Talk:Nigel Farage

What is this I don't even
Consider yourself warned. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth addition
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1018230384348270592 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For fuck's sakes
Lankaster, is there a reason you decided to add a bunch of shitty euphemisms to the article? As in, describing Trump's ill-advised conquests as just groping and renaming him calling all Mexicans rapists as just being "derogatory remarks?" James Earl Cash (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny how anything that's not an overt exaggeration is a "shitty euphemism". You know Trump often says stuff that sounds inflammatory out of context on purpose, right? Because he knows the media will be all over it. Then he can point to the context they leave out and back up his #FakeNewsMedia narrative and strengthen his voter base. So thanks, you're doing Trump's work for him. *slow clap* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving you're every bit the dumbass I pegged you for earlier. No way in hell am I entertaining a conversation with someone who even remotely makes Trump apologetics. James Earl Cash (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving me right yet again. Funny how people equate "these are some tactics Trump uses, you're helping him" with Trump apologetics. But please go on with what you're doing, it's hilarious to watch. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose I was wrong. You're even more of a fucking shit for brains than I had ever thought possible. Guess we all make mistakes from time to time. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following commands so readily. Can I have some more insults please? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely a fucking shit for brains. I'mma gonna stop now, gonna wait for the convo to begin in earnest, and that's even if McLaghing Lankaster shows up. Then again, others besides some rando BoN are free to chime in too. No way I'm the only one here with a problem. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"As in, describing Trump's ill-advised conquests as just groping and renaming him calling all Mexicans rapists as just being "derogatory remarks?"" (I think you are talking about this edit.) Because the source that supposedly supports the previous sentence says instead "Nigel Farage has qualified his admiration of Donald Trump, saying he could not support his comments about groping women, banning Muslims from the US or derogatory remarks about Mexicans." -Lankaster (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change that it was way worse than that though, and the previous version was absolutely correct. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just checked another of your recent edits and you flagrantly misrepresented an article where Farage outright claims that he wants HIV positive immigrants out of the UK. I'd revert it but you'll probably cry wolf, and considering how you've got some of the brass on your side to think I'm some psychotic edit warring motherfucker who has it out for you, that is something I want to avoid at all possible. Care to address why you did this? Because if not, I'm changing that edit AT THE VERY LEAST. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So James, your main issue is that Lankaster misrepresents Farage's speech? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And the edit war starts in 3...2...1... 22:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the only problem as I've mentioned above, but there is a very pressing matter on how he is deliberately misrepresenting something Farage said. It's irresponsible to the nine. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, what Lankaster wrote isn't a misrepresentation. Rather, the problem is that he quotes without context. My recommendation would be to expand off Lankaster's writing, and explain the dog-whistles inherent in what he (Farage) says. I also think the "derogatory comments" thing can be changed to "claiming many Mexican immigrants were rapists." RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article linked to says otherwise. This isn't quoting without context, Lankaster quite literally changed the text we have here for god knows what reason when the source makes Farage's policy on HIV positive immigrants quite clear. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like he quotes from a different source than the Guardian article in his revison, instead citing the Guardian article as broader context for Farage's shitty behavior. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He might have added a few sources here an there for additional information, but that's still no reason to deliberately remove text which was directly cited from the Guardian. I don't think there's much room for trying to say he was trying to be more accurate or whatever, even at it's most forgiving, the Guardian article made clear Farage's stance on how the UK should close it's doors to immigrants with HIV. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then feel free to add it back in. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "feel free to add it back in" doesn't mean "fell free to delete the part about Farage telling false statistics about HIV in UK", as James Earl Cash did. -Lankaster (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Farage and HIV
, ,

I really don't understand why James Earl Cash deleted the part I added about Farage telling false statistics about HIV in UK. Spreading false information about HIV seems to me something that RW should care about...

Maybe James Earl Cash wanted to put more emphasis about Farage wanting to ban HIV-positive migrants... but then why deleting the April 2, 2015 speech?

I propose to following version, were both Farage false statistics and Farage ban for HIV-positive migrants are reported.

HIV and immigrants

In 2014, Nigel Farage called for people who have tested positive for HIV to be banned from migrating to Britain as a "good start" in controlling the UK’s borders. On April 2, 2015, during the Leader's debates, Farage attracted controversy when he suggested that the UK National Health Service should not pay cures for HIV-positive migrants. He said: "There are 7.000 diagnoses in this country every year for people who are HIV-positive. Which is not a good place for any of them to be, I know. But 60% of them are not British nationals. You can come into Britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with HIV and get the retroviral drugs, that cost up to £25,000 a year, per patient. [...] What we need to do is to put the National Service there for British people and families who in many cases have paid into this system for decades." These ideas about HIV and migrants have been condemned by those in his party as "plain wrong", and by charities that work with HIV/AIDS individuals as showing "an outrageous lack of understanding". According to official statistics of the UK National HIV surveillance, in 2015 the number of people diagnosed with HIV in UK was 6.043. and at least 40.7% (2.460) of them were not born in UK, which of course it does not necessary mean they are not British. It has also been pointed out that "providing antiretroviral treatment for all people living with HIV greatly reduces HIV transmission, encourages earlier testing and health-promoting behaviours and keeps people living with HIV healthy, reducing additional healthcare costs. The coalition government implemented this change because it saves money"

-Lankaster (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I felt it was article bloat and there didn't seem to be an emphasis on his lying so I didn't even notice it at the time. James Earl Cash (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any good reason to remove the section about Farage lying about HIV statistics. Editing it to make it clearer that we was lying would, of course, be good. and, if you cannot stop this constant edit warring I am strongly in favour of giving both of you a short block. Spud (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "I felt it was article bloat and there didn't seem to be an emphasis on his lying so I didn't even notice it at the time." So do you agree to put the false statistics told by Farage during the April 2, 2015 speech? I thought that writing the correct data from the official statistics of the UK National HIV surveillance was enough emphasis on how much Farage was wrong. If you want to put more emphasis, I'm fine with that. But don't delete the false statistics said by Farage during the speech, those are the smoking gun.
 * "There doesn't seem to be any good reason to remove the section about Farage lying about HIV statistics. Editing it to make it clearer that we was lying would, of course, be good." And I'm perfectly fine with any edit that will make it clearer. Just I don't want it to be delete.
 * "James Earl Cash and Lankaster if you cannot stop this constant edit warring I am strongly in favour of giving both of you a short block." That unfair because I'm not edit warring. Look at the history. I wrote the part on Farage HIV speech, James Earl Cash deleted it, and then I did not make any other edits on the page, but I wrote on the talk page my reasons and proposal. So how am I edit warring? It's James Earl Cash who does. -Lankaster (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. At this moment you are not edit warring. But you did quote my own words back to me about blocking both you and James Earl Cash on my talk page. You wanted to know if I still stand by what I said earlier and I wanted to show that I do. Spud (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "you did quote my own words back to me about blocking both you and James Earl Cash" To avoid further confusion, let's be precise. Your "own words" were your support for RoninMacBeth's proposal, which in turn was "The proposal to warn both Lankaster and James Earl Cash to stop edit warring, with the knowledge that future action might be taken." RoninMacBeth never said that in case of edit war both me and James Earl Cash will be blocked. -Lankaster (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted my response in Spud's talkpage. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw your changes. Wouldn't make more sense to state first the false statistics claimed by Farage "He also suggested that the UK National Health Service should..." and then the official statistics "According to official statistics of the UK National HIV surveillance, in..."? Also, it should be pointed out that being born outside UK does not mean necessary not being a UK citizen. I mean:

During the Leader's debates, Nigel Farage attracted controversy when he suggested that HIV-positive migrants should not enter the country (a claim which is not supported by the evidence). This is not the first time he has made these comments, which have been condemned by those in his party as "plain wrong", and by charities that work with HIV/AIDS individuals as showing "an outrageous lack of understanding". Farage also suggested that the UK National Health Service should not pay cures for HIV-positive migrants. On April 2, 2015, he said: "There are 7.000 diagnoses in this country every year for people who are HIV-positive. Which is not a good place for any of them to be, I know. But 60% of them are not British nationals. You can come into Britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with HIV and get the retroviral drugs, that cost up to £25,000 a year, per patient. [...] What we need to do is to put the National Service there for British people and families who in many cases have paid into this system for decades." But according to official statistics of the UK National HIV surveillance, in 2015 the number of people diagnosed with HIV in UK was 6.043. and at least 40.7% (2.460) of them were not born in UK, which of course it does not necessarily mean they are not UK citizens. It has also been pointed out that "providing antiretroviral treatment for all people living with HIV greatly reduces HIV transmission, encourages earlier testing and health-promoting behaviours and keeps people living with HIV healthy, reducing additional healthcare costs. The coalition government implemented this change because it saves money." (I'm not editing the page, because I don't want to be accused of edit warring) -Lankaster (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I came in and edited the section. I put the quote in a quotebox, rewrote a direct quote (that "it has been pointed out" phrase bothered me so much probably because the passive voice and what followed was a direct quote from a reference), and I've added further information on just how horribly disparaging (and more importantly wrong) Farage is to immigrants and how much he really doesn't care about the real problems of HIV transmissions and all. 18:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I added the source ref1 just after "he suggested that HIV-positive migrants should not enter the country", because that's the source with Farage talking about "HIV ban", while in ref2 there's no mention to banning migrants. Consequently, I changed "This is not the first time he has made these comments" with "Farage's comments", because ref1 has already been cited. Also, I removed "During the Leader's debates" from the first sentence, because ref1 doesn't not specify if Farage said his idea on "HIV ban" during the Leader's debates. In fact, I moved "During the Leader's debates" to sentence citing the video of Farage speaking... at Leader's debates. Finally, I moved the official HIV statistics just after the false HIV statistics said by Farage, to emphasize he was wrong, and I added the date of the Leader's debate, to make clear data are both referring to 2015. -Lankaster (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have to put exact dates or specific figures like what ~40% of 6,043 exactly is. That's what a properly formatted reference should do. Instead, just refer to date, if not month. Finally, I'm not sure if Farage is completely wrong. I don't know how much is being off by 6,000/7,000 (he is stating an average of 7,000 per year; 6,043 is a figure for 2015) and "at least 40.7%" is technically not incorrect from "60%" though those two numbers are far off from each other. 18:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

i know i am late to the party and all, but i think i will significantly edit down this section because it really does not address the main that farage clarified after the debate and appeared in dozens of news articles and that he does not want people with serious illness coming to country in the first, specifically he does not want those with hiv nor people with murder convictions. there are problems with all that scaremongering about diseased immigrants, scaremongering about murderers flocking to our shores, stigmatising hiv sufferers by putting them on par with murderers, the impracticalities and ineffectiveness of an hiv ban and the implications of such bans on the willingness of immigrants who fall ill in this country on seeking appropriate treatment if there may be a fear they will be deported if they do. this is not addressed currently, and what is addressed education, tranmission, antiretrovirals etc doesnt address any point fargae had made. its not relevant because he doesnt want any them herew in the first place.

the business with 40% or 60%, 6000 or 7000 is not very helpful. lgm already states that farage refers to 7000 per year while we draw attention to a figure close to 6000 that refers to a specific year. 2015. the national hiv stats linked to has the preceding years going going back to 2010 around the 6000 thousand mark. its not clear where farage got his numbers from and they are likely an overestimation, but it doesnt do a great deal in countering his claims by citing a random year and saying his figures are wrong because they dont match. and lets be clear here, our source was compiled some time after 2015 when he made the claims. clsahttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/10/hiv-uk-border-barriers-nigel-farage-ukip-secrecy-analysis this article] makes the better case by showing the bulk of infections came from uk born folk, with the number from subsahran africa - the no.1 hotspot for hiv - not significant so not immigrants from there fuelling rises. (it was dropping for awhile then it spiked worringly rapidly (largely due to the popularity of certain drugs that were great for the chemsex scene an the source of my own infection) then started to fall again and have actually cratered with the roll out of PREP. (most of that came after the debate) - the numbers are not static year to year. its the overal trends that we want here.

i dont expect the two involved in past events above are gonna object if i rewrite most the section. in a bit though, i got things to do first. it will focus the points i outline in the first paragraph above. just a heads up AMassiveGay (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

To what extent
Is Nigel Farage a failure - a borderline figure who contributed something to a borderline 'victory' for the leave vote (the referendum having attracted only a fraction of the electors) and then not actively doing anything to further the brave new world he had so promoted. Anna Livia (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * he managed to keep his brexit agenda alive long enough for the tories to grant the referendum with the leave result. electoral success is largely confined to eu parliament which he used to hypocritically milk as much as he could from it as much as he, but in terms of effecting legislation as member of the eu parliament he did fuck all and will play no part in what brexit will ultimately be.


 * hes a failure in terms any kind of political career outside of brexit and currently trying to vainly find a reason to exist now he got other people to do the actual work of making his eurosceptic dream come true. he should be happy. he got what he wanted - leave the eu. he'd said nothing of how to go about that or gave any specific promises of what it would look like before and no one cares what he has to say about how it is actually going. he just wont fuck off. he doesnt really understand the role he actually played in all this. he thinks he was some kind of intellectual or moral force behind brexit, some kind of strategic political svengali that called the shots that one the day. he wasnt. all that stuff was people cummings and other fucks whos names elude me right now, and cambridge analytica types lurking behind the scenes doing all of that. he was simpley a performing monkey with some weird everyman appeal that was useful to keep the public onside in a way folks like that weasel gove could not hope to.


 * its fun to watch him flail in the wind trying to hold on to any relevance post brexit and try and leavrage his deluded idea of having anything worthwhile to say into a career in punditry is funny and all, but i'd rather he'd just fuck off. but he wont. hes the fucking worst. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Last I saw him he was shilling for crypto in YouTube ads. The guy never really had political ideals and was totally ego-driven. The only things he cares about is immigration reform and legalisation of handguns; actual policy and administration were irrelevant to him. He famously never even read UKIP's election manifestos, and UKIP had the problem under his leadership of mass infiltration by the BNP owing to their lack of interest in doing checks on applicants (the result was that ahead of each election there'd be mass suspensions of candidates). Brexit Party itself was geared towards avoiding that by requiring considerable upfront payments to stand in elections, and even then managed to get an admitted Neo-Nazi as their candidate in a constituency shared with a Synagogue. Politics is basically just a tool for his ego, and if anything goes wrong it's someone else's problem.-- Forerunner (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)