Talk:George Galloway/Archive 2

Consistently accused of heinous things, then cleared by subsequent investigation

As Finlay McWalter observes in the neatrality2 section of this talk page:

you'll see a consistent pattern of GG being accused of something terrible, threatening to sue, and either winning outright or the something terrible turning out to be something exceptionally mild or largely unproven ... it more accurately shows the pattern of GG being repeatedly accused of things he mostly hasn't done."

This seems to be a valid point, and one that is not included in the article. George Galloway has a remarkably clean record. There are several British MPs who have shadier background, yet seem to avoid the same number of 'accusations of serious wrongdoing' as Galloway. So for the sake of discussion

1) Has George Galloway been the victim of more false accusations than is normal for a politician
2) If so, why?
3) If so, from who?
--Fergie 11:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have plenty of opionions as to why GG has been subjected to attempts at villification (cf. Scargill), however Wikipedia is an atempt to build an encyclopedia from other sources not a place for orrignal reasarch/conjecture. If you/me/us want to get stuff about why GG has been victimised (yes thats POV language) you/me/us need to find peices of work that discuss the issue, I.E. Newpaper reports etc.

Here's one for a start: Roy Greenslade (no fan of GG) sugests that it is because "he has become so unpopular with both the media and political elites that they regard him as outside the normal rules of the game" i.e he is their new "leftwing whipping boy" [1]

--JK the unwise 17:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your reason is very good and quite valid, but only in recent years. It can not explain why it happened in the first place. I agree with you that we should build on existing material, not do original research ourselves. but i would see blogs, as well as newspapers, as an acceptable source nowadays. So excellent analysis should not be dismissed because it is not written by an "actual" reporter.

--80.131.117.233 17:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree there are too many allegations in this article and whether they are true or not the article should represent an balanced overview of the person. Currently the article stands as a detailed report of every accusation upon the person. The article should be shortened by removing allegations which have proven not true. The article gives much more focus to negative allegations than is normal for article on a person and reading it, portrays a negatively biased picture of the person. That is why I have tagged the article. I would request someone skilled at editing to shorten the article and bring it back to a more neutral point of view. Ibruman 13:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why there are so many accusations against George Galloway in the article is that there have been so many accusations made against him. The accusations are all sourced and noteworthy, so there's no call to remove them. Besides which I don't think any of them has been entirely dismissed, save possibly the forged papers in the Christian Science Monitor. That being said, I think the section on the Iraq Oil money claims is poorly written and confusing to readers not already familiar with it. It's going to be a difficult rewrite job because the subject is extremely complicated anyway and conclusive information has not yet been found. Incidentally, it looks like GG is going to get a bit more prominent for possibly the next 23 days. David | Talk 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Introductory rhetoric

The opening sentence says he's known for his "rhetorical skill". I'm sure some of his opponents would dispute that he has any, and to be honest the article does not address his skill level at all, though there are certainly plenty of examples of his rhetoric. How about if we change this to "fiery rhetoric"? --Michael Snow 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that proposed change. Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill. The right-tilting American Spectator says so. [2] The Boston Globe says so. [3]. He was awarded "Debater of the Year."[4] It's true some of his opponents would begrudge him any characteristic that could possibly be regarded as positive (and I'm not even sure "rhetorical skill" is in fact positive). Some of them would probably go along with "rhetorical skill." But this is supposed to be an NPOV article and what his opponents think of him is not particularly relevant. DanielM 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to this (you provided the Boston Globe link twice), it seems to be not the American Spectator directly saying so, but indirectly attributing this concession to "pundits". But anyway, my point is that the article fails entirely to discuss what Galloway's rhetorical skills are or any discerning evaluation of them. As a result, the content doesn't justify a positive statement (and yes, it is positive) that Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill, and certainly not as an undisputed assertion leading off the article. Hence my suggested change; if you want the statement to remain, please add some content to the article that discusses how his abilities are viewed. --Michael Snow 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You clicked on that link fast! I had inserted the same one twice by accident, but corrected it ten minutes later. You got to it in the intervening ten minutes. I see you found the correct article quickly enough. I trust the other two links I provided addressed your first point. His rhetorical skill is pretty obvious, as you said it is only some of his opponents who surely would dispute it (though some of the less miserly ones would no doubt grant it). You say "rhetorical skill" is praise however I find that rhetoric has a negative connotation. "Skill" does have a positive connotation, but I can't help thinking we're splitting hairs. Your suggestion of "fiery rhetoric" successfully removes any sort of positive connotation (in favor of a somewhat negative one, it seems), but this aspect of Galloway is already addressed as "confrontational style." I don't think we should have to include a section summarizing his rhetorical skill, I think it's a given. --DanielM.

Ah, I didn't notice you had updated the link by the time I had written out my reply. Anyway, it is most assuredly not a given; nothing is a given. Saying that Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill is a bald assertion. If the remaining content of the article does not discuss and establish this assertion, it should be removed. --Michael Snow 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

By saying it is a given, I mean that it is generally accepted and not seriously disputed. I gave three sources that affirm it, there are no doubt many, many more. Wiki articles make other non-controversial statements like this. This one also says he favors wealth redistribution and more welfare, does not discuss and establish that. If you are going to argue for its removal, please at least disagree with it first. DanielM 23:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter whether I agree with it? I haven't read or listened to Galloway enough to have a firm opinion. But that's exactly the problem, which is that this is a statement of opinion, not fact, given as a critical assessment and evaluation of his personal qualities. As such, it needs to be substantiated within the article. With respect to his policy positions, stating what those are is a statement of fact. And even those ought to be properly sourced. To some extent they can be confirmed with the external link to the Respect party site, which discusses policy issues, I suppose. --Michael Snow 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I accept your differentiation between a generally accepted critical assessment and a fact statement. It's fair enough to point out that if the article refers upfront to Galloway's debating prowess and talent for turning a phrase, it should cover that in the article body. I do think that this quality is indeed a part of who he is and how he is perceived and that this part of the intro text should stay, so I will see about putting something to cover it in the article body. I do not know when I will be able to do that, so I have no objection to you amending the text as you see fit in the meantime. Thanks for a good discussion on this and for not rushing in with hasty changes. DanielM 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I won't make the change I initially suggested, since as you pointed out earlier it's slightly redundant. The current phrasing is okay if that's an important aspect of his persona, as seems to be the case, but the article is simply incomplete. If we can agree on that, then I'll wait to see what is done to make it more complete. --Michael Snow 16:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FAC

I think this is a good article and could be a featured article with a little bit of work. The objections to it currently being a fetured article (listed at Featured article candidates/George Galloway) are:

• Not enough clarity on status 3 of the images. 2 fair use and one 'non-commercial'. According to Stephen Turner the first image rellies on a dubious fair use claim as the article is not about Newsnight.
• Needs to be better structured.
• Needs more information on his time as an Labour MP.

The first two shouldn't be to hard to sort out and the third is just a matter of finding some more info'. --JK the unwise 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced Image:George_Galloway_MP.jpg with Image:George Galloway.png which is from promotional material released during the election so as I understand it is a better candidate for fair use claim.--JK the unwise 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me JK. I am never happy with TV screen captures (fair use issues notwithstanding), and they are never of adequate quality. It also follows the Manual of Style more faithfully as he is looking in towards the body of the article. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

News on corruption allegations

See this article. Adraeus 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I read your post after adding a section on this from a BBC news article. If you think there is any more relavant info' from the Scotsman paper to add, please add it.--JK the unwise 12:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

When I posted that link, I had not found any mention of it, so this link was simply information for the contributors to this article. By the way, I don't think this article mentions any of Galloway's television and cable appearances (e.g., Galloway on Real Time HBO with Bill Maher) Adraeus 14:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On the Campaign Group

The Campaign Group has been open about its membership, and a check on membership lists through the years shows no G. Galloway among them. Unless he joined for a brief period it seems that he was not a member. David | Talk 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This maybe so but "Despite his left-wing reputation.." is not a NPOV way to put it.--JK the unwise 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. However there is a point to be made about that - George Galloway's pronouncements now and allegiance with the far left may give the impression that he was on the very far left of the Labour Party during his time in it, but this was not the case at the time. Galloway was on the left but not the far left, and not among the most rebellious. Incidentally he didn't join the Tribune Group either. David | Talk 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Whole section removed - why?

Some time ago I uploaded some images concerning the evidence of presented to the commitee of Galloway's alleged involvement in the Oil for Food programme. I am distressed that Juicifier decided to delete these images along with the body of text that a large number of users had helped edit - wholesale. Please DO NOT delete large parts of the article without discussion. It shows bad faith! Jooler 07:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, wholesale deletion absent discussion shows arrogance and bad faith, especially when it is a section that has been there for a while and was no doubt the product of much careful editing and back and forth among editors when it was originally authored. I am glad you were watching and restored that bit. I think it is a good bit with interesting, unusual graphics of those suspect documents. Galloway has been impugned with forged documents previously such as those the Christian Science Monitor relied on and later had to apologize for. So it's good to address this stuff. DanielM 01:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole section I believe you are talking about, was in essence a rehashing of an article on the SWP website. It didn't help that the SWP is Galloway's organisation in effect, but the content was drivel. If you read the Senate+UN reports regarding Galloway you see why the responce is fraudulent. Furthermore, just to the naked eye, there are many differing fonts on the pages, not just two.

It couldn't have been there for more than three days. Making note of Galloway's respopnce is in order, but arguing through a detiled responce from a POV organisation closely linked with the man himself allong with multiple images is not. Especially when it nonsence.

I won't delete it again but I will add a NPOV header to the article until this issue is resolved.

jucifer 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're the one who is talking nonsense. I don't know what you mean about three days; the section was there for months before you came along. This paragraph was the subject of a great deal of debate here. See the archives. The SWP article, brought the issue to my attention and I copied the relevant pages from the original Duelfer report to Wikipedia. I am certainly not an organ of the SWP. I and several other authors spent quite some time arguing the toss over the wording. The paragraph is using the very same evidence that was used against Galloway at the comittee hearing, i.e. his name appearing on some documents, and merely highlighting the some details about the so-called evidence that has not been highlighted in the mainstream media. You are quite wrong to say that "a rehashing of an article on the SWP website." because the SWP page doesn't demonstrate all of the inconsistencies of the evidence as this article does. I and several other authors have looked at the original documents in detail - There is no POV position here. The reader can make up their mind as to the significance or otherwise of the inconsistencies. Read the archives and see how the paragraph evolved. Jooler 07:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this page does not appear to have been archived correctly. I was looking for the debate regarding the Duelfer report pages. It is not in the archive given above, but is on this page when I look back at a version from August. I don't have time to sort this out. Jooler 07:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Labour Party NEC election, 1986

Unfortunately I don't have the full results here but the candidates in the CLP section (for seven seats) included Jack Ashley, Stuart Bell, Tony Benn, David Blunkett, Tam Dalyell, George Galloway, Eric Heffer, Gerald Kaufman, Michael Meacher, Austin Mitchell, Giles Radice, Jo Richardson, George Robertson, Dennis Skinner and Audrey Wise. There were certainly others. Galloway's position as next to last is important as demonstrating his popularity within the Labour Party generally at the time. David | Talk 10:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested the full results are available in Labour Party Annual Conference Report 1986. David | Talk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence

Please see Almanac of British Politics by Waller, 5th ed., page 385: "Soon after election in 1987 he .. suffered no-confidence votes in his constituency party". David | Talk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The visitation of Saddam

I have previously said on this talk page (now archived) that the Saddam visits must remain in the opening para and I hold to all the reasons I stated then. They are one of the most important aspects in the way George Galloway is perceived. Indeed it is only fair to warn anyone editing this article that I will revert any removal of this claim from the first paragraph as a blatant POV attempt to gloss over an unsavoury part of Galloway's history. David | Talk 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to gloss over anything, but as I said in my edit summaries, putting these things in the opening paragraph makes the article look bad - it is is just flagging up that the article is going to be a hatchet job. Imagine reading in the opening paragraph of an article on G W Bush that he is an alcoholic draft dodger. Those are also facts that should not be glossed over, but they don't belong in the opening para. Since you clearly enjoy edit wars, and since I get bored of them very very quickly, I don't doubt that you will prevail here. That doesn't make you right. GrahamN 22:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comparison is not really comparable. Bush's conviction for drink driving occurred about thirty years ago; no-one has, to my knowledge, cast doubt on the fact that Bush no longer drinks alcohol. His personal circumstances during the Vietnam war are not the first thing people think about when they hear his name. This is all very much in contrast with George Galloway who remains in close touch with the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Syria, which has a very similar ideology to that of Iraq. I disagree that it leads the reader to expect a 'hatchet job' (which the article is not, in any case). Nor do I enjoy edit wars overmuch. As a matter of fact I liked your change to the second para on the formation of RESPECT. David | Talk 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Graham is right, David is wrong. The point here is that Galloway is a Scottish politician, with a long and noteworthy career. To characterise the meeting with Saddam in the opening paragraph as a defining moment of Galloways life is to negate almost his entire political existance. The opening paragraph of a political biography should, by convention, consist of raw information (age, marital status, political affiliations, place of birth, race, schooling/education, employment (past/present), bibliography, etc.), coupled with a brief note on their ideological orientation. Graham rightly points out that the opening paragraph in this article sets the scene for a 'hatchet job'. Compare the opening paragraph with that of fellow guest-of-Saddam Donald Rumsfeld and draw your own conclusions... Fergie 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. Your assessment that Galloway has "a long and noteworthy career" sounds like a eulogy. Galloway has none of the attributes of a successful political career (high office, general respect, that sort of thing). The Saddam visits (especially that of 1994) are the key element in defining how Galloway is perceived by the general public, and hardly 'negates .. his entire political existence'. They were so untypical of British politicians that they stand out, and they are usually the single episode from Galloway's career that his opponents pick upon if they wish to attack him. The actual phrasing in the article is quite generous, crediting the meetings to his campaign against sanctions rather than to anything more 'profitable' (which there would be evidence to support). There is all the difference in the world between a backbench MP with no constituency interest in Iraq meeting the President of Iraq and reporting high praise, and an official of the United States government who has the job of communicating with the Arab leaders meeting with one of them to try to further United States policy, so I do not accept the Donald Rumsfeld comparison.

The Rumsfeld article is not one I would choose as a comparator because it is, to my mind, very badly written. I would expect the lead para of the biography of Donald Rumsfeld to state the fact that Rumsfeld was one of the few Secretaries of Defense to adopt a belligerent attitude to foreign affairs, and to cite him as an outspoken supporter of the Iraq war and as one who had influence on the President in that regard. Perhaps you ought to compare the Galloway article to George Brown, Baron George-Brown, a featured article, where the lead para mentions Brown's approach to politics, brief holding of high office, and personal problems. David | Talk 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Galloway has indeed had a long and noteworthy career. It may have none of the attributes of success by which members of the privately educated English upper class measure themselves, but to his constituents, he is clearly held in high regard. Galloway is untypical as a British politician precisely because he is typical as a Scotsman. It is right and proper, although sadly rare, that people who are representitive of their constituencies are elected to office. For this reason his politics should not be treated as outlandish- by the standards of Dundee and Glasgow they are mainstream. His meeting with Saddam is noteworthy, but not defining. What defines George Galloway is his background and his uncompromising alignment with issues of social justice- not a brief encounter with somebody who came to be the bogeyman of the hour years later. Although this is the issue that grabbed the attention of US and the English establishment, it is not of primary importance when understanding Galloway as a man.

We should avoid writing intros to biographical entries in the style of the current George Brown revision. Pertinant details are omitted (place of birth, etc.), the inability of cope with office without drinking should really be examined in greater depth in a separate section. Remember: wikipedia is a source of info, not a stage for literary flourishes.

Also: Far from having 'no constituency interests in Iraq' both the Kelvin and Bethnal constituencies have a large islamic demographic- this has been one of the main factors behind Galloways various overtures to the Islamic world.Fergie 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

'Held in high regard by his constituents'? He has a majority of 823 and didn't get even 36% of the vote. Success in politics is a pretty simple thing to measure: how many of the things a politician campaigns for actually happen because of their campaigns? With Galloway it's practically zero. As for a typical Scotsman, I must have missed that aspect of the Scots character that makes them compulsively fly to Arab states and fawn over the dictators thereof; in fact there's only one Scotsman I know of who does that. And then we are supposed to 'understand Galloway as a man' - a pure invitation to have your POV. Hillhead/Kelvin had a minimal Islamic population, and both there and Bethnal Green the Islamic population is almost entirely from the Indian subcontinent and not Arabs. Incidentally you don't seem to be familiar with the Manual of Style in particular for biographies as your statements about desirable articles are directly contradicted by it. David | Talk 14:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

David, you obviously like to get your own way, and are a committed revert warrior. This last post merely demonstrates your clear anti-Galloway POV. I agree wholeheartedly with GrahamN and Fergie that the Iraq focus in the lead section is overly prominent and unbalances the article neutrality. As to the statement that I will revert any removal of this claim from the first paragraph as a blatant POV attempt to gloss over an unsavoury part of Galloway's history, well that is just unbelievable arrogance. I, and other editors, are entitled to edit this article as we see fit David, you do not have ownership nor the right of veto. As things stand, you are losing this argument and I will remove this in a few days unless there are compelling arguments to the contrary. As an aside, it is pleasing to see that you have refrained from re-inserting your ridiculous comparison with the BNP, which was just inserted to avoid 3RR and carry out a spot of trolling for good measure. --84.67.14.5 15:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary reason that the two Saddam visits are in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article is because DBiv (David) insists on it, at least this is what I gather from this debate and the previous one that he refers to. I'm not totally averse to it from a rational standpoint, I mean you got to talk about something in the first para and I guess it could be that. But I never really understood it as a rational decision either. It plays to a negative POV of Galloway. People who want to deride him frequently start off by implying that he's a Saddam lover. "He met Saddam twice and said he salutes his indefatigibility" or something like that. Senator Norm Coleman did that, well actually ol' Norm said he met with Saddam "many times." People like that are looking to get Saddam's satanicness to rub off on Galloway. Galloway has done a lot of stuff in his career, so it's a little suspicious that people want to lean on that if they aspire to be balanced and objective. But DBiv on the other hand says preemptively that any editor who dares remove the Saddam visits from the first paragraph is "blatantly POV." That doesn't much respect those editors who may have different, valid viewpoints on what the first paragraph should consist of, and I do think it is somewhat arrogant. DanielM 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But if someone were to change the para, they need to find something good and NPOV to change it to. And they should include some of the negative stuff, but should be able to improve on "Campaigning against sanctions on Iraq, he made several visits to that country and met Saddam Hussein in 1994 and 2002; he was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003 after controversial statements against the 2003 invasion of Iraq including "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs... Where are the Arab armies?" Condense that or trim one negabit or the other? And don't get me started on that semicolon... ;) DanielM 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As a number of people have pointed out (including David), Galloway's meetings with Saddam are one of the major point that people bring up when they want to attack him. When we have someone, who clearly has a negative opinion of the man, insisting that the first paragraph mention the meetings with Saddam, how can this be anything but POV. AlistairMcMillan 03:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a POV statement that Galloway visited Saddam twice - it's a matter of uncontested fact. NPOV means that critical and supportive views are treated the same. The lead para already brings out supportive views. Suppressing something critical of Galloway would therefore unbalance it. Hope this helps. David | Talk 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the statement tha's POV, it's the prominence in the lead. The only supportive view in the lead refers to his rhetorical skill. The rest is neutral fact or negative statements such as the references to confrontational style and controversial statements. Coupled with the over prominence of the Iraq visits in this lead section, the opening of this article is unbalanced and reads like the start of an anti-Galloway polemic. --84.67.153.81 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear that consensus is against you David. Please do not revert the changes without support. AlistairMcMillan 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue, and in any case force of numbers is irrelevant. The point is that Galloway's visit to Saddam, coupled with the accusations of his having personally or through an agent profited from Oil for Food deals, distinguish him from almost every other active politician who opposed sanctions. I have been lenient so far in not going far down this road but I may revise that view if I find an uncooperative attitude from those with a pro-Galloway perspective. David | Talk 22:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all get off your high horse. Making threats isn't the best way idea.

Why does the page on Tony Benn not mention his visits to Saddam in the first paragraph? How can removing the mention of his visits with Saddam possibly be an attempt "to gloss over an unsavoury part of Galloway's history" when we go into them in detail further down the page? AlistairMcMillan 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not making threats. I am simply saying that if the present consensus (which is highly favourable to Galloway) is disturbed I shall promote the case which I really believe in. The reason why Tony Benn's page does not mention his visits to Saddam is that they are small part in his public perception, which is not the case with George Galloway. Stop ten people on the street and ask them to name something George Galloway has done and the most common response will be that he visited Saddam. Ditto for Tony Benn and they won't. David | Talk 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have been lenient..." sounds like a threat to me. Stop ten people on the street and ask them why Tony and George invaded Iraq and the most common response will be "oil". I'll wait for you to add that to the first paragraph of Tony Blair, George W. Bush and 2003 Invasion of Iraq. We are not here to represent public perception. Meanwhile I'll point out that you have reverted my edit three times, I'm sure you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. AlistairMcMillan 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how about this for a compromise. We mention that he visited Saddam, but also mention that he also campaigned against Saddam in the 70s, in the first paragraph. Mention that he campaigned against Saddam while the UK and US were supporting him in the first paragraph. Mention that he visited Iraq a number of times and met with a number of people, not just Saddam, in the first paragraph. Comments? Why are we focussing on the single sound-bite point that everyone uses to attack Galloway? How can that be anything BUT POV? AlistairMcMillan 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to do more on the extent of Galloway's anti-Saddam campaigning. He appears to have been a member of CARDRI (Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq) who were a Third International-linked group in alliance with the Communist Party of Iraq which the Baathists suppressed. He has mentioned demonstrating outside the Iraqi 'Cultural Centre' in Tottenham Court Road which was opened c. 1978 and closed by the time of the liberation of Kuwait. However, merely being a member of a group and campaigning is not particularly notable. For instance I would not put in my biography that I was a noted campaigner against Robert Mugabe, although I did join a demo outside the Zimbabwe High Commission more than ten years ago and long before the general public had noticed that Mugabe was a tyrant.

I notice you accept the significance of the visit: you've accepted my point. Ipso facto if a sound-bite is used by 'everyone' to attack Galloway it must be of extreme significance. Otherwise it's like arguing that it's POV to say the Titanic's maiden voyage was a failure because of one incident, or that Dr Crippen was a successful homeopath and we shouldn't let the only crime he committed dominate the article. David | Talk 00:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept your point at all. A sound-bite can be used by everyone and still be incorrect. AlistairMcMillan 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The lead, as edited by AlistairMcMillan, is an improvement to the opening of the article. I see that David engaged in 4 reverts between 21.34 and 00.52. This is very disappointing behaviour from an Admin and has been filed on WP:AN/3RR. --84.68.228.215 09:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him earlier this morning for 24 hours. AlistairMcMillan 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

While he should not have made 4 reverts, that block was also inappropriate—admins are not supposed to block people they have been in edit wars with. Instead, a neutral/uninvolved admin should decide on and perform any necessary blocking. --Delirium 10:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, but Admins are not supposed to be involved in edit revert wars, period. --84.64.24.246 12:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's massively unrealistic. David | Talk 12:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the (archived) discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI to see what your fellow Admins views on this matter are. --84.64.24.246 12:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Manual of Style

To better explan my reply to Fergie above, see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). From the latter:

The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)
3. Nationality
4. What they did
5. Why they are significant.

The fourth and fifth are the most important for the casual reader. David | Talk 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My edits

I've added Galloway's visits to Saddam to the intro, because as it stood, it sounded as though all he had done was campaign against sanctions and say something untoward during the war. In fact, he did a lot more than that, and a selection of highlights should really be in the intro. The two visits definitely need to be mentioned, and his statement during the first: I forget the words but "I salute your courage and strength" or something, because it was a pivotal moment for many people in their evaluation of Galloway.

I also tried to tidy up the dates. The MoS says we should wikify only when we write out the full date i.e. December 2, 2005, because that allows date preferences to work. However, there's no point in wikifying 2005, or December 2, or December, when they stand alone. Also, some of the dates are written December 2, 2005 and others 2 December 2005. I didn't want to change them because I don't know what you all prefer, but it should be consistent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fergie reverted without explanation, saying only "see talk," but has left no message on talk. Fergie, could you please say why you're deleting this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:George_Galloway/Archive_1#Met_Saddam_Twice_in_Intro_Paragraph_or_Not.3F and Talk:George_Galloway#The_visitation_of_Saddam. I think that is probably what Fergie was referring to. AlistairMcMillan 10:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Alistair. I'll read through them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If I can drop a comment into the mess, I'm confused as to why the history of opposition to Iraq sanctions is in the intro either. Is it any more (or less) relevant than his visits with Saddam? It also seems out of place, because it's in the first clause of a sentence discussing his expulsion from the Labour Party, yet was not related to that expulsion. I've tentatively replaced both facts with a more generic "With a history of involvement in Iraq-related issues...", but feel free to improve on that or revert it if it's unacceptable for some reason. --Delirium 10:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's badly placed. He was expelled for what the Labour Party regarded as behavior that brought the party into disrepute and his campaign against sanctions wasn't part of that. However, I think it probably should be in the intro somewhere, because it's one of the things he's well known for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Shortening of the article

This article has been flagged as too long ever since May when Galloway appeared before the US senate. I suggest the sections not directly dependant on George Galloway be linked to separate articles- in particular Oil for Food and Miriam Appeal. This will also have the benefit that the other individuals involved can be directly linked to these episodes.

We might also be more ruthless in cutting down the lengthy and unedifying passages such as 2005 election. There tends to be a bit too much 'he said/she said' and not enough overview.Fergie 10:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro again

I also think we should include in the intro the quote that was potentially the most serious trigger regarding his Labour Party expulsion, namely saying that British troops should refuse to obey orders. An intro should give an overview of what the average person in the street would say if asked what they knew about Galloway (not only that, of course, because they wouldn't know his date of birth, for example), but it should definitely include the issues that he is best known for, and I'm not sure this intro quite does that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reference for that quote we can dig up? The current reference we have [5] is the one in which he directly accuses Blair of lying, but I don't see anything in that interview calling for troops to refuse to obey orders. --Delirium 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's already quoted and sourced in the relevant section further down on the page. --Delirium 10:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway was charged with "Engaging in conduct which is prejudicial or in an act which is grossly detrimental to the Labour Party contrary to Rule 2A.8:

1) By an interview on Abu Dhabi TV, broadcast to Arab peoples and intended to be heard by an Arab audience, inciting Arabs to fight British troops.

2) By an interview on the ITV News Channel inciting British troops to disobey orders.

3) Inciting Plymouth voters to vote at the next general election against Plymouth Sutton Labour MP Linda Gilroy and Plymouth Devonport MP David Jamieson.

4) By an interview on BBC2's Newsnight on 22 April 2003 threatening to fight the Glasgow Central constituency in certain circumstances as an independent, ie against a duly endorsed Labour candidate.

5) At a public meeting in Preston supporting one Michael Lavalette having stood in local elections in May 2003 against the duly endorsed Labour candidate, Musa Ahmed Jiwa." (Source: The Trial, page 2)

Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 were found proved. David | Talk 19:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Expulsion from the Labour Party

The full text of the charges on which Galloway was expelled are in the Bookmarks pamphlet "The Trial" which I have at home. I think it's important not to imply that Galloway was expelled merely for opposing the war, which you will find often said by people (139 Labour MPs opposed the war, only one was expelled). David | Talk 11:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

well no, he was expelled not for opposing the war (quite a few labour MPs did that), but for making a fuss about it. Sandpiper 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother

How do we fit into the article his being on Celebrity Big Brother? Surely it should go in there somewhere. from my own POV the meeting of the two worst things in the universe deserves an article of its own, but atleast a NPOV mention of the fact should suffice.

i think we need another section on celebrity big brother, i think i'll be biting the intellectual bullet and watching it! just because galloway's on i really HOPE he doesnt make as much of a fool of himself as he usually does on tv, he's a unique politician and has a lot of good ideas. Just wish he wouldnt be such a complete jerk all the time (i've seen him on have i got news for you, that more4 talk show, and newsnight - maybe his good side will come out in the big brother house? O.o that's if there is one obviously)--Sean2k2 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC) sean2k2

One humiliating picture of Galloway in the CBB house is enough. I have removed one of the original two. If you wish to upload TWO pictures of Galloway in the CBB house, one humiliating picture and one neutral picture will suffice.

Exactly WHERE did "do you want me to be the cat" become a short-lived catch-phrase?!

And I've restored it. If you believe that the pictures do not improve the article, you need to argue the case. Additionally, you need to source a controversial statement such as that critics of George Galloway's are mostly "New Labour MPs who voted for the war", you will need to cite a source. As this is such a controversial topic, unsourced controversial claims are likely to be removed. As you point out, this should include the line about the catchphrase. Warofdreams talk 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what Wikipedia has done in its treatment of Galloway in the BB house is what most of the media has done: ignore the fact he went in there to spread a political message (all heavily edited by Channel 4) and reduce him to humiliation as a result of demeaning tasks at the behest of the cunning BB producers. Posting TWO humiliating pictures of Galloway in the BB house furthers this malicious agenda. He has spent 5% of the time in the house engaged in humiliating tasks, so why are the two posted pictures focused on this?

Big Brother producers did not "suggest" Galloway be a cat. They made it compulsory if he were to win a prize of food and drink for his housemates. Big Brother does not "suggest" anything. It's invariably an order.

Question ...

"In the Big Brother house, contestants are locked away from the outside world. In respect to George Galloway, this put him out of reach of his constituents" - I'm unsure about the neutrality of this statement in the article, and would be grateful if someone could consider it. For example, if George Gallaway were to go on holiday would it then be fair to say "George Gallaway went on holiday to * between *2005 to *2005, which put him out of reach of his constituents"? Do we actually know the terms of his appearance on Big Brother? Is his appearance there in effect any different from an MP taking a holiday? Do we know that there's not some agreement for him to leave the show after (say) 2-4 weeks so that his length of time on the show would not be longer than a typical MP holiday? Do we know that there's not some line of communication arranged so that he could be contacted in the case of a serious event in his constituency? In short, I'm unsure of the above type of statement (or even guess) which is why I took out a similar statement earlier. However, seeing as it's been reinserted, and I'm just a newbie, it's probably best if someone with more experience makes a judgement.

I think the point is that MPs normally take their holidays during Parliamentary recesses, when business is light. Celeb BB is occurring during the time when Parliament will be sitting and when constituents may well want to contact their MP urgently. David | Talk 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the one who put the statement in and unless BB have changed the rules to create special circumstances which they have not stated, then what I said is the truth and an MP deliberately putting himself out all possible contact with general constituents is a major aspect of the story. The difference with going on holiday and in the BB is that on holiday you can be contacted at anytime (Numerous times the PM or various ministers or MPs have been called back from holiday to address various matters. Even the whole of Parliament has been recalled. On another matter, generally MPs take holidays when Parliament is in-recess. Next week it will not be. GG said he hopes to do well in his opening video, from which we must assume he wants to try and stay as long as possible, right into ext week. Therefore an MP shouldn't have a holiday next week, and GG should be available to be contacted by constituents next week. In the BB house that cannot happen. Feel free to disagree :) Evil Eye 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would comment that even though secretaries and researchers generally can cope without the assistance of the Member, while Galloway is in the BB house he is unable to represent his constituents in other important ways, such as tabling questions in the House, or speaking in debates, which in many ways are just as important as responding to correspondence and urgent issues. (However, his is a rubbish constituency MP in any case for a man of his experience. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bethnal_green_and_bow shows he has tabled only four questions and spoken in four debates since the beginning of this parliament, a rather pathetic number given the ease with which questions can be tabled.)

This all begs the question of whether his being present in the house could conceivably make any difference to anything. The government is quite unlikely to change anything in a bill just because he asks. It could only be an issue if there was a close vote on something, which in theory is very unlikely given the labour majority. Are there any upcoming votes in which the government expects to be defeated? It is a huge myth that indivdual MPs accomplish anything. Such success as he has had has all been achieved using the publicity value of being an MP, and he may do much better influencing public policy talking on big brother than talking in the house of commons.Sandpiper

Interesting issue on participation in BB

I have an interesting question: Erskine May says that "In the absence of any specific orders to that effect, Members are presumed to be in attendence in Parliament. It is not now considered necessary for a Member to be given leave of absence in the ordinary course of his business." (Erskine May, 23rd Edition, p 208. On what ground would Celebrity BB constitute the "ordinary course of his business"? (Although cf. p. 207 "On ordinary occasions the attendence of Members in Parliament is not enforced by either House.")

While the House of Commons retains the technical power to command the attendance of its members, the last time this power was exercised was something like 300 years ago IIRC. David | Talk 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Galloway asserts, apparently sincerely, that his participation in the Big Brother program is an effort to engage a section of the electorate that would not normally take an interest in public policy. He intends to use his time on the program to discuss Iraq, Palestine, and poverty with the other contestants in an effort to promote his own viewpoint on these matters. Many MPs in the House of Commons have other jobs that impinge on their parlimentary responsibilities to a far greater degree (assuming that participation in BB is outwith the realm of parlimentary responsibility), so it is unlikely that Galloway would be reprimanded. The most interesting aspect of his residencency in the Big Brother house is that Ofcom will force channel 4 to censor him if he is deemed to be making a party-political broadcast- is this democratic? Fergie 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a good summary of the democratic perils of gagging Galloway here--Fergie 09:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think space could be found in the article for pointing out that when George Galloway claims he went into the house to use it as a soapbox, the rules about British broadcasting make this impractical and would result in the programme being taken off the air. David | Talk 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't they say there's no such thing as bad publicity? He is making the news again. Sandpiper 07:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to do without violating NPOV, although a Guardian article has touched on this issue, and its citation might alleviate this problem to some degree. Philip Cross 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there must be a bit of an overreaction here. If it is truly impossible to report what a politician says when he gets an opportunity to make a speech, then no politician could ever be shown on television at all. What is required is balance. Possibly a statement by big brother that members of the conservative, labour and liberal parties were all invited to become housemates, but all declined? That is how they normally do it when there is no forthcoming response. Sandpiper 15:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea but unfortunately news programs can get away with that because the journalist / presenter will question the politician & provide an alternative POV. No-one in the CBB house is filling that role & so C4 would be liable to fining if they broadcast Galloway talking political. On his exit Davina will be able to interrogate him politically but I'm afraid that will be all we get. Though he did get a piece in C4 news today so he's not doing all bad.MGSpiller 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to me that similar arguments could be made about televising party conferences, which are just a whole week of one party views. The situation now seems to be that critics are having the right to make their say, yet the man himself has no right to comment. If he had the financial resources to stage a week long party conference that would be OK to report essentially continuously? Sandpiper 20:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BB 'prize money'?

"Ron McKay, spokesman for Galloway, revealed that if he won, he would give the prize money to Interpal, a Palestinian charity."

I'm pretty sure, because I watched the programme last night, that there is no prize money in CBB. Just an appearance fee. I don't know whether something to that effect is worth mentioning.Harry R 14:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

sean2k2 - hang on, didnt the last few celebrity big brothers have a prize for their chosen charity? that quote still makes sense if that is the case.

I think the latest celeb one split a percentage of the phone voting money between the charities picked by all of the celebs, and I think I heard Davina say something about that yesterday Sadisticality 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the money Galloway recieves from CBB (£60k) will go to the charity Interpal, the one which was cleared due to lack of *any* evidence [6]. The same charity will also recieve a portion of the profits from phone calls. -- Tompsci 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Commons attendance

Looking at the full voting record since the last election [7], I looked at the MPs below Galloway in % of voting. Discarding those in positions where they do not vote for organisational reasons (Speaker, Deputy Speakers), do not vote for political reasons (Sinn Fein), haven't been voting because they've been seriously ill and have now died (Patsy Calton and Rachel Squire, this leaves the three worst as Eddie McGrady (apologies to him if he is also unwell), Tony Blair and George Galloway. So his voting record is even worse than implied. Average Earthman 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Eddie McGrady, as an SDLP member, doesn't normally vote on GB-only issues. Tony Blair does have the occasional issue that legitimately takes him out of the country. David | Talk 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By all accounts though he has a worse record than his predecessors as PM. Not much of a Parliamentarain. Morwen - Talk 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Before ejection from the Labour Party and his subsequent involvement took-off in the Anti-War Movement, his parliamentary record is pretty decent. It is only because of his constant touring, giving political speeches against the war (the main reason he was voted in as an MP), that his attendance has dropped significantly. -- Tompsci 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Labour party no longer orders him to attend votes, as they do their other MPs. How many of them would attend if not obliged to for the benefit of their party rather than the benefit of their constituents? Sandpiper 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

I have removed two links because they like to websites so full of distortions and untruths, that they are useless. On the other hand the Cristopher Hitchen's pages, though anti-Galloway, are from a respectable source. This should not become a Galloway hate page, he's already hated by the media and unfairly treated, let us provide the most unbiased account we can.

The Links were:

• HangGalloway
• Iraq Labour Friends

Tompsci 11:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is better off without these links. Their idiocy bolsters support for Galloway. If the intention is to balance the article by linking to sites containing non-favourable POV, then higher quality critiques are required in the linked sites.--Fergie 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, even though I think the Cristopher Hitchens coverage of the Oil for Food allogations is repulsively biased, it's probably one of the better anti-galloway attacks. I also think that it's a load of rubbish, but a point for point rebuttal is probably worth the effort. -- Tompsci 00:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Best known for?

The article claims he is best known for his campaign to overturn sanctions against Iraq. This may once have been true (i.e., befor Iraq was invaded), but right now he is best known for total opposition to the entire British policy on Iraq, particularly the invasion of it, which is what caused his actual split from the party. This needs re-wording. Sandpiper 07:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What a politician is best known for comes down to perspective. An American will know Galloway as the person who appeared before a senate committee, An Englishman will know him as the man who ousted his former party colleague, Oona King, from power, an Iraqi may know him as the humanitarian face of the British establishment, whilst a Scotsman will have many different episodes from which to draw an opinion. Who's perspective should we use? In a democracy, I think that a politician should be profiled principally from the perspective of his constituents. --Fergie 12:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be: "best known for being AWOL in the Big Brother House" then. The controversy does not seem to be abating. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he is topical because he went into Big Brother, which I would judge was his intent. He remains best known for his longstanding views. But if an article is going to claim someone is 'best known' for something, then that something ought to be universally accepted. e.g. Frank Whittle is best known for inventing the jet engine. Even in the whittle case the article does not claim 'best known'Sandpiper 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cat incident

If you're going to mention the cat incident, then a better image should be included. However I think this incident has been given undue prominance. If you want to cover this in that level of detail, then equal, if not greater, prominance should be given to the political messages he has made in the house, bbut which have been censored. -- Tompsci 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section now has way too much prominence and is descending to the level of tabloid commentary (notorious "naughty cat", for goodness sake). The cat reference and photograph should be removed. I don't think its possible to add much on Galloway's political messages from the house because, well, there have been virtually none AFAIK. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a prime example of the biased coverage in this article, I'm not sure I should edit it heavily because I am in the pro-Galloway camp. Alot of what Galloway says is censored, an analysis of BB coverage on E4 is here. -- Tompsci 16:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Medialens. Celebrity Big Brother is not a politics show, and it's simply not possible for a broadcaster to include a balancing speech if George Galloway is allowed to expound on his views. So Channel 4 would be acting in breach of its licence if it did not remove openly political speeches made by George Galloway. Meanwhile the cat incident, although instigated by Endemol, has become a focus for criticism of him. David | Talk 16:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Medialens? Please explain ... The cat incident is tabloid level criticism, based on the percieved humiliation (real or otherwise) resulting from the incident. It is not valid political criticism of his actions in participating in the Big Brother event, and has no place in a political encyclopaedia entry I would argue. The show is not a political show, as you correctly point out, but this is a political article, not an entertainment one. Discussion of Galloway in the BB house should therefore be brief, succinct, and confined to political issues. In other words: he hoped to use it as a platform to expound his beliefs to a wider audience, Channel 4 are constrained by regulatory restrictions from permitting him to engage in lengthy political dialogue and he has been criticised for neglecting his parliamentary responsibilities. This section is already over-bloated, and the "notorious "naughty cat" incident" has no place here. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The OfCom regulations are very open to interpretation, they didn't censor his comment that Saddam Hussein was generally popular amoungst Iraqi people. Double standards? -- Tompsci 17:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a political encyclopaedia, and should include a rounded account of all known aspects of Galloway's life. Clearly his political activity is the most important, but the BB activities are receiving widespread attention and should be mentioned. Rather than removing them, we should ensure that they are NPOV and not given undue prominence. Warofdreams talk 10:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can mention specific events in the BB house without giving them undue prominance. On the whole the media is biased against GG so as wikipedians we should try to avoid that bias. There are many valid critisisms of George Galloway, but what is broadcast from the big brother house is not an authorative source since much of what is said is censored. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip page. -- Tompsci 12:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The story is really the way the press has picked up on these things, and they are - for a time at least - a large part of the public's perception of Galloway. If incidents in BB haven't been widely reported, then they're probably just gossip (e.g. allegations of bullying or nominations). It may be inevitable that while BB is running this section will be unduly large, but issues which are soon forgotten can be removed equally quickly. Rather than following the media or attempting to counter it, we should provide a summary alongside any relevant facts. Broadcasts from the BB house are unlikely to be worthy of inclusion on their own, but the fact that like most sources, the stream provided is biased by editing does not in itself preclude its use as a source. Warofdreams talk 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If we cover things because the press does, then our focus will be skewed. What's the best way of covering a man so hated by the press? -- Tompsci 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Abandoning his constituents?

George Galloway's office was dealing with constituents' problems on Friday just as we do every day of the week, including Christmas and New Year. Our office was, to my knowledge, unable to respond to only two calls from people saying they wanted to raise constituency problems - one who did not leave a phone number to return their call on and one where it was not possible, despite repeated attempts, to hear the number left. And this despite the fact that we were bombarded with dozens of fatuous calls from journalists like Dodd and that BT, unfortunately, failed to install the phones in our new office which was due to open on Friday.

Most MPs did not hold surgeries on Friday because of the parliamentary recess. But we did. A dozen constituents came to the surgery which we hold every Friday from 4pm to 7pm. The issues were predominantly the same as they always are - appalling housing conditions resulting from the year's of neglect and lack of investment by the New Labour government in Whitehall and the New Labour Council in Tower Hamlets, and immigration and asylum problems arising from this government's iniquitous, racist immigration and asylum legislation.

It was New Labour's propaganda before last May's election that George would not represent his constituency properly and it has remained so ever since. And yet not only has George held surgeries almost every week since his election and taken up and vigorously pursued hundreds of constituents' problems, he has spoken at more public meetings on campaigning issues around the constituency than his New Labour predecessor did in all the eight anonymous years of her incumbency. He has combined this with taking the Respect message around the country speaking to thousands and playing a very significant role building the international anti-war movement.

Rob Hoveman, Assistant to George Galloway MP -- Tompsci 16:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

End Notes

Hiya :-) Some of the end notes in this article seem to be incorrectly numbered - for example see number 34 in the body of the article which actually refers to number 31 at the end. I'm afraid I have no idea how to correct this (and no time either - sorry), so perhaps someone else is about to 'Fix it'. Cheers :-)

Header

From the article header - "He was returned to Parliament as its candidate in the 2005 general election". CANDIDATES are not returned to Parliament, MPs are returned to Parliament. Perhaps better to say "He was returned to Parliament after the 2005 Gneral Election as Respect's sole elected representative".

Except that he is not "Respect's sole elected representative".

It's not entirely untrue; at the time he was the Respect's only elected representative to have been elected as a Respect candidate. But it's not clear, so I've changed it to read "He was returned in the 2005 general election as Respect's sole Member of Parliament." Warofdreams talk 11:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I take it then that he is the only member of parliament, ever, under any circumstances, to represent Respect; which seems to be the implication of the current wording? Sandpiper 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He is the only MP to have ever represented Respect. Of course there could be other Respect MPs elected in future, which is in no way precluded by the current wording. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"at the time he was the Respect's only elected representative to have been elected as a Respect candidate" - this statement is also false.

Good point; I'd forgotten the councillor elected in mid-2004, so he was actually their second elected representative. Warofdreams talk 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The cat incident

I know this is more of an Uncylopedia comment, but did anyone else think he appeared to be "doing a Monica"? (to coin a pseudo-euphimism - sp? - one of those words which look wrong whichever way they are spelt, even correctly.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26 (talk • contribs) 24 Jan 2006

I think that yo are just trying to promote Uncyclopedia.--JK the unwise 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No - more acknowledging that the remark could be sent there, to divert against claims of wishing something of mine to be sent to BJAODN. GG still does not impress (and, no, I am not trying to give him ideas...)
;}

Did you see him dance?--JK the unwise 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor Dances?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 January 2006

Libel appeal

The article states that the telegraph did not have permission to appeal. How does that tally with todays announcement that they lost the appeal? MartinRe 12:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The trial judge denied permission to appeal the verdict, but the Telegraph successfully sought permission to appeal from the Appeal Court. David | Talk 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bloated article

I concur with the person who put up the banner that the article is overlong. I am going to go and streamline it some now. One part I noticed that is worthy of abridging is in the section "Political views and characteristics" where GG is quoted without sourcing and without qualification (ie. "alleged ") that politics is too important for squabbling politicians, he denies this quote [[8]]. So that is problematic and I think is not particularly necessary even if it were sourced and undisputed. Ah well, here I go, will try to be judicious. DanielM 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the section on the Oil for Food allegations is considerably overlong, rambling and unstructured. Perhaps we can get rid of the John Malkovich quote as well as I don't think it really adds anything. David | Talk 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

AgreedFergie 13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be okay to delete the Malkovich bit or toss it into some odds-and-ends section where it doesn't take up a lot of space. In trying to streamline this article I attepted to explore some of the references, several of them don't seem to work. I think it is some problem from when the 'bot lumped them all at the bottom of the page instead of letting them link directly. I do not know if I understand the utility of that, particularly as it takes up even more screen geography. I was a bit frustrated by it because a couple times it appeared to point me to pages that did not relate to the article text the reference purported to support. DanielM 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I give DBiv full credit for unearthing a source that indicates before the election Galloway used the intemperate and racially-charged comment that King was responsible for the deaths of Iraqis with "blacker faces" than hers. The column he cites says 23rd April, 2005 at the top IIRC, and yes that puts it before Paxman's race baiting after the May election, when Galloway made the same type of comment but it appeared off the cuff. I accept the reference, but if someone has additional recollections or sources for comments like this on the campaign trail I would also like to see them.DanielM 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a particularly good reference and I'm sure the statement itself was slightly earlier in the campaign, but unfortunately I don't have LexisNexis to search. In the infamous Paxman interview (which I watched again yesteday) it's brought up near the end as a quote, and only after Paxman has referred to Oona King's race. David | Talk 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Big Brother' episode is frivolous -- it should be condensed to a small fraction of its current size. Alan Pascoe 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be frivolous and it is certainly not terribly significant in Galloway's contribution to the political sphere, but I suspect it will be quite significant in his public image. Certainly the mention in the article can be improved by editing it down but not to a small fraction. David | Talk 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone coming to this article to learn about George Galloway is going to be interested in a detailed description about an appearance on Big Brother. Alan Pascoe 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone made the point that sometimes current events get heavy coverage in Wikipedia articles, and then once the events fade from the public consciousness some the text in the article is drawn back. That sort of makes sense to me. People were interested in the Big Brother appearance of GG and editors would log on and discuss the details. Now or perhaps a couple months from now it might be appropriate to scale back that section. Eventually maybe it gets scaled back to a paragraph. DanielM 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC) PS: I also want to remove the text about the Wayback machine appearing to kind-of-sort-of-but-maybe-not-at-all-really refute a single sentence from GG's Senate testimony. I discussed this below. Part of the debloating process. Anyone attached to that text?

Critical deletions

I did not fail to notice that the large extent of DanielM's shortening was simply to expunge critical material pertaining to Galloway's assertions in the Senate hearings. Moreover, the deletion makes complete nonsense of the reference, suggesting that Galloway's (long) comment relevant to the article was actually in response rather than a preface to the article's claims.

This whole bit of some Spectator person using the Wayback machine was not firm enough IMO

Somehow, I am hardly surprised, nor am I moved.

I also notice that some of Galloway's less flattering quotes have disappeared, including his support for authoritarianism in Pakistan and his autobiography's positive qualification of Saddam (referenced often) as being "likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people" [9] and so on. Not even a lengthy snippet, but excised nonetheless. I would ask why were I not certain the answer is to be found in the reference to Galloway as a "prominent critic of Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s" and a laborious indulgence in ad hominem tu quoque pertaining to Rumsfeld.

I seek other's opinions, particularly those who are not still hangers-on for Galloway's self-evident and persistent benevolence, but as of now I am restoring the American Spectator section until a better solution or version comes of it. --TJive 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are other examples of DanielM's "streamlining". [10] [11] Removal of critical context, reference, and quotes in regards to Galloway's actions and claims. This accounts for all but the autobiography quotes, which were deleted by JK the unwise. --TJive 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

O' righteous indignation. --TJive 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to respond to accusations by TJive, but I will do so for the benefit of others who might be misled by what he's saying. I try to make each of my edits in good faith. He's pulling out a selected few above to try to cast me in a negative light. There are issues to be examined with the use of Wayback Machine to dispute one aspect of the minor point that Galloway made to the Senate committee. The point had to do with the contributions of Fawaz Zureikat to Mariam's List. He said he 'emblazoned it on our literature and listed it on our website' or words to that effect. And then this columnist for the Spectator goes to the Wayback Machine and thinks 'aha, don't see much on him, really, I'll write about it.' Okay, fine, but Wayback has large blanks for date ranges in its caches. I know this, I check it pretty often and don't always find what I need. Maybe Zureikat appears in some of those blank date ranges. Another thing is that the columnist doesn't address the other half of Galloway's sentence (well, if he does, it's not quoted here), about the literature. Finally the overarching point of Galloway's statement was that he wasn't secretive about Zureikat's contributions, I don't think this Spectator article does enough to overturn this. Yes, I do find that it is not firm enough.

I also think it doesn't warrant three paragraphs in this bloated Galloway article, and that is what I and other editors coming from different viewpoints were trying to address. When you trim an article, you're going to ruffle somebody's sensitivities, that's just the way it is. Everybody's attached to something. It wasn't my idea to start up an abridging process, but I did stand up to do so, and made several edits that I thought would lead to a better article. This article is a pretty good article. It's a controversial and polarizing subject, but there is a give-and-take between editors of different stripes where they act sort of as guard dogs against each other. Amazingly I think that has worked pretty well here in general. DanielM 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed too the constant removal of material critical of Galloway, without even the changes been noted in change logs. My own material about the "myth" of Galloway's explusion from the Labour Party for inciting Iraq troops to kill British troops was removed at some point.

P. --Paul Moloney 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of negitive Galloway stuff in the article. There is also a full account of the reasons given for him being expelled for the Labour party in the Expulsion from the Labour Party section. Most of the stuff that was deleted has been unattributed, for example I deleted the stuff about critics claiming that Galloway's autobiog' shows him acting as an apologist for Saddam because there is no reference to who these critics are. In an article this size we should really only include critisms by notable people (regarding Galloway plenty of them exist!).--JK the unwise 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about how it may have been used at varying points but the quote should be utilized somewhere in the Iraq section--it is rather significant. --TJive 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In an article trying to provide a NPOV, I don't think quotations are very useful without a sense on context. The whole saddam issue "I salute your courage..." becomes pretty irrelevant when you consider his aims of removing the trade embargoes which hurt innocent people and not Saddam. His condemnation of Saddam stretches back to when the UK was providing him with weapons. Quotes need context, else they are useless. -- Tompsci 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Galloway's "reputation" of involvement in anti-Saddam activities (imposed only after the fact of acknowledgement he engaged in the reverse) means that as a necessity in changing the policy of the governments which imposed and supported sanctions he must prostrate himself before Saddam? This not only is nonsensical, and a supplanting of "context" as apologia but ignores that the words come in book form, through the process (ostensibly) of writing, editing, and revision, unlike even his rhetorical flourish in front of the man which already goes far beyond official cordiality. --TJive 13:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tompsci's attempt at defending GG and watering down his Wikipedia entry to hagiography is pretty weak. Just to be clear, Galloway's FULL quote is: "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]." I'm sorry, but what does victory "until Jerusalem" have to do with sanctions-busting, Tompsci? Do you think he meant it as a metaphor? Do a Google search for the words in that quote and you will see how "irrelevant" it is. --Paul Moloney 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

General point. I am not against including critism of Galloway but this critism should be by notable people rather then by Wikipeida editors or unknown bloggers, that is my main point.--JK the unwise 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-war topic template

The anti-war topic template has been added to this article as well as those of some other people who were prominant in the anti-war movment (See, Template talk:Anti-war topics#Individuals). However I am not sure that this is approprate; the key question is whether the topic of the article relates to the anti-war movment to a high enough degree to justify adding the template. While I doubt any one would argue that Galloway has not been an important player in the UK anti-war movment (and to a small extent the US one) it seems to me that he has done enough other stuff to mean that flaging the article as an anti-war topic is misplaced. --JK the unwise 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really works well here, and the article was already bloated. DanielM 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong but isn't that the logo for CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament) - that's actually an established organisation like greenpeace i think, whereas the anti-war movement is like having a hammer and sickle titled "communism flag" which wouldn't be right it's a communist-era russian flag! =P

In the News

Saw this article today [12] about the Telegraph backing down. Also, didn't the Telegraph a few years ago wrongly report that GG got into a drunken fight with two women and a cop outside a pub, the real culprit being George Foulkes MP?

That sounds like a corrupted version of the column written in The Times by Julie Burchill in March 2004, in which she clearly confused Galloway with Ron Brown, former Labour MP for Edinburgh Leith. See here and it's mentioned in Burchill's article. I don't think it's really serious enough for a mention in the George Galloway article. David | Talk 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked this out further, it seems the incident described did happen in 1994, see the Observer 21st November 2004 [13] for more details. Given the article length I think you're right not to include it. Sjeraj 16:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's another distinct case where GG has been vindicated or won a legal over false politically-motivated allegations or fake documents it should be covered in this Wikipedia entry, where accusations and all things negative are dutifully reported. DanielM 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)