web works

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

Hello,

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

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

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

How was my edit not supported by the cited sources?

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

How about their website? [4] "'Promoted by Paul Oakden - Copyright © 2024 Reform UK Party Limited Company number 11694875 | Registered in England & Wales" Or https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875 {https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sunak-is-in-farages-pocket-peter-kellner-polling/] "The key thing is that Reform UK is not a conventional political party. It is a registered company, “Reform UK Party Limited”. Eight of the 15 issued shares in the company belong to Farage. Tice has five of the other seven. (Michael Crick, Farage’s unauthorised biographer, tells me that Tice confirms Farage is still the majority shareholder.) Farage has the sole legal right “to appoint and remove directors”. Tice leads the party, but Farage owns it." Doug Weller talk 09:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at what I removed.

The first reference was cited for the first three sentences:

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

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

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

• There is no mention of him owning 8 shares.

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

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

The second reference was cited for the fourth sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Financial Times doesn't number the shares either[5] quoting again the percentage owned. "Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

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

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

The Conservative post [6] "The Reform UK Party Ltd. has 15 shares. The shareholders are Nigel Farage, who holds 8, and Richard Tice, who holds 5. Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtahs A’Zami hold 1 share each."

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European says "The key thing is that Reform UK is not a conventional political party. It is a registered company, “Reform UK Party Limited”. Eight of the 15 issued shares in the company belong to Farage. Tice has five of the other seven. (Michael Crick, Farage’s unauthorised biographer, tells me that Tice confirms Farage is still the majority shareholder.) Farage has the sole legal right “to appoint and remove directors”. Tice leads the party, but Farage owns it."[7]

The Guardian:[8] "The tensions go back to the formation in March 2019 of the Brexit party, which was renamed Reform UK in 2021. Determined to avoid the rebellions that had disrupted the Ukip party, Farage and others created a company that he could control rather than a conventional political party that had to be managed. "Farage owns a majority of shares in Reform UK Party Ltd, which is registered with Companies House. While four officers are named on the register, Farage is the only one named there as a “person with significant control”."

Do you agree that it is a limited company?

How many sources would satisfy you"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

ĕ

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

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