Talk:George Galloway

George Galloway's Religion

Is it worth adding to the article the religion of George Galloway (Islam) ? -- 81.151.198.32 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page. As Galloway has denied a Muslim conversion, and has said his religious views are a private matter, it is not possible to add anything on the issue to the article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not quite actually. Galloway did not deny having converted to Islam or being a Moslem. What he denied was that the specific instance referred to by Jemima Khan was an Islamic conversion ceremony. Not the same thing at all.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Muslim. Secondly I have a direct quotation from his own lips that can be place if needed. In an interview with London Real - an online podcast - when asked about people questioning him, and it being a loaded question about being a Muslim... George Galloway: "It is, its put as kind of a accusation, um, and its raised about Islam that it could not be raised about other Religions. If I were quote unquote 'suspected' of being a Jew, nobody could run around after me with a microphone saying are you are Jew, are you A Jew?" Interviewer:"They couldn't ask you that question could they, right." George Galloway: "They couldn't no. Um, but they do it in relation to Islam because I am very close to the Muslim population, I am a champion of the Palestinian cause, most of whom are Muslims but by no means all. I just always give the same answer; that I believe in God; I have always believe in God; I try to live my live, not always successfully, in accordance with the teachings of God; er which are revealed of course in all 3 of the monotheistic faiths, um and err that's really all you really need to know, I say, err about my Religion." Source for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPQQxJmdb-U, 33 minutes 48 seconds in. If the assumption is granted that "3 of the monotheistic faiths" refers to the Abrahamic faiths, then Muslims would consider him a Muslim, but other faiths... not a clue. I'd say it would be fair to place the shortened quotation directly revering to his faith, with the er's removed: "I try to live my live, not always successfully, in accordance with the teachings of God; which are revealed of course in all 3 of the monotheistic faiths. That's really all you really need to know, I say, about my Religion." Maybe ellipsis the "I say" as well? 92.26.147.61 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconclusive, the key word is "suspected". Philip Cross (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How could you object to putting a quote from Galloway into the article? The word "suspected" used in this context does not make it inconclusive, Galloway was illustrating a larger point. Nye, 15:02 23rd March 2015

It is a pretty obscure primary source in which Galloway is being purely speculative. It cannot be used as any kind of confirmation that he is a Muslim, without presenting an editor's own interpretation. This would count as original research. Whether or not Galloway has converted to Islam is a very minor issue. As far as improving the article is concerned, this is frankly irrelevant at present. The really significant issue concerns some of Galloway's statements which might be thought to imply sympathy or support for jihadist acts, his "martyrs" comments in August 2005, for example. See the section currently headed "Iraq after Saddam Hussein (2003–06)". Philip Cross (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A primary source on the subject of the person's religion is not only acceptable. But, by WP principles, it is preferred. A quote would not be OR, as it would not constitute an interpretation. As to whether or not he has converted to Islam is a "minor" issue -- in the absence of an RS on that point, that would be editor POV speaking. It certainly has attracted much RS coverage. Any sympathy or support for jihadist acts would also, if RS-covered, be notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Red herring regarding George Galloway's 1994

It is superfluous and almost disingenuous to claim that there is an "issue of the precise context of his statement to Saddam" on the grounds of claims by Galloway and his supporters that he was simply addressing the Iraqi people and not Saddam Hussein personally. The wording of his speech clearly indicates that he was addressing Saddam personally, beginning his speech "Your Excellency, Mr. President". and repeatedly using the title "Sir". JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the sentence. Since the speech was delivered in English, and Galloway does not himself speak Arabic, the comments by Anasal-Tikriti do not make sense. If they were not so well sourced, I would be tempted to delete them. The full text of Galloway's speech in Morley's book also makes the 'speaking for the Iraqi people' defence difficult to sustain. As editors though, we are obliged to cover all significantly sourced points of view and, at present ,Anasal-Tikriti comments are the only ones defending Galloway which are not in the words of the politician himself. Philip Cross (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite my comments from nearly 3 months ago, I have decided to remove the Anasal-Tikriti passage as most of it replicates Galloway's own argument. The version provided to Saddam Hussein by his interpreters was outside Galloway's control. Philip Cross (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal case involving Galloway (2012–14)

In this edit I have removed a passage detailing the court case involving Galloway's former assistant in Bradford, Aisha Ali Khan, and her husband, which led to them both receiving criminal convictions. While this incident initially involved Galloway directly, his claim of organised "dirty tricks" when the story first broke for example, he seems more distant in the narrative as it progresses.

The passage did not seem substantial enough to stand on its own as a separate article, being mainly News. The other items on WikNews about Galloway do not include any which evolved over a period of time, so the option of creating an article there also seemed untenable. Deletion seemed to be the best option.

I have amended the mention Ali Khan receives in the Respect Party article to include the result of the court case. She is mentioned in connection with the five Respect councillors who resigned from the party having been accused by Galloway of working with her among other reasons. It seems wrong on NPOV grounds in that article not to acknowledge that, on this occasion, Galloway's allegations concerning Ali Khan were not entirely without foundation. Philip Cross (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

“Ferocious assault" on the Ba'ath Party in the late 1980s

In the subsection ‘Member of Parliament for a Glasgow seat’ it is claimed: ‘According to journalist David Aaronovitch, Hansard in the late 1980s, records Galloway delivering "a ferocious assault" on the Ba'ath Party.’ Maybe it’s my research skills (or lack of….) but I can’t find Galloway’s remarks in Hansard’s records for the 1980s – if they’re worthy of note can we track down the official source? JezGrove (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a mistake made by Aaronovitch. Speeches by Galloway in Hansard about Iraq or Saddam Hussein do not pre-date the first Gulf War. Reference to the Ba'ath (or Baath) Party were not made by Galloway either. I have modified the passages accordingly. Philip Cross (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ex-politician

As George Galloway does not currently hold any political office, and given the previously tenuous claim that he had to influencing British politics even while a Member of Parliament, would it be more accurate to refer to Galloway as an ex-politician, and currently more of a media personality? His current appearances in the news seem to be limited to provocative comments and personal spats rather than genuine impact on political thought or debate. Moreover, his political positions are not considered relevant in today's political climate, in my opinion. U65945 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)