Jump to content

Talk:George Galloway/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Regimes?

Another user replaced the descriptions of Saddam Hussein's "regime" with "government" and even "administration". I have reverted. The argument is that 'regime' can be used as a pejorative term, and thus be seen as not conveying a NPOV, but the use of the word regime to describe authoritarian governments is long established. The use of such terms as "government" sanitize regimes like those of Saddam Hussein and present a point of view in themselves. What is clearly a fringe opinion is not found in reliable sources, and this goes for Iran and Syria now as much as Iraq under Hussein. Incidentally, the pages on Wikipedia naming conventions and the manual of style articles lack any guidance on this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ has reverted the article to his earlier edit. It the view of this editor, that regime "is a label bestowed by detractors and therefore POV." On the contrary, advocates of Bashar al-Assad and Saddam Hussein are on the fringe and their preferred normalising terminology about these leader's form of government is not going to be found in mainstream, reliable sources. Wikipedia:Fringe theories, admittedly it does not deal with this specific issue directly, would appear to suggest Wikipedia policy in this area. Philip Cross (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It is correct that 'regime' is used widely to refer to administrations which are authoritarian, but never by the accused parties themselves and therefore the term in not universal. Looking at it the other way, the term 'regime' has on countless occasions been attributed to the governments of the United States and its western European allies. Search any president's name past of present and add 'regime' and you get thousands of results. The problem is this: only a handful of countries stick out their hands and admit to the rest of the world that they are dictatorships, the rest claim to represent the will of the people, and these vary in their approach from one extreme to the other. Reliable sources use 'regime' indeed, and some even add the term 'murderous' before it - either way, it is an opinion, moreover a label. As editors, we do not have the task to sift through the world's leaderships and declare what is authoritarian and what isn't - and no matter how obvious some of the items (eg. Saudi Arabia, Chad) may be as to which category they fall into, there is no formal policy which requires that the ruling body be referred to as 'regime' if authoritarian, and 'government' if "democratic". The two words have different primary meanings, however, if 'regime' is promoted to be synonymous with 'government' then any hint that the latter may be "incorrect" or taken as an attempt to sanitise itself is a non-starter. To take this BBC report, it only uses 'government' in reference to Saddam's ruling body. Others I notice use both in the same report, but what is more interesting is this from the BBC on Assad:[1], since it is a profile rather than a report, it uses more formal language and only 'government' is used. Reports on the other hand may be required to use correct spelling and grammar but can in every other manner appear raw and opinionated. Reporters for reliable sources may use terms such as 'evil dictator' and 'warmonger' but that doesn't enable us to use those terms in main space except when quoting the speaker. Where does this leave us as editors? The bottom line is that unpleasant ruling bodies still govern and administer and therefore it can never be incorrect to speak of government and administrations, it is absurd to even suggest they are POV - it is not as if you can utter 'Franco's government' and expect your interlocutor to respond, "what government? He was a dictator, so it was a regime". That is laughable. In this example, the author even speaks of a "democratic regime" for Malawi from 1994 (though I suspect you know it is a joke, like Djibouti's democratic regime). The second paragraph of Taha Yassin Ramadan contains 'government', and was not influenced by me. So do we launch a cleanup operation and change every dictatorship ruling body to 'regime'? Or do we put personal feelings aside and realise this is an encyclopaedia. My only concern here would be if an editor were trying to change the articles on those authoritarian states, such as by adding spurious details of some 'election' in Bahrain that never occurred. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Regime has become pejoritive. Regime is used similiar to the use of terrorist; sources which dislike an organization use these words to instill a bias in their readers. That this is commonly done to certain organizations in the small subset of media which en.wiki editors read does not reduce the bias in the language. Sepsis II (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
True. Don't get me wrong, I'm not altogether opposed to the use of the word if used in its correct context, e.g. the removal of Gaddafi and subsequent creation of the State of Libya amounts to 'regime change' because the entire order has been replaced with another. In addition, 'regime' here applies to both entities, outgoing and incoming. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a value-laden label and should be avoided. TFD (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bradford

This article and its content should be referenced so that galloways stated views are shown..

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/07/george-galloway-investigated-police-bradford-israel-free-zone 69.191.176.33 (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is cited at the end of the Israel and Zionism (2012–present) section. One objection to the way Galloway's speech is mentioned is the non-inclusion of Kevin Rawlinson's point that "earlier in the speech, he [Galloway] sought to distinguish between the Israeli state and the world's Jewish population." Using this point from Rawlinson's article would be repetition though. Near the beginning of this section of the article, Galloway is quoted as saying in a November 2012 speech: "We do not hate Jews. We hate Zionism, we hate Israel, we hate murder and injustice." It is not yet clear how significant Galloway's comments on 2 August 2014 will turn out to be, given that he is really repeating himself, except for the Bradford specific reference, but the amount of media coverage from the last day or so means that it is relevant for now. Philip Cross (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian supporter, in the lead

'Galloway is a campaigner who supports the Palestinian side ' - just reading this I find it too un-nuanced - he certainly seems to support the Palestinians kind of represented by the PFLP-GC - , and probably Hamas, but what about the Palestinians in Yarmouk in Damascus? - he is a cheerleader for the Assad regime - that regime as far as I can see has been killing Palestinians for decades -while using them for its hollow 'resistance' rhetoric - hafez al assad was close to Amal movement and they were the besiegers of Borj al barajneh in the mid 80s in Beirut etc killing palestinians - -and before that in the mid 70s hafez, the cynical player of sectarian conflict and killer of palestinians, al assads blockadefrom tel zaaar to yarmouk - galloway is a supporter of reactionary opportunistic elements maybe? - but he does not support the Palestinian side that is represented in yarmouk for example - does he support fatah? - I don't have a specific edit in mind but to me it needs severe qualification - found this on youtube - Palestinians in Egypt[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUiEVZZn7rI] - a refugee from yarmouk, if the translation is correct , at 2:41 - 'bashar al assad used the Palestinian cause - like others - ' - Galloway is maybe like that - he uses stuff - in the meantime I will look for RS that hopefully are more subtle than to just blithely say Galloway supports Palestinian cause -Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly just state your issue without going into a diatribe about why you hate George Galloway. You are not supposed to use talk pages as a soapbox and if other editors want to read opinions like yours, there are lots of blogs available. TFD (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
the issue is the lead is biased - rose tinted -he is not on the Palestinian side of the issue viewed from Yarmouk o.k. - - it doesn't mention anything about his pro-Assad regime cheerleading - and your remarks are hardly civil - why don't you tell us why you love this bloke - its far more serious what is the pov of editing in the article itself than for my remarks here, even if rambling - the lead is crap imo - a soft soap piece and and un-nuanced trashy love letter to this propagandist. its full of simplicities and needs nuancing. Sayerslle (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"why don't you tell us why you love this bloke?" I guess you missed the point of my posting. This is not the place to discuss whom we love and do not love - see WP:SOAPBOX.
If you make requests, reasonable or not, and use it as an opportunity to post your personal opinions, you will alienate other editors and make it less likely that they will support you.
TFD (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In my view Sayerslle makes valuable points. If there any reliable sources on the points raised they should be included in the body of the article, summaries are not intended to be detailed. A brief mention that Galloway's support for the Palestinians is tendentious among Palestinians, if it can be demonstrated, would be all that is required. On Assad, Galloway has made contradictory statements in the last few years, and has made attempts to distance himself from his "last of the Arabs" comment from about 2005. Compared to his association with Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his connection to the Assad family seems slight. Philip Cross (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thanks for not dismissing my points - I agree I need to find RS on nuancing the 'he supports the Palestinians ' in lead - - his comments after ghouta seemed not at all 'contradictory' - he took sides very quickly , just said straight assad/iran/putin propaganda Sayerslle (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You need reliable sources, not just your personal opinions, or those of Daily Mail columnists. TFD (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact on Ghouta they were contradictory. In the British House of Commons last year Galloway denied making a comment he had made on the subject a few days earlier. I decided at the time that this article was too long to include an incident which seemed likely to be ephemeral; no one else has attempted to include it. This might seem like an error, but the article is now very long.
TFD, editor's are free to be speculative and convey queries on talk pages. Philip Cross (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess what some see as 'ephemeral' ,others see as 'emblematic', or something. @tfd - i don't think I mentioned any daily mail stuff. the remarks about Galloway saying ghouta was the work of 'al qaeda supplied by Israel' , that was sourced to the telegraph. not that it stayed in the lead for long Sayerslle (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact the Ghouta comments were not contradictory unless you want to read them that way. If you want to speculate, why not go to a blog where you views will be unchallenged and in fact reinforced? TFD (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
how is wanting to put in the lead what the bloke said in parliament about ghouta, wanting to 'speculate' - anyhow I've had enough of this - I want to edit wp, not write a blog o.k., have you got that?, even if it means arguing with rude people from time to timeSayerslle (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
here is evidence of Galloway attacking pro-Palestinians who dare to disagree with him - "Meanwhile a war of words has begun over the convoy’s decision to traverse Syria. Galloway accuses pro-Palestinian critics of trying to damage the convoy for “sectarian reasons”, saying the route doesn’t imply support for “any side in any Arab to Arab conflict”.(8) But opposing views are coming from even longtime supporters of Viva Palestina. For instance, UK-based pro-Palestinian activist Margaret Green, writing on the convoy’s Facebook page, says the Syria route is “a dangerous move on many fronts, your own safety being paramount, and the convoy could be used as propaganda for the murderous Assad regime, -[2] - the lead must reflect imo that he is a certain sort of pro-Palestinian only . and his pro-Assad regime attitudes and simplistic portrayal ,exemplified by response to ghouta and conspiracist claptrap, should be right up there . and here is Mehdi Hasan, writing today [3] - "Syria. The Respect MP, George Galloway, may have praised the Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad once as the "last Arab ruler" because of the latter's supposed willingness to stand up to Israel, but Assad's brutal security forces have bombed and besieged the Palestinian refugees of Yarmouk, on the outskirts of Damascus. According to Amnesty International, Syrian forces have also been "committing war crimes by using starvation of civilians as a weapon" and have forced the refugees to "resort to eating cats and dogs". " again - NUANCE - about Galloway and Palestinians is out there , but its not in the lead to the wp article. Sayerslle (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It is speculation when Philip Cross says Galloway "denied making a comment he had made on the subject a few days earlier." Your claim that Galloway cannot be pro-Palestinian because he disagrees with other pro-Palestinians is an original research argument - you need a source that does the synthesis. Supposedly David Cameron is pro-British and Labour oppose him. Does that make them anti-British? I suppose to some people it does. TFD (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
where did I say he cannot be described as 'pro-Palestinian' - I said it cannot be left un-nuanced without oversimplifying and distorting. your apparatchik-ist sophistries cant hide the fact that the lead is un-nuanced - banal. Sayerslle (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
apparatchik-ist sophistries? Really? All I am saying is that any "reasoning" added to the article should be drawn from reliable secondary sources. I am not the one trying to reconcile how Galloway could be pro-Saddam Hussein and pro-Ayatollah and pro-Assad all at the same time. Are you aware that, unless we re-write history, they opposed each another? Anyway, we should change pro-Palestinian. I think most people would consider themselves pro-Palestinian, in the sense that it is not politically correct to openly state distaste of an ethnic group. TFD (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Quilliam "Preventing Terrorism" report (2010)

In this edit I have removed the claim that George Galloway is "Islamist backed." The Telegraph piece previously cited is vague about what is meant by the term, as was a contemporary report in The Guardian.. It could be (falsely) inferred that Galloway is being accused of receiving funds from abroad, which could be potentially libellous because illegal acts are being suggested. Checking the actual document the only reference to Galloway I can find comes in the 'Introduction' on p.11, and is as follows: "In the UK similarly, Islamist-leaning and Islamist-backed candidates such as George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Osama Saeed have all been roundly defeated at the polls in areas with large Muslim populations — including by other Muslim candidates." In other words, Galloway is merely being accused of having Islamist supporters, and the reference has nothing to do with his connection to organisations like Hamas. Galloway's problems from his association with that body are already well rehearsed in the article. It therefore seems legitimate not to include a mention of the (leaked) Quilliam paper from 2010. As a primary source it cannot be included in an article (as opposed to a talk page) other than the article about the organisation itself, but I provide a link solely to enable other editors to confirm or dispute the judgement which I have made. The Quilliam paper is here:. Philip Cross (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is wrong. Neil Masterson, George Galloway's attacker, is Catholic, not Jewish.

Not sure why this "article" makes reference to the alleged "Judaism" of Neil Masterson, based on an allegation by the prosecutor based in turn on a supposed statement he made to the police.
On Neil Masterson's own Facebook page, he explicitly identifies himself as a Catholic. That should be added to the article, because it's based on a statement of fact, rather than allegation.
https://www.facebook.com/neil.masterson.5/posts/10202934745435018
Whom to believe? The man's own statement, or a third-hand quote made on his behalf? The agony of choice...
One is given to wondering what is Wikipedia's priority? The truth, or so-called "neutral point of view" sources?
By the way, this "article" has apparently been locked for editing, so I leave it to the editors to make the necessary changes.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.103 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
See WP:RS - we cannot cite an unverifiable posting on Facebook as a source. In any case, the article doesn't state that Masterson is Jewish. It states (citing the Daily Telegraph) that he told the police he was Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a reference for you. JD
http://www.jpost.com/International/Alleged-attacker-of-controversial-British-MP-Galloway-faces-court-today-373048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.103 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
See also Self-published sources and the next section in the Verifiability article, Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Philip Cross (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. The clear and undeniable effect is that one is given to understand from the article that Masterson is Jewish, which he is not. If you are unhappy with relying on the Facebook page as a source, then at least cite the article on Jerusalem Post, which makes mention of Masterson's self-identification as a Catholic.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Alleged-attacker-of-controversial-British-MP-Galloway-faces-court-today-373048
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.103 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried actually reading sources before you cite them? "Neil Masterson, who is due in court on Monday, is thought to be the same person who threatened the pro-Palestinian MP on his Facebook page hours earlier." Thought to be. The JP isn't asserting it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I am quoting from this article, which on this subject quotes only from the article in the Telegraph:
"...the defendant had told the police "I didn't want him to think I'm scared, Galloway is Anti-semitic and I am Jewish".
If this is the only source your provide on Masterson's identity, then that is effectively what the article is endorsing.
Like I said, other sources assert the contrary, based on Masterson's self-idenitification.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.103 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
We are going around in circles here. We aren't saying Masterson is Jewish. We do however repeat what the Daily Telegraph tells us - that he told the police he was Jewish. We have no source whatsoever asserting that he didn't tell them that. And we have no reliable source for any 'self-identification'. Unless and until further reliable sources are found, I see no reason whatsoever to amend the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean by "going around in circles". I didn't say you should remove the quote from the Telegraph article. I said you should add a quote from an alternative source, such as the Jerusalem Post article (or other NPOV articles) which state the contrary, and are not less reliable as sources than the Telegraph.
Masterson is due to stand trial in November, and as it proceeds, presumably one can expect the facts will be made more clear.
In the meantime, you have chosen to quote from one media source alone, when in fact other media sources state something that contradicts it.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.103 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Edit warring dubious material onto a WP:BLP article isn't terribly smart, you know. I am disappointed that there has been no discussion here about the disputed material. Can I suggest that those wishing to include the dubious material take their arguments here, before there are consequences that they will no doubt be unhappy about? --John (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic supporters

I think this article should discuss more on how he exclusively targets Muslim areas as that is who most of his supporters, most commentators also back this up:

  • was elected as the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow - the largest religious group by a fair margin is Muslim(32%) followed by Christianity(24%)[4]
  • MP for Bradford West (UK Parliament constituency) - which has "the largest concentration of Pakistanis (34.6 per cent) of any constituency"[5], the win was also referred to as "Bradford Spring" (by analogy with the Arab Spring[6] and "It also has the second-highest proportion of Muslims of any seat – 38.0 per cent – exceeded only by Galloway’s previous seat at Bethnal Green & Bow."[7]
  • unsuccessfully contested the seat of Poplar and Limehouse - which is "dominated by Bangladeshi Muslims"[8] and "40% of the electorate are Muslims"[9]

But there is no mention of Muslim or Islam in the lead.--Haarith Sylla (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source which makes the point you wish to add to the article? If so, then please mention it here so that we can assess its relevance; if not, then you are proposing adding your own interpretation or synthesis of other sources, which is not permitted. RolandR (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Plenty are available, some already in the article.. [10][11][12][13][14][15] and so on. Such a key element in his political victories needs to be included.--Haarith Sylla (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Although all of these sources discuss the support of Bradford Muslims for Galloway's 2012 by-election campaign, not one of them makes the point that you wish to add, that he "exclusively targets Muslim areas". Unless and until you find a reliable source which makes that claim, you may not add it to the article. RolandR (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

George Galloway when religion is topical will openly state that he is a Roman Catholic, a Christian not a Muslim. My source is his own radio show on talksport which I provide a link for here: http://talksport.com/radio/week-george-galloway/ The article states he converted to Islam in 2000, I think this is a lie but I have no way of knowing for FACT if he did but he denies such claims and he would know better than anyone else if this was true. After he won the Bradford West by-election in 2012 he was interviewed by sky where they asked him if he was a Muslim and he said no. Here is the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JOGy7PCaKo the question takes place in the video between 4:18-4:23 Lord Vile1st (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Our article does not state that Galloway converted to Islam in 2000. It states that Jemima Khan claimed this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

“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)

Wikipedia doesn't base article content on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that an out-of-work politician isn't a politician. George hasn't retired from politics. He announced that he would stand in the election for London Mayor in 2016 if he lost his seat. He is to mount a legal challenge to his recent loss, as well, it has been reported. If a basketball player is an unsigned free agent, we don't call them a former basketball player. So ... seems to me that for the moment, especially absent RS coverage of his as an ex-politician, it would not be appropriate. We can of course certainly call him an "ex-MP." --Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If you present an opinion explaining why you do not like George Galloway, it is unlikely to gain support. TFD (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps "in my opinion" was the wrong phrase to use. I meant to say that "it seems apparent" that his political views are no-longer considered relevant in news sources in the UK. For example, his current exposure in the news concerns an ebola scare and previous hate speech charges, not contribution to policy etc. Epeefleche: I see your distinction between an out-of-work politician and an ex-politician, thanks. When is it generally accepted as appropriate to refer to someone as an ex-politician? U65945 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, The Four Deuces, I'm not sure that my comment expressed any form of obvious distaste for Galloway. I'm generally indifferent to him, but am concerned that the opening paragraph gives a misleading impression of his current impact on British politics. U65945 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The BBC apparently considered Galloway's views relevant less than 3 weeks ago: [16]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point! Purely out of interest, when would it become appropriate to define figures such as Galloway as "ex-politicians", and the like? U65945 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly when reliable sources do? Though picking an example at random, our article on Al Gore describes him as a 'politician' despite him not being in office since 2001. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems Mr Galloway intends to run for Mayor of London, so I'd say he's still very much a politician: link —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The In popular culture section would include the Big Brother section and other stuff for example: George Galloway's face spotted on Madonna's pillow cases.Geo8rge (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Often such sections are nothing more than random lists of WP:Trivia which are best avoided. Galloway's embarrassing appearance on Celebrity Big Brother nearly a decade ago is already covered, and Madonna's curious choice of bedding is totally ephemeral. Philip Cross (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

He;s a secret muslim, not atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And you know this how? Did he confide his shameful secret to you? RolandR (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Edits which I made regarding the Islamic Party of Britain's views on homosexuality have been reverted by Philip Cross. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I think that the text as it now stands (Critics have claimed that his involvement in the leadership of Respect—which made no explicit mention of gay rights in its 2005 election manifesto and accepted donations from Islamic Party members—raised questions about his commitment to those issues.) doesn't adequately explain to a reader unfamiliar with the topic as to why receiving support/donations from the Islamic Party would be controversial with regards to support for LGBT rights. Either reference to Respect receiving donations from the Islamic Party goes from this article altogether (as it is covered at the Respect Party and Islamic Party of Britain pages anyway and isn't really about Galloway personally but his party), or my edits – or similar edits to mine – should stay. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Since my previous edits have been deleted, I've removed reference to Islamic Party funding. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Galloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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}}).

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) 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Slow creeping bias

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)

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.

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) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Child names

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)

Wrong acronym RT?

RT is widely used for Russia Today. Putting it for Raj TV is confusing, looking like being summoned to ascribe Galloway more alignment than there really might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.180.47 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tried to clear this up. It is not clear, from the Guardian source (the other link is broken), if Galloway's apparent former connection with Raj TV is correct. If it cannot be confirmed, I will remove the mention; as it is, it is asserted his association with RTN was brief. Philip Cross (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Article length

The current wordcount, at just over 16,000, seems unjustifiable for a relatively minor, if colourful, political figure whose long-term impact is likely to be marginal. Recording his life in such detail is surely contrary to the accepted function of an encyclopedia article, and no doubt contravenes WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY in numerous respects. By way of comparison, check the wordcounts for some genuinely major political figures: FDR 15,124; Barak Obama 12,161; Tony Blair 8,979; Margaret Thatcher 10,330; George W. Bush 13,572. A earlier Labour maverick, not dissimilar from Galloway as a thorn in his party's side, was S.O. Davies whose WP wordcount is 4,461. That seems proportionate to his importance.

Galloway is alive and active, raising the prospect that through updating the length will swell still more. Is there anyone with a deep interest in his life and works who's prepared to trim the prose down to reasonable limits? Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see some action, but wordcount still at 16,000. It needs a sledgehammer not a tuning fork. I've cut the lead by 50%, will await further developments before continuing. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If anything needs to be cut it should be from the main article, not the summary. The article would need to be substantially shorter for the summary to be of undue length. Some content, say on the Mariam Appeal, the Oil for Food scandal (plus the senate hearing) and the Viva Palestina passage are among those which could be reduced and content used to improve the articles on those subjects. Philip Cross (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not NPOV

I have added a "NPOV tag" to this article. It is mainly a collection of accusations and controversies that present Galloway in a negative light and reads like it was written by a person with a serious grudge against him. His career as MP and politician ought to be the focus not cataloguing every public criticism he has ever received and adding superfluous details. There are three (3) sections dedicated to his visits to Iraq and meetings with Saddam Hussein, for example. The entire entry really ought to be rewritten and shortened considerably. I do not have time to do this at the moment but maybe someone familiar with Galloway, and able to maintain a NPOV, does. Cheers. User2346 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the article being overlong, and I am gradually reducing its length. His association with Saddam Hussein is possibly the most frequently made criticism of Galloway, followed by the various other controversies in which he has been involved over the years. These are now mainly notable incidents (many less notable ones have been removed over time).
I have found a couple of reliable sources in the past which present Galloway in a positive light, and cited them, but articles by Owen Jones and Seumas Milne made similar comments. Largely because of length issue, I deleted Jones first. In any case, Jones would now disagree with much of his piece from The Independent in February 2013, if his more recent twitter comments about Galloway are a guide. I added quotes from Milne's piece, following Galloway's spectacular Bradford West by-election win in 2012, but after the Respect MP's equally spectacular defeat, I removed the citation because Milne's comments seemed inappropriate. Believe me, positive comments about Galloway elsewhere are scarce. A case for the defence is rarely stated, and what exists is way out of the mainstream. Philip Cross (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

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) 16:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Philip Cross has COI

Go to WP:ANI, not here. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to this article space. His most recent involvement was today, when he removed 1,347 bytes. That edit violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

For the past six years, Philip Cross has been engaged in a running public dispute on Twitter with the subject of this BLP. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a Talk page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, George Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he today called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP.

The conflict has already spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and on May 16, 2018, Sputnik followed up with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I do not cite these as WP:RS, but simply to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter.

Preparatory to filing a COI Noticeboard report, I seek Talk page consensus that Philip Cross should be topic banned from editing George Galloway and related BLPs such as the other "goons" with whom he is at war—@mwgbanks, @CraigMurrayOrg, @NafeezAhmed, @Tim_Hayward_, @PiersRobinson1, and @medialens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at Talk:Craig Murray? Philip Cross deleted the photo that Craig Murray himself had earlier blogged that he wanted deleting, and was then abused by Murray for his efforts. And on the same talk page, Cross argued against including "salacious material" about how Murray met his second wife and also against describing her as a "lap dancer". I've no idea what Philip Cross does outside of Wikipedia, or what other arguments he and Murray might have had on other platforms, but I have seen him justifying his edits on various talk pages unlike many other editors. JezGrove (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
JezGrove, his dispute with Craig Murray is exactly why Philip Cross should either recuse himself (the honorable course) or be topic banned from editing the BLPs of Murray and other living persons with whom Cross himself admits he has conflicts of interest. KalHolmann (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "our Julian" seemed to be having some issues when he posted at ANI a few days ago, see "Talk page, 24 archive pages and related links" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983. Comforting that we now have just a belly, instead of a lap, over at Talk:Craig Murray. But a measly £1k, George? RT can't be paying as well as one might imagine. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC):
Yes, I have a COI with Galloway. However, on this occasion I removed citations to a blog. Such an edit is admissible when following Wikipedia policies: it is an edit which any other editor could have made. Or file an AN/I report, which would be interesting if even all of the publicly available details were included. Philip Cross (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is the discussion page for this issue? I can't find it. And who is Philip Cross and what is his personal agenda?Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

The motive cannot be ignored, regardless as to whether the accusation is sustainable. Philip Cross (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Seems fine to me as it is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Link to antisemitic article

One of the external articles listed above as mentioning this article is quite clearly antisemitic. The title is "“Philip Cross” Affair Reveals Jewish Lobby’s Editing of Wikipedia", and the article goes on to claim that "the Jews have been openly running a planned Wikipedia editing operation for over a decade" and that "the international Jewish lobby works full time to edit and censor Wikipedia to serve Jewish interests", and also to misquote Craig Murray's original article by adding the term "Jewish" to describe some of the people mentioned by Murray. The source, The New Observer, is a far-right, racist blog with multiple articles decrying the alleged "African invasion of Europe", questioning the truth of the Holocaust, arguing that there is a "direct correlation between race, IQ, and achievement" and much more questionable material. I recognise that the site has indeed mentioned this Wikipedia article; but it is not a reliable source, and would not be allowed for a source for any article here. Would it be acceptable to remove the link above? --RolandR (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I will remove the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Tweet addressed by George Galloway to Wikipedia

Please note this to wherever these things are noted (I have no personal interest in this article/its topic, I'm just someone who searches "Wikipedia" on twitter idly): https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1008287004734476288 --occono (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Somebody has already answered Galloway on Twitter with the correct place to send it, in confidence, and Galloway has acknowledged with thanks. We don't need to do anything further here, at least for the moment. --NSH001 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Support for Bashar al-Assad's government"

Several editors keep changing the header "Support for Bashar al-Assad's government" into "Support for the Syrian Arab Republic government". Most readers have no idea what the "Syrian Arab Republic government" is, especially given that the country has been in a civil war for the last seven years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And the section is specifically about his personal support for Bashar al-Assad.Mezigue (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
So make it read "Support for Bashar al-Assad" instead of reverting to the incorrect "... Assad's government". Assad has no government, he is head of state and not a prime minister. If anything, the heading could also read "Support for Syrian government" as there has been only one central government in Syria throughout those years. — kashmīrī TALK 00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think "government" should be dropped but that it should instead read "Bashar al-Assad regime", given that it's a dictatorship ruled by Assad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you have RS for this term? The Syria article says that the country has a dual executive system, there is not a word about dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 07:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Syria categorized as a dictatorship by every standard. Here's its Polity score,[17] Freedom House score,[18] and EIU democracy ranking.[19] A Google Search shows that RS, such as NYT, WAPO and FT, frequently use the term "Syrian dictator" to describe Assad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about RELIABLE SOURCES. In addition, none of what you linked supports your assertion of dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
All the six sources I mentioned are RS. Do you seriously dispute that Syria is a dictatorship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
None of them states so. You might be confusing authoritarianism with dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There's no difference. Here's WaPo using the term "Syrian dictator".[20][21][22] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, a Google Search shows that many RS call Trump "stupid" (FP, CBS, CNN, The Nation, etc). Are you proposing to call him as such throughout Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 11:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not describe Trump as stupid. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Enjoy! [23] [24] [25] — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Those are op-eds (Per RS policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Same as to your "NYT sources" that describe the Syrian Arab Republic as a dictatorship. My suggestion to you: when trying to describe a given country's political system, it is helpful to consult legal scholars or UN publications. NYT, CNN, or NGO's that receive funding for "democratisation" or "promotion of human rights" aren't neutral either. — kashmīrī TALK 14:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The "democracy" ratings I cited are from academic sources. They are best sources per WP:RS policy. NY Times is unquestionable a WP:RS. If you disagree, I suggest you take your complaints to the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Please would someone add words to the effect that George Galloway was raised as a Roman Catholic in the Religion section. See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/still-standing-george-galloway-reveals-why-his-staunchly-leftist-outlook-is-still-invariably-right-7848557.html for a source. Thanks. 76.185.209.233 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That being said, could this not at least be added into the "religion" section of this article? Otherwise, it seems to read as if he were raised Muslim his whole life, which is obviously not true. The fact that Galloway is a Muslim convert seems pretty relevant to include, imo. Bangalamania (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The religion = parameter in officeholder infoboxes was removed in 2017[26], following removal from person infoboxes in 2016.[27]. — kashmīrī TALK 11:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the infobox; I was referring to the section which already exists within the article. (Under "Personal life") --Bangalamania (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I misread you. But why do you think his faith is relevant to his notability? Is his notability linked to his religion? — kashmīrī TALK 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
His religiously-based attacks on Sadiq Khan are notable, especially since (as the article states) he claims to be a non-Muslim himself. The article already mentions his alleged religious conversion as well; it might be helpful to note that Galloway was raised Catholic there for clarification. And, of course, his involvement Palestine and the Middle East is intractably bound up with religion. There have been a lot of speculative articles on the subject in the mainstream press, which would emphasise notability imo. Bangalamania (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a rather significant development in the Ali-Khan story that should be added once the article is unlocked, near the end of the "Other developments (2015–17)" section (retitled to 2018). I record a draft of the addition below. I cannot find a source giving the eventual outcome of Ali-Khan's petition to declare Galloway bankrupt (the latest info in the section), but in the light of seemingly no new cites on that topic and the new info below, the petition was likely unsuccessful:

As part of the settlement of their libel claim, both Galloway and Ali Khan gave undertakings not to make any further public statement about the litigation or to defame each other. Galloway brought an action that Ali-Khan had breached this undertaking 26 times, which Ali-Khan admitted, and in April 2018 the High Court imprisoned Ali-Khan for 12 weeks for contempt of court, describing her action as "deliberate, flagrant, persistent and inexcusable". Ali-Khan had been found guilty of contempt of court on a previous occasion.[1][2][3]

Rwendland (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Black, Michael (19 April 2018). "George Galloway's former parliamentary assistant Aisha Ali-Khan jailed for contempt". Telegraph & Argus. Bradford. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  2. ^ Kennedy, Dominic (23 March 2018). "Aisha Ali-Khan, former aide to George Galloway, may face jail". The Times. London. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  3. ^ Mr Justice Warby (22 March 2018). "George Galloway -v- Aisha Ali-Khan" (PDF). High Court of Justice id=HQ14X01162. Retrieved 4 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)

My edits

In lieu of a COI mention in my edit summaries, please see the active discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Philip Cross. I have made two minor changes today (here and here) to the article modifying previous edits; the error correction is to a change which has probably been included in the article for some time. These diffs are, one hopes, entirely uncontroversial. Old habits linger and so on. Philip Cross (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia completely and utterly ignored the COI. There is no acknowledged COI, Do what you want, no one really cares. Wikipedia's credibility is shot, and this is just one drop in the bucket. Your old habits, will stick with you, and Wikipedia for a lot longer than even you think. The article, which I gave up on is still utterly stupid. to wit: "Galloway pointed out that the presumed forgeries pertaining to the Christian Science Monitor report did refer to an earlier period.[citation needed]"

Hmm... How about [1] The video reference, he ... wait for it... said it. So the source is George, but you need a citation? You should start back at is his name really George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh LOOK! "Emblem-important.svg Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." Everyone ignores the policies/warnings/procedures/all that useless posturing anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Something is happening. The page is changing as I edit this: The article is now locked, ( from any edits, from Cross, or myself.
I want to confirm the sources of the statement: ( There are many transcripts available, many )
http://www.wussu.com/current/galloway.htm
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/17/se.01.html
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~norman/CurrentAffairs/Galloway.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=5KOcoblD1NEC&pg=PT231&lpg=PT231&dq=These+documents+were+unmasked+by+%22The+Christian+Science+Monitor%22+themselves+as+forgeries.&source=bl&ots=74B-vXkCKC&sig=XoNT5YzOaTFAla0eGUCPGLf1qaY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi314fnwK_cAhWdGTQIHbLDCNQQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=These%20documents%20were%20unmasked%20by%20%22The%20Christian%20Science%20Monitor%22%20themselves%20as%20forgeries.&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Had I been able to edit the biased article, I would have entered the following information from the Parlment record regarding the sources of the forged documents, for which the article suggest that citations are needed. To whit:
"After I began legal proceedings against The Christian Science Monitor, and after The Mail on Sunday had bought another set of documents from the same Iraqi general, purporting to show my receipt of a different $10 million from a different son of Saddam Hussein, The Christian Science Monitor sent its documents to leading American universities for forensic examination. It was a precaution that it ought to have taken before publication, rather than afterward, because the documents were swiftly exposed as forgeries, as were the documents bought by The Mail on Sunday from the same source in the same week." -George Galloway, 8 May 2006
Source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060508/debtext/60508-0022.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Offer of money by Galloway

I would think that if a politician offers money to unmask a contributor whose opinions he dislikes (and the physical threat that implies) would be a notable fact. It has now appeared on the national news and so should appear on his article. Howard Alexander (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but that fact (which has been in the open for some time now) has nothing whatsoever to do with the tweet linked above, which is Galloway complaining about a "defamatory" tweet from Cross (one of numerous tweets from the latter taunting the former). I have therefore put your comment in a separate section. --NSH001 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah - I'd missed that. You're quite right. Still, a paragraph summarizing the story as it has appeared in the press would be appropriate, I believe. Howard Alexander (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You would cast George away from someone defending himself from attacks, to someone who, in clear utter desperation is defending himself from someone who is literally, our of habit, continuing to edit the article resulting in it being locked? Perhaps you would prefer to be the one holding the knife. "Et tu Bruti?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
And, by the way, you would not be the first person to attack Galloway, nor the last, you are just in the crowd of many, some of which have paid a princely sum for their dishonesty.
"If my foreign correspondent visitor is right, a criminal conspiracy was hatched and executed between Baghdad and London against me." - George Galloway.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060508/debtext/60508-0022.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Galloway/Archive_7&oldid=1089047355"