Jump to content

Talk:Nigel Farage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Multiple repetition of same statement

[edit]

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

Dear single-edit-anon-IP-editor-geolocating-to-Berlin, as far as I can see, the figure of £1m was mentioned only once, at the end of the "Personal life" section. But thank you for highlighting this. This is so much more than most MPs earn that I think it's quite notable and so, on this basis, I have now added it to the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least four times now - as £1.2m twice and as £1m twice (including once in the lead). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to go for a fifth? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC) p.s. what are the "some misleading statements"?[reply]
Well I think the fairest mentioning happens under GB News section, where context about the income is provided from Farage.
That context is missing in the "Member of Parliament" section as well as in the last paragraph of the "personal life" section leading to believe it is net income. (apart from being superfluous) 2A02:2454:7D24:6B00:E0A7:E8AB:CF91:FEFB (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely relevant to the "Member of Parliament" section, as it was revealed as part of his obligation to the Register of Members' Financial Interests, once he entered parliament. Otherwise no-one else might ever know. Additionally, the estimate that the sum is "significantly higher than that of any other member of parliament", is what makes it notable, and why I think it also belongs in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News

[edit]

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