Jump to content

Talk:George Galloway: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎2014 assault section: Quit while you are ahead? No, well Wikipedia will suffer for it.
Line 72: Line 72:


: Thank goodness you are pre-occupied with the use of the word near the end of a long article, rather than the much more substantial and conspicuous passage in which the same word, used by Hadley Freeman, is necessarily featured, or in its derivations, to describe the legally unenforceable threatening letters Galloway sent to people who retweeted Freeman. Galloway would look ridiculous if you removed the word from that section as he would appear to be getting angry ''over nothing at all''. The claim he is an anti-semite has a fairly long history, and it is silly to remove it because you happen to want to whitewash ''one'' criminal's motive mentioned near the end. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
: Thank goodness you are pre-occupied with the use of the word near the end of a long article, rather than the much more substantial and conspicuous passage in which the same word, used by Hadley Freeman, is necessarily featured, or in its derivations, to describe the legally unenforceable threatening letters Galloway sent to people who retweeted Freeman. Galloway would look ridiculous if you removed the word from that section as he would appear to be getting angry ''over nothing at all''. The claim he is an anti-semite has a fairly long history, and it is silly to remove it because you happen to want to whitewash ''one'' criminal's motive mentioned near the end. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your silver tongue has earned both you and George Galloway some notoriety, calling Wikipedias credibility into question. Why not quit while you are ahead?

"Cross is, however, much nicer to the entries of people he likes. Former hedge-fund manager and Iraq war supporter Oliver Kamm, and right-wing author Melanie Phillips, both columnists for The Times, are two examples.

On Twitter, where Cross is more provocative and antagonistic, he doesn't hide the fact that he has long-running feuds with many of his targets on Wikipedia." <ref>https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/</ref>

Revision as of 10:16, 20 May 2018

Former featured article candidateGeorge Galloway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Galloway. 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:

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) 23:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 assault section

This section seems to be far too long in comparison to the rest of the article. Although it is notable enough to mention, Galloway wasn't seriously harmed in this.... I propose we trim it down. Most concerning is that we appear to be giving a platform for the latter day George Gordon-esque loon who assaulted him to spout his bile, including sliding the four little words "Galloway is Anti-semitic" into the article. Masterful slight of hand there, excellently played, very clever. But why should we be advertising the supposed excuses for a criminal assault against a politician? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The motive cannot be ignored, regardless as to whether the accusation is sustainable. Philip Cross (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and see Eric Heinze's article (cited in the article) as to why an accusation of antisemitism is not counted as libellous defamation.[1] I am certain Mr Galloway would be very interested in my recent Wikipedia edits. See this (he is almost certainly referring to me) and my user page. Potential conflict of interest declared.
  1. ^ Heinze, Eric (12 February 2015). "British MP exploits vague defamation law to sue Guardian journalist". The Conversation. See also Heinze, Eric (2016). Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 31.
Philip Cross (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me as it is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the inclusion of the quote is simply a means to cleverly sneak the phrase "anti-semitic" into an article of a high profile public figure who is critical of the Israeli regime. This is the current tactic being employed by the Blairite Freikorps in their reactionary offensive against the non-Tory current leadership of the Labour Party and its close allies.... Corbyn, Livingstone and Galloway are "evil anti-semites" and McDonnell is a "communist extremist". It is all very facile and agenda driven. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness you are pre-occupied with the use of the word near the end of a long article, rather than the much more substantial and conspicuous passage in which the same word, used by Hadley Freeman, is necessarily featured, or in its derivations, to describe the legally unenforceable threatening letters Galloway sent to people who retweeted Freeman. Galloway would look ridiculous if you removed the word from that section as he would appear to be getting angry over nothing at all. The claim he is an anti-semite has a fairly long history, and it is silly to remove it because you happen to want to whitewash one criminal's motive mentioned near the end. Philip Cross (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your silver tongue has earned both you and George Galloway some notoriety, calling Wikipedias credibility into question. Why not quit while you are ahead?

"Cross is, however, much nicer to the entries of people he likes. Former hedge-fund manager and Iraq war supporter Oliver Kamm, and right-wing author Melanie Phillips, both columnists for The Times, are two examples.

On Twitter, where Cross is more provocative and antagonistic, he doesn't hide the fact that he has long-running feuds with many of his targets on Wikipedia." [1]