Talk:George Galloway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate George Galloway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
October 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Slow creeping bias[edit]

This article has had a slowly creeping bias build up within it to portray George Galloway in a very negative light. As an example, attempting to insinuate he called for riots in 2003, when no such thing ever occurred. It may need a complete re-write, as it certainly doesn't reflect WP:BLP standards at the moment. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Galloway has a "negative" reputation, and most sources show him in a bad light. Even Jeremy Corbyn has objected to his treatment of Naz Shah during the last general election. He also has a reputation for making intemperate comments, like the one you are referring to. Galloway presumably has libelled himself. Such outbursts should not be suppressed when they are significant. Philip Cross (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
If a figure is known mostly for frequently courting controversy with his comments or actions, it's entirely consistent with WP:BLP that the weight of issues discussed in the article reflects this. I'm struggling to see how reporting a direct quote, with relevant context, can be considered "attempting to insinuate" anything. Dtellett (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Saying Mr. Galloway "has a 'negative' reputation" and claiming that he "courts controversy" I feel demonstrates the lack of a neutral point of view NPOV by the editors Philip Crossand Dtellett. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's core content policies: Neutral point of view NPOV and Verifiability V". So I agree with [User:Solntsa90|Solntsa90]]. Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dtellett: and I are allowed to express our personal opinion on talk pages, as are all editors. As you have done. The NPOV policy applies to the articles. Incidentally, words like "controversial" are used in multiple articles in reliable sources about George Galloway, so the word is by means an invalid word to use to describe him. Despite this, I would not use the word in the article itself because it is an overused cliche. Philip Cross (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mystichumwipe: -- rv adverb "falsely" and added "however". The term falsely has an unduly weaselly connotation, especially when applied to a journalist. Alistair Campbell may have been mistaken. Given that no lawsuit for damages was apparently filed or financial settlement recorded (which is quite amazing given society's litigiousness), then mistakenly ≠ falsely (in this case, anyway). Quis separabit? 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@RmsWe have to avoid giving a false impression. That is the very core requirement of a BLP See that? I used the word 'false' again. That I believe demonstrates that there is nothing weasely about it in this context. The accusation may have been a case of a mistake but it was still a FALSE accusation. Do you agree? We do not have to second-guess Campbell's motives. He made an accusation that an investigation decided was false. So the wiki article should not leave any doubt about this. The article in this particular (and generally) starts with an accusation that gives a negative impression, but then goes on to LATER admit the accusations were not validated. This still leaves the negative impression not entirely dissippated: i.e. the impression that maybe there is no smoke without fire. So you have not addressed the point of bias: that the whole page seems geared to giving the worst possible interpretation of any and all accusations and possibly negative incidents. That violates NPOV. And then anyone can read the talk page also. Which therefore can also give the impression that this maybe is a deliberate tactic by editors who have a biased point of view against the living person being written about. E.g. the immediate revert without discussion or even explanation of the words "falsely accused" and the revert re-adding another example of an insinuation of wrong doing that has nothing to do with the subject of this biography.
@Philip CrossYes you are allowed to express your opinions here at TALK. What I was pointing out was that your opinions seem to show that you are not approaching this BLP from a neutral viewpoint. On the contrary. So if you can't bring yourselves to do that then you perhaps shouldn't be editing the page.Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Few people are neutral about George Galloway. That includes his admirers, as well as his detractors. What follows is in the record, I am not merely expressing an opinion. First of all, he made derogatory comments about Naz Shah and Shadiq Khan, in two elections he lost badly within the last 18 months, Respect collapsed to a large extent because he antagonised allies over many years, like the SWP, and individuals like Salma Yaqoob and Kate Hudson, as well as Bradford councillors. Few prominent Labour politicians want him back in the party, including Jeremy Corbyn. Quite how much most of Galloway's career can be defended by citing reliable sources is questionable. I have not suppressed positive material, it is difficult or near impossible to find. The extent to which Galloway is controversial (to use a word I do not like) is as great as it has it has been for many years. Philip Cross (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, we should avoid using "false" ahead of Alistair Campbell as it is a BLP issue too, and Galloway did pay back £1,720. Basically, I agree with User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. I do think the current version is acceptable, as neither man is being libelled. Philip Cross (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the claim the allegations turned out to be "false" is unsourced. A person being cleared of unauthorised use of funds after repaying monies he used for his personal business does not falsify either the claim that Galloway spent £20,000 on expenses or that he "enjoyed a life of luxury" on the expenses, particularly not when he was later subject to further criticism for financial mismanagement.
I'm choosing to ignore the earlier imputations of bias from an editor with a track record of whinging about Wikipedia's editors having ulterior motives for attributing deaths to Hitler! Dtellett (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Child names[edit]

There is a bit of a disagreement over what WP:BLPNAMES, which could be clearer, means regarding including child names. My perspective is that:

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects ... subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

means child names should not be included unless including them adds to the "reader's complete understanding of the subject", or they are notable anyway in their own right. (A weakness of my argument is that this could be equally argued for spouse names - but I'd say editorial discretion should allow spouse names but not children.)

I would say the following is subordinate to the above, and only additionally says, even if the names would add to the understanding of the subject, they can only be included if properly sourced:

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced ... However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

So in this article, as I don't think the child names adds to the "reader's complete understanding of the subject", I take the view that policy requires them not to be included.

Views? Rwendland (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The names of Galloway's four younger children are in the public domain in multiple reliable sources. It looks odd if their names are omitted for this reason, and the issue has caused reverts, and minor edit wars, in the past. Galloway, it seems has no issue with keeping his children away from public notice, and all five are regularly identified in his twitter feed and elsewhere. While this might be thought unwise, given the hatred he obviously inspires, the additional publicity from this article may be slight, despite Google search results, simply because of its length. Philip Cross (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME states that "the presumption in favour of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects" which suggests against inclusion. I don't currently see any pressing editorial reason to override that principal. AusLondonder (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)