Talk:George Galloway/Archive 3

Should long American Spectator/Wayback Machine be clipped?

There's this long bit about a columnist who used the Wayback Machine to try to cast doubt on one half of a single sentence GG said in his U.S. Senate testimony. The minimal version is that Galloway said he emblazoned Fawaz Sureikat on the Mariam Appeals website and literature, but then the columnist gets on Wayback and only finds the name once. The columnist is not reported to have looked at any literature. I pointed out above that Wayback has blank date ranges where if I understand correctly the name could have appeared. So I question A) the premise of the column B) the importance of this point to take up multiple paragraphs in this GG entry which is brimming with negative information from north to south anyway. Would like to hear other editorial opinions. DanielM 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is far too much negative gossip and spin on this page and it needs to be removed. The idea that every piece of malicious rubbish about someone needs to be reported verbatum here is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Can you image the entry for Queen Elizabeth II containing anything like this even though there is one hundred times as many scandals and gossip about her? Fashion1 20 February 2006

The analysis of Galloway's conduct over the years (which Fashion1 calls "spin") is very useful, since he has succeeded in using the imperialist legal system which he despises to repeatedly block the media from getting in deep into his past behaviour. The simple truth is that this man is a devious, corrupt anti-semitic red faschist who is a master of manipulation, duping muslims, marxists and others seemingly almost at will. If only they'd had a good lawyer on the Congressional investigation panel! A Glasgow wide boy needs firm treatment, particularly when he poses as an intellectual and a statesman. What's really needed is a thorough government-level investigation into him (perhaps a Parliamentary Select Committee?) to truly get to the bottom of his misdeeds, with a final bulging file to hand over to the CPS. You can dream!

Flawed and Inadequate "Early and personal life" section

Am I correct that the section conflates some comments of, and issues relating to, his second wife with his first? Even if that is not the case there is still the problem that the section then doesn't mention his second wife at all. Further, there's something of a hostile tone when you cover a person's marriages with four sentences, one "he was married to her from this date to that date" and then the other three to covering intimations of adultery. It really again demonstrates a negative undercurrent that is found here and there throughout this article. I don't have the familiarity or time to improve this section now, I do applaud anyone who could so. DanielM 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Corruption allegations need to be removed

Currently the article on George Galloway is largely composed of a detailed report of every accusation ever made against him. This is a gross misrepresentation and gives the article the appearance of a 'hatchet job'. Whatever criticisms one could make of Galloway, a lack of principles is not one of them- he could by no measure be described as a corrupt politician. Both the 'miriam' and 'oil for food' scandals are particularly tenuous, and should not be afforded the space given to them in the article. A balanced mention? -yes. Screes of text outlining every inconsequential detail under a scary 'corruption' header? -no. Fergie 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the negativity throughout the article. It throws things off-balance. The article has organizational problems as well. It might benefit from an overhaul. I would like to see a straight account of his parliamentary career in one section, here it is covered unevenly through a series of scandalous vignettes. But a rewrite is a big job, what is doable right now? The following three things might be clipped to make the article less hostile: 1) Clip intimations of adultery, they're gossipy and insufficiently founded, 2) Clip the bit about the guy who claimed RESPECT campaigners assaulted him, it's insufficiently founded and not directly enough linked to Galloway, 3) delete all except the first paragraph of Celebrity Big Brother section. Thoughts? DanielM 13:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why there are so many allegations against George Galloway in the article is that his career has seen so many of them. This is an odd complaint. Perhaps, following the logic of this complaint, we should go to Talk:Peter Sutcliffe and complain that it is an unbalanced article because it includes a long list of women he attacked, and couldn't it include more on how he was a model employee and a very good lorry driver. Galloway's marital difficulties are certainly relevant in terms of any mention of his private life, and he has been quite open about his womanising including in a BBC documentary about the Three Day Week. Les Dobrovolski's beating up was the single most reported bad incident among the very many bad incidents in the thoroughly disreputable campaign Galloway fought in Bethnal Green and Bow. David | Talk 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

David, I fear you are rather proving the point. Comparing Galloway to a mass-murderer is not likely to assuage fears that this article is predjudiced. I see from your user page that you are a politician from an opposing political party in the same city as Galloway- perhaps it is inappropriate that you contribute strong opinions to this article.Fergie 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny comment about Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper" ;) but your likening that article about a mass murderer to Galloway's tends to strengthen suspicions about the negative angle some Galloway article editors come from. "Womanizing" is a broad term. Maybe Galloway said he had womanized in this BBC documentary but that is not cited here. At any rate I don't think the Sunday Time's gossipy insinuations about "friendships with women" warrant coverage here. The thing with Les D. who said he was beaten up by RESPECT campaigners, I don't believe that is sufficiently founded for inclusion here, even if it were the focus of sensationalistic reporting before the election. On the limited amount of coverage I've found on the Internet it appears to me this guy was manipulated and RESPECT (see the link) makes some coherent points debunking it that have not been countered that I have seen. In general I think we should be hesitant to indefinitely keep "allegations" in the Galloway article when significant time has passed and they have not been borne out by court judgements or police reports or solid journalistic investigations. DanielM 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Confidence in the article is undermined by indefinately retaining tenuous hearsay.Fergie 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the introduction has a negative skew to it. "The only time RESPECT have won a parliamentary election"; would this be better phrased as "...becoming RESPECT's first MP..."? I would say the opening needs work on NPOV. It's certainly not wise to whitewash the page, but all the allegations, however unfounded, should be given succinct and balanced coverage. However, citing only newspapers would not be sufficient in these cases. -- Tompsci 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the first RESPECT MP, Galloway became the first RESPECT MP in January 2004 when he formed the party. The reason for mentioning the election is that it is one thing to get an MP through defection and quite another to win an election. At the same time, NPOV requires that it be set in context, as to my mind remarking that someone is the "first" of something implies that many others are to come later. David | Talk 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If they are removed, quite a number of people intend to put them back. Galloway is a scummie who steals from needy kids to live a champagne socialist lifestyle.

He could easily be accused of corruption, there is evidence to suggest he is guilty of corruption. But I concur that there is no bone fide proof and that these allegations are true beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore it may be sensible to remove or alter them on grounds of potential slander. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.1.255.148 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

MAB

Any source for the suggestion that Respect was formed with 'leading members of the MAB'. Otherwise the reference will be removed. -- RobGo 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I had thought this was so much common knowledge that it did not need a source (we don't need a source for the fact that cats go meow). I'll hunt some out anyway though. David | Talk 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sunday Herald, Glasgow, January 25, 2004. Alan Crawford's article 'Gorgeous George returns ... with a brand new party' included: "Today's inaugural convention in London of Respect, also known as the Unity Coalition, hopes to attract some of the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets in protest against war in Iraq and mobilise them to help fight the European elections in June. It has the backing of the Muslim Association of Britain, the Socialist Alliance and the Stop the War Coalition, as well as the film director Ken Loach and the author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot."

Anas Altikriti, President of the MAB in 2004, was of course a founder member of RESPECT and headed the list in Yorkshire and Humberside at the EP elections. David | Talk 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"some leading members of the Muslim Association of Britain" is not the same as saying that "Anas Altikriti became a RESPECT candidate with the support of the MAB". What other "leading figures" are actively involved with the RESPECT party, as opposed to merely supporting it? Links with the MAB are commonly associated with a supposed disregard of LBGT rights by critics of RESPECT. The MAB is less an influence on party policy that its critics would like to believe. -- Tompsci 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ye, and MAB has also been known to support Labour candidates in elections. Also, Tikriti stood down as MAB President to stand in the Euro elections. And I'm not sure if he was a 'founder member', though he may well be. The main figures in founding the party were Galloway, SWP, Monbiot, and Salma Yaqoob.--RobGo 17:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother section unnecessarily long?

Although the subject's participation in the show is important - illustrating his judgement and character etc - do we really need a blow by blow account of the programme and a list of it's contestants? A good two thirds of the content of the section seems very redundant now that it isn't a current event.

Scottish/British

reference to his being Scottish and British seemed superfluous and inaccurate. If he is a Scottish politician, he is a British politician by default. Mentioning him to be Scottish as well as British would seem to imply that he has been or is not only an MP but an MSP, which he is not.

The opening sentence starts very badly, the word Scottish and politician needs separating: "George Galloway (born 16 August 1954 in Dundee) is a Scottish politician and author..."

He is Scottish, he is a politician, but he must not be described a "Scottish politician" (although I'm sure he would liked to be a Scottish politician, and also be considered by others as such) Starting with this poor use of English or syntax (whichever) stopped me reading any further. Put "Scotland" after Dundee if this word is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro

"It should be noted that he supported the war in Bosnia, which was conducted by the international community to protect Muslims from Christian Serbians."

This is controversial - Read Chomskys "New Military Humanists" for a good analysis of the motives for the war. Protection of Muslims is not one of them

Whole thing now much too long

Isn't the whole thing now much, much too long? Galloway is an interesting and currently controversial figure, but does he really merit this many screenfulls? I would suggest the following sections and sub-sections could be much shorter:

2005 Election
Daily Telegraph
US Senate (the whole hearing lasted about as long as it takes to read this piece!)
Celebrity Big Brother (is it really that newsworthy!?)

Overall I think we could manage with about half the length. Be interested to hear views. MarkThomas 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, tried lots of cutting to try to shorten and precision the whole thing, which increasingly just seems to be rants between the various factions. Also cut out my own stuff as well, in case accusations of bias come my way. Comments/further edits welcomed. Mark. MarkThomas 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just restored all the information Mark Thomas just deleted. Please don't delete great swathes of this article on the tenuous grounds that you think it's "too long". It is not too long. After many people with different opinions of Galloway have worked on it, it's now a relatively good, neutral, thorough, in-depth article. There is no excuse for deleting information from any article. Please don't vandalise it again. GrahamN 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) It's not nuetral, it's basically a fight between pro- and anti- Galloway factions. (2) if it's not too long, why do we have that great big sign saying it is?? What I'm doing is not vandalising but attempting to make sense of this very over-long page full of pointless vitriol, point scoring, justifications, etc, etc, all of which really belong to journalism not WP. At the moment this article is longer than the one ones on Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx and Lenin to name but 3. Is Galloway really more significant than these people? If this is really vandalism then what point is there editing anything on WP - might as well make it Usenet! MarkThomas 18:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it reflects both sides of the argument, unlike your short and sour version. (2) Because you, or someone like you, put it there. I've just removed it. In any case, the big notice said "Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate". It didn't say "Please consider deleting great chunks of this article, which represents the fruits of many hours research and hard work by a great number of editors over a period of several years." (3) There is no rule that says an article's length has to be in direct proportion to the significance of its subject. If we want Wikipedia to be the greatest encyclopaedia ever written (which I do, do you?), then the more information and detail we can include on any subject, no matter how insignificant (and no matter how much you personally dislke it), the better. GrahamN 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be as ignorant of Wikipedia and it's aims as you do of Galloway's real character. There are many, many precedents and objections on WP to having articles of too great a length, and there is also a real need to have some sort of perceived relationship between article length and the importance of the subject under discussion. Unfortunately just a few users are feeding Galloways' already hugely over-inflated ego by padding this page. I am simply trying to wikify it. MarkThomas 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Have severely trimmed and de-POV'ed the ramblings of the pro-Galloway factions. No doubt they will return them shortly! MarkThomas 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems I am prevented from removing a section on a section on "controversies at University Debates" - Just because it is "sourced " doesn't mean it should be included . I am certainly no great fan of Mr Galloway but Given the rest of the already long article - Basically reporting that he swore at some students may not show him in very good light but seems trivial in the midst of other controversies.

I would also support severely reducing the section on Big Brother.

Rrose Selavy

I find it can be permissible for a "current event" like some argument or walkout during a university forum to get disproportionately long coverage in the article. Then a few weeks or even months later you can get an appropriate perspective on it and draw it back to something appropriately brief or even do away with it because it's "unencyclopedic" or whatever. That time is past for the Big Brother section, which should shortened, and I think also for this quarrel at the university bit, which should be shortened or even deleted for lack of relevance. Also the second paragraph in thee university bit is poorly sourced. DanielM 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with UTC and Rrose. The tangential details make it almost unreadable and will likely leave the reader confused. The quotes on Saddam and the Iraq War add subjective context and should really be removed. Phrases like "left-wing" and "anti-war" are provocative and unclear. Other phrases introduce bias: "He combatively countered the charges by accusing Coleman" and "Galloway made many aggressive and controversial statements".

If there is agreement with my thoughts on the first two sections, I'll work to rephrase and condense. (PedanticJake) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedanticJake (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-war

The sidebar implies Galloway is part of some anti-war movement. Yet he has recently advocated the murder of Tony Blair and in the past congratulated Saddam Hussein after his murder of the Kurds. I have removed it as the presence of the sidebar in this context is pure POV. MarkThomas 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Both your allegations are utterly false, and indeed libellous, as was made clear in those parts of the article that you are intent on deleting. You are clearly not to be trusted to have any hand at all in the shape of this article. Please stop deleting things from it. GrahamN

Nonsense of course about the libel. I quote from Galloway: "Sir, I salute your courage, your indefatigability". This was to the man who had murdered by gassing many thousands of people and who (with all the family) enjoyed watching the torture and murder of young women. Galloway supports terrorism and is an oil trader and a corrupt individual. User GrahamN is biased and extremely pro-Galloway and POVist and should be disbarred from editing on Wikipedia. Until he is disbarred, others will continue to correct the many POV and biased entries on this page. MarkThomas 19:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On another point, if Galloway is part of anti-war category, why isn't his party, Respect? Obviously few people would stand for such a bizarre misreading of SWP positions on that page, but hope it slips through in Galloway nonsense! MarkThomas 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The anti-war categorisation must be demonstrated to be included; Galloway was never anti-war in the past, indeed prior to this he has always been pro-war if the war is conducted by revolutionary marxists, or by the soviet union; he apparently is only anti-war when the war is conducted by the US or it's allies. Therefore he really is in the category of "people against US wars" and I would be happy to see such a category. But the anti-war label makes him sound laughably like the Dalai Lama. MarkThomas 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way is George Galloway outside of the Anti-War category, he is still against what is certainly one of the most globally significant conflicts of this decade. He is also a well known figure within the Anti-war community. Looking at the category, Rabindranath Tagore I'm sure would not have opposed the Bangladesh Liberation War, based on his support for Indian Nationalists in the face of British Imperialism. Regardless of your opinion of Galloway as regards any other conflict, if you wish to remove references to Galloway as an Anti-War activist then you must also do so for other people within the category including, but not limited to Rabindranath Tagore. I use him as an example, because I know something of it, not as a contrived example. MarkThomas, I assume not the comedian, please desist. -- Tompsci 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Anti-war category is being used for those who have prominently opposed a war, not all wars - indeed, it would be rather shorter if you removed all those who ever supported any war, as even, say, Bertrand Russell accepted that Hitler needed to be removed from power. Galloway is quite clear against the Iraq War, and is vice-President of the Stop The War Coalition - and that fact remains true, whatever his ulterior motives for doing so are. Galloway is also referred to as anti-war in the media - e.g. Washington Times, BBC, and even in those that really don't like him, such as The Sun. Average Earthman 07:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While I belive it is clear that the tag "Anti-war", which is generally used to apply to people/organisation even if they only oppose spesific wars, is approprete for Galloway I beleive that the use of the anti-war topic template on most biog' pages is problematic ([As I brought up earler on this talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeorge_Galloway&diff=40444528&oldid=40442885]), this is because he has claimpaigned on many other issules and for many other poltical goals then opposing the Iraq war.--JK the unwise 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that Galloway is considered "anti-war", even though he has supported violence particularly by insurgent/terrorist groups. On that criteria George Bush or Tony Blair could also be considered "anti-war" as they support some wars and oppose others. Perhaps we need a new category "selective anti-war" or "anti-war/pro-terrorism"?!!

Galloway is not "anti-war" - he is anti-wars he does not agree with, eg, those of the US and Israel. He is pro-wars he does agree with such as those of the Arab insurgents in Iraq and has said so many times. MarkThomas 08:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, and no insult to Galloway. "Anti-imperialist" would be a lot better term. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-imperialist" would be a better term provided that someone thinks Israel's right to exist is "imperialist". Rooting for Israel's mortal enemies is no insult to Galloway provided someone believes that homocide bombing of unsuspecting civilians is an honorable profession. Freedom Fan 05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Were those the same "unsuspecting civilians" who served as cover <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krimpet/CH2_en.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>for Hezbollah rocket batteries deliberately sited adjacent to schools (in one case even _inside_ a kindergarden with the children still in it!!), hospitals, etc? In the topsy-turvey world of Arabists and Israel-haters, anything passes for truth. Read Galloway's speeches for further elucidation. :-) MarkThomas 10:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Further comment

(Comments by Freedom Fan removed as being in contravention of WP:BLP as unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about a living person. Also, some of the comments may also be in breach of WP:OR or WP:NPOV in terms of placing a personal interpretation on the meaning of direct quotations. Please see below for further comments). Road Wizard 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been asked to look at your comments by the previous editor who removed them. Unfortunately, while you may believe that what you have said is true, and there is a possibility that it may be true, there is no evidence that you have supplied to say it is true. As such your previous comments are in breach of several Wikipedia policies. These are primarily, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, as you have placed your own interpretations on comments made by George Galloway, you may have also breached Wikipedia:No original research. If you wish to restore your comments, as you have stated above, you will need to modify them significantly to meet each of the policies listed above. Any such comments you do leave will need to be supported directly by reliable sources. If you continue to restore "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" about George Galloway, then that material will again be removed and a formal warning placed on your talk page. Please take this opportunity to take a step back and rephrase your comments so that they no longer breach our policies. Thank you. Road Wizard 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Road Wizard. Allow me to apologize for stating my opinion about this topic. However, I believe certain facts are important to intelligently determine whether George Galloway can accurately be described as “anti-war”. Further let me humbly submit that there is a distinct difference in intent between someone who urges both sides to stop fighting and reach compromise, and someone who urges a particular side to fight harder and win.

Even thought this is the Wikipedia comment area, which is full of little else but opinion, I will strive to state only facts, not opinions about a “living person” who is a “public figure” -- a member of British Parliament who has met with heads of state, appeared on television and countless other public venues over a period of many years.

It is a fact that Galloway stated the following because we have a video of him saying it on Arab television:

"Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad," Galloway said on Syrian television. "The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it."

On the same day, he appeared on Qatar-based news network al-Jazeera: "This started out as a wish to terrorize the world with American power, or as Sharon would say: Terrrrrrorize," said Galloway.

"But in fact it ended demonstrating the exact opposite. They can control the skies, but only if they don't come within range of an RPG, but they can't control one single street in any part of occupied Iraq. Not one street. Not one street anywhere. These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable by the people who occupy it."

"America is losing the war in Iraq, and even the Americans now admit it. Even the puppet ministers and regime in Baghdad know it. The former puppet minister (Iyad) Allawi admitted it three times in the last month... The resistance is getting stronger every day, and the will to remain as an occupier by Britain and America is getting weaker everyday. Therefore, it can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs, and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony."

He described British prime minister Tony Blair and American president George Bush as "terrorists," saying, "It's not the Muslims who are the terrorists. The biggest terrorists are Bush, and Blair, and Berlusconi, and Aznar, but it is definitely not a clash of civilizations. George Bush doesn't have any civilization, he doesn't represent any civilization."

"We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them. That's his god. That's his god. George Bush worships money. That's his god - Mammon."

-Video courtesy of MEMRI TV, July 31, 2005

Let us presume for the moment, that everyone discussing this topic is behaving honorably, that we are all interested in establishing the truth and not necessarily in assisting a public figure – a famous politician -- to appear as favorably as possible. If my pertinent, unbiased, verifiable comments are deleted once again with the assistance of a moderator, I will conclude that this is not the situation at Wikipedia. Thank you.

Freedom Fan 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, we can read or listen the above and make up our own minds. But given that Mr. Galloway has not been convicted of treason, I am pleased that this time you have decided to stick to quoting him. Viewfinder 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I urge everyone to make up his own mind about George Galloway. Here' more information that might help:

On 2 September 2006 a video appeared on various pro-al Qaeda websites featuring the American al Qaeda member Adam Gadahn called "Invitation to Islam" which also featured Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the video, Gadahn praises George Galloway for expressing his "respect and admiration for Islam" and for "acknowledging that it is the truth" and for "demonstrating [his] sympathy for Muslims their causes". Gadahn urges American soldiers to "surrender to the truth" and "escape from the unbelieving Army" and "join the winning side".Video: Al Qaeda tells U.S. to convert or dieFreedom Fan 07:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Video footage has emerged showing George Galloway shaking hands with Saddam Hussein's son Uday Hussein. In the video, Galloway is seen to greet Uday, shaking his hand twice and calling him "Excellency." He jokes about losing weight, going bald and failing to give up smoking cigars. Galloway also orders watching journalists not to publish parts of their conversation. Finally, according to the paper, he taunts the U.S. and vows to stick with Uday "until the end". The video was shot for an Iraqi TV station and was smuggled out of Iraq before the regime fell (ie. "the end" for Uday.) Video Shows British MP Met With Hussein's Son Freedom Fan 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[British multiple airline bombing] terror suspect Waheed Zaman met George Galloway many times, according to Zaman's sister. Safeena, 24, said of her 23-year-old brother: "He saw it as his duty to stand up for his community and that’s what led him to know George Galloway. He has a lot of respect for him and has met him many times." Suspect met Galloway Freedom Fan 08:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the video in which al-qaeda talks about its respect and admiration for George.Hypnosadist 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mark Thomas"

Why do persistantly defy NPOV, claiming "everybody knows that"? "Heaped praise upon" is not neutrally worded, yet you consistantly go against the reasoned opinions of editors both pro- and anti-GG. -- Tompsci 19:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"MarkThomas' is a persistent complainer about 'repetition' and the length of the article, and yet he is more than willing to pad it out with repetition when it suits his blantant anti-Galloway agenda, or to delete only those parts that cannot be said to be condemnatory. His claims to be trying to achieve NPOV are spectacularly hypocritical, and his hectoring attitude towards editors attempting factual accuracy and neutrality borders on the obscene. He also tends to misrepresent external sources - so even if he gives citations, I suggest that other editors must check that those sources actually say what he says they do. If he persists in this pathetic crusade, I sggest we may need to seek some form of administrative arbitration. Guy Hatton 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Guy Hatton"'s problem appears to be the usual WP one, eg the difference between telling the truth here and some sort of flattened nuetralised watered down half-reality, which is what the Galloway article comes out as. Take the key point for example of Galloway's love-in with Saddam. "Sir, I salute your courage, your indefatigability". Now half the popn knows he said that and knows he meant him personally. Yet for some bizarre and inexplicably phony half-baked psuudo-NPOV reason, the Editors That Be are not allowing that very central fact to be in the top para. Instead we have an (innacurate) reprint of Galloway's skin-crawling apologia, we are led to believe "he does not stand by the comments" whereas he actually said in interview after interview that he meant to refer to the whole of Iraq and not Saddam individually. This latter is so unlikely, that I think in the cause of some empty headed NPOV you editors are trying not to print that - so end up putting something anodyne and plain wrong - instead of my perfectly accurate edit. We do need to say what he said. It's a fact. It's the most important thing he's done or said in public. Yet here on the great Wikipedia - which I love in fact but often despair of - we can't say it!! Pathetic. MarkThomas 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

'We do need to say what he said'. Precisely. That's what the 'Iraq and Saddam' section does. It states what Galloway said. Perfectly accurately, and in more detail than your version in the introduction, or the one which was substituted in a forlorn and obviously mistaken attempt to placate you. There are no 'editors that be', that's just your paranoid fantasy. There are clearly some people around here that cannot tell the difference between their own opinion and established fact. What YOU think 'half the population knows' carries no weight in the context of an encyclopedia. If you wish to vent your personal political spleen, there are plenty of places for you to do so freely. This is not one of them. Guy Hatton 08:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. :P -- Tompsci 10:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Although user Mark Thomas does rant on a bit, I have some sympathy with his views as I understand them. I find the current article to be rather too long and a bit stilted, it seems to miss the flavour of widespread views on Galloway and somehow to be about justifying him, something he is on the whole only too keen to do himself. I also tend to see subjectivity in some of the neutrality declarations. Is it so clear cut that we should not repeat the Saddam love-in in the intro? This seems a pretty clear statement of George Galloway's views, and I am aware he has tried to distance himself from them, but he also has done that many times after alarming statements. Shades of the Ken Livingstone and Tony Benn pages here, where the supporters seem to get the better of the critics. 84.65.117.98 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Widespread views are not neccessarily "the truth". For a long time slavery was seen as acceptable. Eventually the views of a minority won over as being "true". Wikipedia does not represent popular opinion, it tries to extract as far as possible a balanced account. -- Tompsci

Why are you criticising Mark Thomas for saying the obvious - Galloway will do anything to increase his public exposure, including making love to someone he later reveals he thought was a "bestial dictator"? Congratulations Mark on your edits. I question whether this is worth your time though - you can't reason with people who believe Galloway is an important politician (rather than the latest Oswald Mosely) --Dilaudid (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

At least one British MP had the professionalism to talk to the regime (not to mention the guts and the skill). Good old fashioned politics - people with differences talking to each other, shaking hands, bowing to protocol, using diplomacy. I makes me shudder that people think these age-old practices are now worthy of contempt – and that tub-thumping and war are the only foreign policies our modern age is allowed. Galloway told Saddam he must own up to any WMD’s to avoid war – Saddam told him straight that he simply had none. Shame the Blairites didn’t want to listen, now over a million brown-skinned Iraqis have died. ‘Oswald Mosley’ indeed! Is that what they call projection I wonder?

PS. Before you go over the top praising Mark Thomas by the way, you might want to know he's been banned for backing up his own arguments with the contrived voices of fake ID's. The admins eventually did comprehensive checks on him. Would he have really had to keep cheating like that if ‘everyone’ shared his opinion of Galloway (as he constantly claimed)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I meant Oswald Mosely, famously handsome, populist, friend of the common man and totalitarian regimes, built a support base in East London, fond of his own voice. Sound like anyone we know? --Dilaudid (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Nick Cohen's line- I'm aware of the joke. Any thoughts for those dead Iraqis yet? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't - Cohen's Guardian article is great. Shame Nick doesn't compare Galloway's praise for the USSR and Mosely's praise for Nazism. Any thoughts for the millions purged under Stalin? Dilaudid (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, Galloway the Stalinist again. That sounds awfully like someone else who used to frequent here. I think Stalin was devastating, a gross tyrant. Why wouldn't I? Of course, Galloway would agree - the rise of Stalin was an utter tragedy for Communism, not least for the millions of Russians who suffered under his brutal paranoid rule. Now it's your turn... I wonder if you can write the words.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the war was a mistake, that democracy cannot be imposed, despite my hopes that it could be. Fortunately I don't have to make decisions like that. I feel great empathy for the leaders that do. Dilaudid (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro Again

There's enough damaging quotes already in the intro that it doesn't need to be loaded up with more. The intro was carefully vetted and deliberated on by editors some time ago and has stood for some time. The "courage and indefatigability" quote is not of such signal importance that it must be placed in the intro. This is a quote constantly harped on by Galloway enemies from Coleman to Hitchens. It is their consistent tactic to preface their remarks with that quote, and then to attack. For Wikipedia, the frontloading of it is an exercise in POV. DanielM 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So the upshot of it is that in Wikipedia's view his visit to Celebrity Big Brother is more important to front-load than him praising of Saddam to his face? I have to say that whilst I accept I may be just a little anti-Galloway in orientation, it appears superficially at least here that I am dealing with some very, very pro-Galloway people. "harped on by Galloway enemies from Coleman to Hitchens" eh? I wonder why on earth they would want to harp on about something so very trivial as praising a brutal thuggish dictator before the media? MarkThomas 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because wikipedia editors can draw a distinction between what what happens and what is important. Galloway's statements are not really relevant and are misrepresentative of his motivations. People don't always mean what they say, if they did, then such things would be said in private. Galloway spoke out against the Iraqi regime when we were selling him arms. -- Tompsci

Ha ha ha don't make me larf! "Misrepresentations" of Georgie boy. You really have fallen for his bollocks haven't you. He doesn't need a stalinist state - he's got Wikipedia!! 84.65.117.98 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've read that sentance a few times and I still see no resemblence to an argument. Looks like an IP sockpuppet to me. I'll point you to the "Demonstrations by his constituents" during his time in BB and the post-election Paxman interview, two recent slurs of GG with no factual basis. He's no angel, but a damn sight less slimey than many politicians (Arms Trading etc). -- Tompsci -- 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is an "IP sockpuppet" out of interest? Anyway, Tompsci's comment here seems to confirm my suspicion in a very open fashion that what we have here is basically a collaboration by a group of determined Galloway-admirers struggling to keep the obvious worst aspects of their guy off WP. Note for example that no correction has been made to my edit of the supposedly sacrosanct opening sentences where I removed the Celebrity Big Brother references. This is because that programme shows him in a bad light, so they are only too happy to see it go. MarkThomas 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed/edited any statement which I have viewed as being fair. There are many things in the article that show him in a bad light, but that are fair to include. I have no objection to negative comments about Galloway, so long as they are justifiable. I also have no relation to any other editor of this page. Saying "he's no angel" is not the same as saying he has done anything wrong, quite the opposite, he has done nothing wrong. Infact I could say Tony Blair, Gandhi and Hitler were "not angels". -- Tompsci -- 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any pro-Galloway cabal of Wikipedia editors conspiring to make this a fluff piece. If there were, they wouldn't be doing a very good job because the article is loaded with negative information that would never be included in even an objective piece. The motto of a lot of editors has been "if it casts a negative light on Galloway it stays, no matter how dubious the charge," and "if it is positive it is irrelevant and should not be included." This is a scandal-centric article, even when the scandals are overblown, discredited, or fabricated by a tabloid newspaper. I didn't care much about the Celebrity Big Brother thing one way or other. A big deal was made about him pretending to be a cat (because it made him look bad). We got to read oodles and oodles of sneering text about George in a leotard portraying a cat. He was just playing the game as far as I could tell. But who cares about Big Brother? It was okay for it to get some coverage as it was a current event. Galloway has won many court cases against his accusers and this doesn't get proper coverage in the articles. Exonerations get swept under the carpet. The accusations get to stay indefinitely, until someone tries to pry one out, and then they get accused of whitewashing and told rubbish like "you totally misunderstood the verdict, he was well-known to be guilty, there was just not enough to prove it in a court of law, so the accuser had to pay some small hundreds of thousands of UKP in damages, but that doesn't prove anything, quite the opposite." So it doesn't really mean that much when the latest Galloway-loathing editor comes in full of sound and fury because he or she doesn't get his or her way on the latest warped insertion or deletion. DanielM 21:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no Cabal. There is room on Wikipedia for all shades of opinion provided everyone comes to the discussion with an open mind and a desire to produce better articles. I can remember not so long ago that some editors were insistent on removing any reference to Galloway's trips to Iraq from the lead on the ground that they were insignificant actions - which was a clearly preposterous suggestion. It might as well be argued that Neil Armstrong's biography not mention his trip to the moon in the lead, on the grounds that he was only there for two days.

As far as DanielM's implication (which, I notice, he does not spell out explicitly) that the article is skewed because it includes so many incidents when Galloway has been accused of improper conduct, the facts are that the reason that they are in the article is because they happened. Galloway's career has seen accusations of serious misconduct, and if some have not been proved, then the number that have seen Galloway be "exonerated" (which I would interpret as meaning cleared of all misconduct) is also tiny. Wikipedia articles are required to be balanced as to the facts, but if the facts are strongly on one side of the argument, then that is still balance. We don't go insisting that every piece of evidence in favour of the world being an oblate spheroid is balanced by one in favour of a flat earth. David | Talk 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed exhaustively, and the majority of people who have expressed an opinion believe that it is wrong to present Galloway as an ally or admirer of Saddam Hussain. I do not recall there being any concerted effort to exclude the meeting with Saddam, but the prevailing opinion is that the meeting should not be prominantly included in the introduction. See the archive for the (many) reasons behind this --Fergie 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but the majority of people concluded no such thing. Galloway is a stalinist thug himself who naturally admires other stalinist thugs like Saddam. Be nice to know how he can love with himself after having tea and cakes with Uday, who presumably left right after the meeting to go and indulge himself in his personal torture chamber. (where he tortured young women to death, in case people want to know the details). Galloway is a shit. MarkThomas 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not verifiable fact. Please do not re-insert it into the main article. Viewfinder 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is it not "verifiable fact". Do you not believe the video evidence I have included in the notes, perhaps you think Galloway's love-in with murderous Uday was a fake? MarkThomas 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That Galloway is a Stalinist thug and a shit is POV. It should also be noted that the verifiability of extreme claims about the Hussein family such as the above is, at best, dependent on witnesses whose reliability is suspect. If Galloway's supporters, for example, started filling Wikipedia with gory material about the goings on in Guantanamo and using it to justify adding the likes of the above to George W. Bush, Wikipedia will become a medium for nasty edit wars. Most of Wikipedia's editors are in agreement that it should not be used for POV pushing. Let's keep it that way. Viewfinder 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It would indeed be wrong to present Galloway as an ally of Saddam Hussein in the sense of being fully allied to him. However it would equally be wrong to imply that Galloway's opinions on Saddam Hussein are typical of mainstream British political culture. There is only one member of Parliament who has made multiple trips to Iraqi government members and publicly praised Saddam Hussein and that is George Galloway. Likewise there were few people (let alone politicians) willing to go into business concerning Baathist Iraq. I do not accept your interpretation of the "prevailing opinion": in my view the consensus is that the fact of Galloway's visits to Saddam Hussein should be mentioned in the lead because of their importance in the way others perceive him. There most certainly was a concerted effort to undertake a whitewash and get mention of these visits out of the lead. David | Talk 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You can find other details on UK-Iraqi trade in Hansard - e.g. Conservative Minister Anthony Nelson's statement on the 15 Jan 1996 : Column: 353 - "The total of claims paid under ECGD (Export Credits Guarantee Department) guarantees in relation to trade with Iraq was £683 million as at 31 December 1995". This shows not only trade, but government backed trade. You may wish to clarify your statement - Iraq was definitely Baathist in 1995. Average Earthman 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Less - than - flattering photographs DO NOT constitute vandalism.

I would like to say that adding photographs of Galloway which do not show him as the squeaky clean politician that he isn't DOES NOT consititute vandalism. These photographs were taken, they are factual, and therefore should hold possition in this article. You may delete them as many times as you wish.... I will be waiting!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamezcd (talk • contribs) 3 June 2006.

One photo, fair enough. 3, I think not.--JK the unwise 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a great number of photographs of, say, George W Bush which show him pulling distinctly odd expressions, most of which are quite genuine. The article on Bush doesn't include any of them. This is because it's an encyclopedia, not a collection of photos you may wish to use to attack people you don't like. Average Earthman 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Galloway agreed to to take part in the TV show. The images were taken. This is an encyclopedia. People should be allowed to see what Galloway did on the TV show. I will continue to revert the edits if the images are deleted. Deleting them is vandalism.

If you are going to add unflattering pictures of GG, do so in the relevant sections. Also this is not Hello! magazine, so one picture is sufficient. Currently there are just two sentances about BB, so having more than one image from the show would be overkill. I suggest you go make your own website and display your excellent selection of photographs there, I'm sure it'd be hilarious. -- Tompsci 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The header photographs should be neutral, not used for sneaky POV promotion. Viewfinder 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uday Hussein

An "alleged" rapist and murderer?

You people have got to be kidding me!?

71.125.240.212 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For purposes of neutrality and factuality it is WP policy not to include allegations as absolute fact unless there is proof and/or a conviction for the alleged behaviour.GiollaUidir 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

References/links

There doesn't seem to be a consistent approch to giving sources for information. Some statements have a the link box [This is a link] after them and others have the reference box. Is there any reason for this or is a tidy up in order??GiollaUidir 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

About seven or eight months ago someone ran some sort of script on the Galloway article that converted the standard Wikipedia references to footnote-style references. The problem is that no-one adds new references in the footnote style so after time has passed you get a mixed mess. In my opinion the footnote style should not be used at all. It takes up even more screen geography and doesn't have any real superiorities that I can see. A tidy up is certainly in order (several links are dead too, no doubt) but there's some drudgery involved there. DanielM 21:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the footnote style as it allows you to get a brief idea of the context of the source and how valid it's likely to be. Got a few hours before I start work, may as well make a start on getting it consistent! GiollaUidir 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blegh, I've made all the references and links a consistent appearance. Might try making them all the same long wiki markup thing but I have neither the knowledge of what to put in nor a lack of better things to do with my time. Surely a script-thing/bot could do it? GiollaUidir 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks and works a lot better. Thanks for the hard work that benefited the article. DanielM 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting Record and Prevention of Terrorism Bill

I'm in favor of due critical description of GG where his voting participation has fallen short. On the section in the article that talks about his missing a vote on a stage of the rights-abridging Prevention of Terrorism bill, it appears to state that his vote would NOT have defeated the gov't after all. However the Guardian article [1] says that the gov't won by one vote. Surely a tie vote defeats the bill? Can someone advise whether Galloway's vote would have defeated the bill, and further perhaps perspectivize the importance of the vote in question given that it appears to have been a stage as opposed to a comprehensive anti-terror bill? DanielM 13:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The vote was division no. 74, November 2: [2]. It was on an amendment to the Bill, not the Bill itself (the amendment would have required the prosecution to prove that a statement was intended to incite terrorism, rather than that it might have that effect, in order to secure a conviction). The original result announced was Ayes 299, Noes 300. Had Galloway attended he would have voted Aye and the result would have been declared a tie at 300, but the Speaker would have given his casting vote to the Noes in line with precedent that a tie on an amendment is broken in the direction of the Bill as originally introduced. (It subsequently turned out that the tellers had counted one extra MP as voting Aye and the result was actually 298 to 300, but that is not particularly relevant)

The point for the mention is not that Galloway's absence actually deprived the opposition of the chance to defeat the government, but that following the vote, many people said that it did. Given the high profile which Galloway gave to this aspect of politics, it was not surprising that his absence was particularly noteworthy. David | Talk 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the importance is that getting paid for a speaking engagment was more important to him than attending a vote (but he had cashed that tax payers cheque, so no need to do the work!) about an issue he claims was politically important.Hypnosadist 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anomalously and mother's extraction

I clipped the text in personal life section that said it was anomalous that he attended the Harris Academy. The implication I suppose was that because his mother was Catholic he would therefore be going to a Catholic school. I also clipped the text about his mother being Irish-Catholic because if we are going to get into that then we should also say what ethnicity/religion his father was. DanielM 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

Not so POV any more, there, i fixed it for you. Project2501a 17:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any reason for the repeated insertion of superfluous youtube links other than to increase the number of hits for their authors? If this is the reason, then this is an improper use of Wikipedia. Please stop. A single direct link to the Sky interview is sufficient. Viewfinder 04:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (reinstated comments that were deleted).

The link to the August 6th Sky interview should not be removed from the Israel-Hezbollah section, because the interview is all about this subject. Whether the link should appear again, in another section, is debatable. The external links sections seem to be a mess; imo someone needs to talk time to clean them up. Viewfinder 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up some of the links mess, I will try to find time to clean up the rest later. I have also put the August 6th interview back in the Articles and news reports" section. If this section is to be retained as a summary of key news reports and interviews, it must necessarily have some link duplication with the Notes section. Despite my "single link" comment above, I cannot see how this can be avoided. Any comments? Viewfinder 13:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO some incidental redundancy that occurs naturally during the evolution of the article is acceptable, though we don't want a lot of it. DanielM

Reverted the removal of the Israel reference; it's an important part of both Galloway and Respect agendas that Israel be condemned at all opportunities and attacks on Israel be ignored; Islamist alliance means pro-extremist Muslim agenda be followed at all times. Removing this is POV ignoring the facts. MarkThomas 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again; no explanation of the removal of this interesting passage given by the new user who edited out other than a call to arms in the comments line, presumably to fellow SWP delegates. :-) MarkThomas 18:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find factual and less POV form of wording that will be acceptable to both sides. If either party disagrees then they should continue the debate here rather than break WP:3RR.

Thanks but what you have written is still not backed up with any evidence so should be deleted. I happen to think this is a slur and an untruth. I think the sentence inserted by MarkThomas - who has a history of POV-pushing on the George Galloway page(see his talk page, and his own extreme statements above here!) should be deleted, rather than very slightly watered down. Is this how wikipedia works???? --SandyDancer 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, negative material needs to be cited, see WP:BLP, and this paragraph should not have been added without citation. But he is certainly a critic of Israel, and there does seem to me to be citable evidence that he puts forward reasons for, rather than condemns outright, attacks on civilians and that too could be construed as negative. I think it is now up to Mark Thomas to find an appropriate citation; otherwise the paragraph should be deleted. Over to you, Mark. Viewfinder 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There having been no response or citation given by Mark Thomas, I will remove the controversial part of the above mentioned paragraph, although his opposition to Israel should remain. Meanwhile Mark Thomas has added a "personality disorders" category, also without citation, which I have also removed. By the way I have never had anything to do with the SWP. I am merely trying to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to - which means that uncited negative material should be removed. Viewfinder 02:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the personality disorders category had already been removed. Viewfinder 02:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does pro-Galloway material not need citation but anti-Galloway material need it? Anyway, we've all been here before. Just to correct any misunderstanding on your part Viewfinder, I was certainly not alleging that you are SWP; just that anyone who has been around this page for some time cannot help but notice that there is a fierce little cabal of unswervingly pro-Galloway editors who defend him regardless of facts and systematically attempt to remove all the many unpleasant, embarassing and stupid things Galloway says. It's very difficult not to believe that these folks are part of Respect/SWP/STW/Al Quaeda or whoever Galloway has managed to con / is aligned with this week to stay in office and keep his salary flowing. Or they could all just be random WP people who've carefully read all the notes and concluded objectively that GG is marvellous and how dare anyone say not!! The cite thing is just a smokescreen - there are already hundreds of wrong flattering statements on the page that are uncited. Perhaps someone should just start again with this whole page. MarkThomas 08:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read my talk page response and the sections in WP:BLP which deal with negative material. By all means add it, but you must cite it properly. Also if you would like to list the wrong falettering statements then I will read them and consider deleting them, but the citation requirement is less rigid for flattering material. Wikipedia cannot afford to be sequestrated for libel. Viewfinder 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of "Al Qaeda Praises Him" Section?

Firstly, this is another one of the cases where a video is supposed to provide the reference, so you can't scan some text to find out if the reference actually supports the claim, you have to sit back and watch a video (assuming you can play it) and wait until it gets around to supporting the text, if it does. Is sourcing by this means really "reliable source?"

Secondly, the video is hosted by Hotair.com which is evidently some conservative video-focused blog (describes itself as "conservative Internet broadcast network") and I don't know that this qualifies as a reliable source.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the fact that some Al Qaeda person says something nice about the man, that Galloway is a peacemaker and is sympathetic to Muslims or whatever, is not something that should be held against Galloway, and that I find is what is happening here. This article should talk about the things he does and who he is, not try to tar him because some Al Qaeda person says "gee, I kind of like him." He has no control over what Al Qaeda says. Is it suppose to reflect positively on some warmongering politician that Al Qaeda doesn't really like him or her? I don't agree with the logic at all and I don't think its appropriate for an encyclopedia entry and I think this section should go. DanielM 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that unsolicited praise or other overtures from questionable organisations or individuals should not be allowed to be presented negatively like this. Guy Hatton 06:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fisrtly video links/refferences are acceptable especially if its a video of the quote completely unedited. Secondly that this is collected by people who differ in their views from Geogre's, since this is a video that does not matter because there is no editing just reportage, of course if you know any of the sort of sites that would show this video i would love that to be the link. Negative info is part of wikipedia biographies, and Galloways out spoken views on the war on terror make this very notable. Also this is not some "Al Qaeda guy" he is the head of propaganda for Al Qaeda, everything he says on the WOT is notable and done for a reason. That Galloway gets Offical moral support from an organisation the government and country he is part of is at war with is notable.Hypnosadist 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The section is not encyclopediac:

• It contains no new information about Galloway, but at most quotes by third parties about him. Wikipedia can not contain every quote by every person about every other person.
• The section is clearly intended to disparage, contrary to wikipolicy. It has been deleted.

rewinn 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dundee

Does this politician really have history as leader of Dundee City Council, as is claimed in "Dundee"? Laurel Bush 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

Anti-war activist categorisation

I have some seniority on this page as the only user with my own special criticism section. There will probably be a fatwah on me from Respect/Yaqoob/Islamofaschist HQ before long! Anyway, down to business. Galloway is not "anti-war". He is against wars he doesn't like, eg, those of the US. He is in favour of lots of others, eg, those of the Muslims he is currently gulling into believing his pap so he can stay as an MP for a bit longer. Next year it will be something else. Is there a category for utter sleaze-balls? MarkThomas 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding about the personality thing. It's really some kind of monomaniacal narcissm, but there doesn't seem to be a category for that. MarkThomas 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I salute your courage, your indefatigability

This is the single best known thing Galloway has ever said and he clearly was full of praise for mass-murderer and genocidalist Saddam Hussein. Why do user Guy Hatton and others persistently remove it from the introduction? I leave readers of WP to judge! MarkThomas 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because Galloway says it never happened? The last occasion he disputed the reporting of the quote was in a brodcast interview [3] on BBC Hardtalk. Galloway states over and over in the interview that he has been misquoted and that he was in fact saluting the Iraqi people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.254 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Updated the article and removed the moralizing tone making sure that Galloways dispute of the speech given is clear instead of ambiguous. Another editor might also please explain why citing a wikiquote of Galloway which itself is uncited is considered good practice in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.254 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Guy Hatton

Any casual editor dropping by, perhaps not knowing much of Galloway and wondering who is most POV, me or Guy Hatton, should check out Guy's talk page where he can be seen plotting openly on how to dress up socialist campaigns as NPOV, how to counter-attack attempts to thwart it, etc. Thanks Guy! (Guy hastily rushes to his page to edit out the giveaways before too many eyes see them). MarkThomas 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See your own talk page and learn something. And no, I'm not editing anything out of my talk page, as what you have written above is gross misrepresentation. Guy Hatton 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have to go further than that, and label the above accusations as fiction. What I see are admonitions to other editors to abide by WP:V. Hence I think the evidence (for anybody who cares to look) supports me in this matter, and it will be staying right where it is. Were I to remove it, MarkThomas's distortions would be more difficult to refute. Why on earth would I do that to myself? I may occasionally have made my own political position apparent, as has Mark Thomas (he more vehemently than I, it would appear). However, I feel completely justified in asserting that I have NEVER attempted to undermine WP policy, nor have I ever aided or encouraged other users to do so. The accusations levelled at me by this user are, I believe, entirely bogus and should be withdrawn. They are most certainly in violation of WP:CIV, and possibly also WP:NPA.

With that, I am terminating all further engagement with this user. I shall also refrain from editing the Galloway article, as I'm sure it will soon become apparent that, contrary to Mark Thomas's apparent conviction, the article does not rely on my efforts to weed out bad editing. There are many other editors who are doubtless as capable or more capable than me in that respect. Guy Hatton 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With that, I am hereby terminating all further attempts to portray the many obvious negatives about Galloway to the public. He is without doubt a shining example to the world and it can only be a matter of hours before the military coup that will one day (quite rightly) place him in office is carried out and the likes of me who dare to speak against Him are taken away and shot. I can only plead with other more enlightened Gallowayistas to step forwards and speak for England, oh fie, the very planet, speak, speak of the great love we all have both for this man and his supporters. Save me from my sinful editing! Thank you for your termination Guy, and praise be that I too can compose a little hand wringing missive! MarkThomas 10:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy Hatton is a valued contributer and I for one think he is a good editor. Mark Thomas, you should refrain from personal attacks and I hope others will not falsely accuse him of such bogus accusations. -- Tompsci 09:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tompsci, all I see though is a long history of mods to the Galloway page from Guy Hatton that always try to just ever so slightly push all the obvious drivel from Galloway into the background and just nudgingly bring to the fore any of the (very few) plus points Galloway presents to the world. However, I do accept that you, as a major contributor to articles on programming code, are well placed to discern a trot plot when you see one. :-) MarkThomas 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realise that I needed to accumulate a whole bunch of edits to London and Led Zeppelin to qualify myself to give my opinion. Computer Science requires people to think logically, therefore I think that places me one ahead of your ranting and toy throwing. -- Tompsci 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Sandy Dancer"

Seems to be one of a number of new users with no talk and no contribution history who have recently sprung up to revert commented and justified edits on this page only, always with the argument that such edits are not justified, even though they are. To my mind this is exactly the same as an IP sockpuppet. All such edits should be auto-reverted and don't need further explanation or justification, as this has already been given above. Please help by auto-reverting. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest tack is to accuse me as usual of not discussing and also not being sensible. Perhaps "Sandy Dancer" (or is it really "Guy Hatton") could actually debate the issue here rather than pointless commentaries, which will get reverted? The best known thing about Galloway is that he met Saddam and praised him. His cover version that he was praising Iraq is utter rubbish and only a baby could believe it. The fact that you want Wikipedia to remove that from the front of the article speaks volumes for your POV. If there are any other editors out there with an interest in the facts, I appeal to you to help. This page has effectively been rendered down into neutralised fact-avoiding rubbish by Gallowayistas. MarkThomas 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I am hardly a Gallowayista - I've never voted for a socialist party in my life and don't intend to. I have no particular liking for Galloway and I think many of the criticisms of him are valid - I think this article explores them and sets them out, but you just want to add imbalance. If you look at my edit history you will see I have made edits to many articles - I'm no-one's sock puppet. In fact I have been editing wikipedia on-off for a long time, and only now have registered. You seem to want to put me off continuing to edit - you won't succeed. Your descent into personal attacks and rants about "SWP cabals" and "Gallowayistas" make you look silly in my opinion. --SandyDancer 09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And by the way - MarkThomas (or "MarkThomas", as I would type, if I wanted to make every word I typed drip with resentment like him) said:

"Perhaps "Sandy Dancer" (or is it really "Guy Hatton") could actually debate the issue here rather than pointless commentaries, which will get reverted? The best known thing about Galloway is that he met Saddam and praised him. His cover version that he was praising Iraq is utter rubbish and only a baby could believe it."

Two things, pal:

1. This isn't a forum for political debate, its an encyclopedia.

2. To thing about Galloway allegedly praising Saddam is NOT the best known thing about him. And whatever you think of his explanation, or "cover story" (there I go with the speech marks, idiocy is clearly catching), is irrelevant. It isn't like the whole thing is whitewashed from the article - it isn't. It is dealt with at length. Please go away and try and ruin a page no-one cares about like Slough or Romford. --SandyDancer 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

POV in front loading

I am new to this, but there seems to be a lot of bias here. Why is it bad to frontload negative info, but not to display it when everyone knows it to be true, doesn't that make Wikipedia look foolish? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but DanielM seems to be a radical socialist at least judging from his many edits, and isn't this just a case of one particular political faction (ie, the one supporting George Galloway) pushing their political viewpoint at the expense of the other? Sarah Williams 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's standard practice to place subjective critisms in their own sections, for example in the Scientology article, however anything else which is said must be a verifiable fact and given due precendence. In this case the argument's been made and lost many times, you may want to view previous discussions and state a fresh case for why you think the decision made was the wrong one. However, "everyone knows it to be true" is not a sufficient argument and never will be. -- Tompsci 23:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised to hear my "many edits" make me out to be a "radical socialist." Looking back at them there aren't that many compared to some editors and one of the more recent ones was to add a buyout section to an article about a major corporation, which doesn't seem like the most socialist thing to do. It's cool that Sarah Williams is new to this, she's catching on quickly it seems, a quick 16 minute revert was her third edit, the first two appear to be setting up a java script tool. She'll find sympathetic co-editors here, in fact MarkThomas talks a lot like her.

The efforts to frontload excessive 'Galloway chummy with Saddam' information and the section itself that 'Al Qaeda praises him' I find to be POV. It doesn't matter if every Galloway hater has yelled it at the top of his lungs so often that it is indeed what many people think of about Galloway. That doesn't make it informative or encyclopedic or non-POV. I agree with the editor at the Robert Fisk article that it's a guilt-by-association argument, the fact that, say, convicted mass-murderer Charles Manson was a Beatles fan doesn't mean it's wrong to listen to the Beatles. I think there is sufficient reference up-front to the Iraq visits by identifying them and saying they were "visits to Saddam." We don't need to also say upfront "in which he publicly appeared with Saddam" or "in which he praised Saddam, saluting his indefatigability." We can cover that in the article body and people interested in it can read it there. If you listen to the public comments of Galloway's most virulent critics you will see that they lean heaviliy on 'he praised Saddam.' That's what this article resembles when you do it like that, the attack of a Galloway critic. DanielM 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oona King incident

I cannot agree with the deletion of the quote about this by SandyDancer. As far as I can tell, this was a properly cited quote, and the citation date is April 2005, which means that it took place during the election campaign, not before it. Therefore I think that the quote shold be restored, but I will allow time for other users to comment first. Viewfinder 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this but I don't think so - isn't the bit I deleted a reference to the Paxman interview, after the results had been announced? If I am wrong it should perhaps go back in. --SandyDancer 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote that you deleted is cited here: [4]. The link is dated 11th April 2005, before the May election and during the campaign. I really think that it is accurate and cited and therefore does not breach WP:BLP, and should go back. Viewfinder 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. Sorry --SandyDancer 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A case in point Viewfinder - Sandy knew perfectly well this was the case, it was not a case of "oops" but "oops" we have a sharp-eyed independent minded editor around here who has noticed an obvious attack. Check out the endless character assasination and vandalistic POVery at the Oona King page for further elucidation. I personally don't believe "SandyDancer" is anything more than a sockpuppet anyway. MarkThomas 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to brag, I think that my approach was a bit more successful than making personal attacks. Try it yourself next time. Viewfinder 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraq salutation and Saddam

It seems that we cannot agree about how much of this, if any, should be in the lead passage. I see no particular reason why any of it should be there although the issue for me is not completely clear cut. But there seems to be a majority of contributors against it and I also note its primary supporter's tendency to breach Wikipedia rules, notably WP:NPA. I am deleting the contested text for now but I would like to see an NPA and NPOV discussion about this issue. I think that agreement about this can be reached. Viewfinder 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from a few minor insertions, there are only ever about five editors working on this page, and most of those seem to me to take a very biased approach as I've said before. Your repeated assertion that I break WP rules is therefore also true of them - maybe not you Viewfinder, but others. In fact, the rules were broken many times when I first inserted the original text describing Galloway's praise of Saddam further down the page - numerous arbitrary reverts. Eventually that stuck. Later I edited and edited the top section a few months ago and that is now much much less POV than it used to be, but only after a battle. The majority hardly matters if the only one available is hopelessly biased - but eventually the truth will out on WP. And the truth is that this is a central point both about Galloway and understanding Respect. He has no respect for human life, chummying up with mass murderers and torturers - and I think that should be clear. Most right-thinking editors would agree, but sadly many of them have given up even bothering with pages like this when the hard left auto-revert all the time and run attacks against those trying with psuedo-WP rule book accusations and endless accusations of POVery when in reality the POV is solely with them. MarkThomas 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make controversial edits, discuss them on the talk page first. Then, if there is no opposition, post them and you should be in a stronger position to defend them (well, I thought so but sadly my United Kingdom experience suggests otherwise). Making unilateral edits followed by personal attacks on those who revert you is not the right way to proceed. I do not think most editors are POV pushers. The majority will usually respond to a reasonable case. They are not all hard left, you know.

There are many legitimate points of view other than yours. And however much you do not like the man, Galloway is a democratically elected MP. Language like "chummying up with murderers" is unhelpful, and note also that no charges of mass murder have stuck to Saddam Hussain. What about the American bomb that took out 500 Iraqis, including women and children, during the 1991 war, was that not mass murder? Some would say so. What about Dresden and Hiroshima? Allied bombs talk the same language as suicide bombs.

To get back to the point, how about putting some thought into wording that may be acceptable to your critics, instead of calling them hard left just because they do not agree with you. Viewfinder 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting to the point here and your viewpoint Viewfinder is out in the open. I think it's sad Saddam wasn't sent to the European criminal court, then we could have had a fair finding of fact on his criminality. I don't think many experts or ordinary people would defend your viewpoint that Saddam is probably innocent. I think the Kurds he gassed and the women and children he supervised the murder of might be inclined to disagree as well. But in the end it's the survey after survey of Iraqis that find that they wouldn't want him back, despite the best efforts of Respect and their Islamic extremist allies that really says it all. Good luck with the campaign. MarkThomas 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with what campaign? Your latest edit to the main article may satisfy your critics or it may not. Galloway would deny that he was supporting Saddam but I tend to agree that the facts seem to suggest otherwise. But I am sorry that, yet again, you edited the main article unilaterally. Why not suggest the edit here, then allow time for your critics to respond? Then we avoid revert wars. Viewfinder 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's getting pretty bad here at this article. One of Jimbo Wales' early concerns about Wikipedia was that it not become a Usenet-style battleground for flame warriors. This is what he worried about. The most negative POV things are added, references are misrepresented and distorted, corrections are met with sarcasm, bile, and insults 'you must be a radical socialist, you Gallowayista.' The article has malign warping already, we should not accept more of it or milder versions of warped changes to accomodate an editor who has one heck of a chip on his shoulder. I also call your attention to the recent policy change that "Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." This applies to much of the recent hostile edits. Galloway did not go to Iraq to "support Saddam Hussein," he went to campaign against sanctions in 1994 and to try to avert war in 2002. The effort to portray it in simplistic "support Saddam Hussein" terms is POV spin at best, false in my estimation, and libelous at worst. DanielM 09:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of the above but properly cited negative material is not necessarily unacceptable; in particular, provided it is significant, relevant and NPOV presented, what he said should be included even if some of his supporters would rather it were not. I really do not know if the King response and the word "support" are appropriate, but I do not think they should not have been added without the appropriate talk page discussion taking place first. Please Mark and Sarah, if you want to put them back in, make your case for them here first, so if necessary we can continue the argument here, and not have revert wars in the main article. Viewfinder 10:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is DanielM that your view of his visits as above is pure POV as well (if mine is). Most of the British press who know him well for example would laugh at your description of his motives. Galloway is well known as a jew-hating Arabist and self-serving individual and above all as a US-hater and it just happily met his various bizarre criteria for judgement to go and have a love-in with Saddam; currying favour from his Palestinian supporters; trying to get himself a new job as Middle East Plenipotentiary for all those who loathe America, etc, etc. His ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel and he will stop at nothing to achieve that and will link up with anyone who shares that aim, as he himself has said many times. I've heard him say in interviews that he couldn't bear being in Saddam's presence yet he found it politic to praise him to the roof on TV. All your supposed Wikipedia-protection worries are just rubbish. There is no libel risk; about 1000 TV channels showed his statements which are endlessly repeated in the newspapers. Galloway himself does not deny the statements, only saying as we all know that he meant them to apply to the Iraqi people as a whole, a laughable and pathetic attempt at revision once he realised how much he'd stirred up. The problem on this page is not my alleged POV but the pro-Galloway POV you and the others show. I've changed this page for the better and the big difference between me and you is I take the trouble and time to improve WP in many areas, not just a focused little deluded Respect agenda. MarkThomas 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas, are you a wind-up merchant? Its just that I can't imagine anyone could have such a lack of self-awareness. Stop trying to wreck this article. --SandyDancer 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no disagreement about the Iraq and Saddam section. Could I therefore suggest that a link is created between relevant clause in the lead section and the Iraq and Saddam section? Any comments? Viewfinder 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"MattLewis"

appears to be another sockpuppet created solely to edit this page. How many more will there be!? And the guff in "his" comment line about "millions" of editors - well, it's about 5 including me. Welcome to the real world of British Wikipedialand "Matt" - whoever you really are! MarkThomas 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please Mark, not another unsubstantiated personal attack. Why not make the case for your edits here instead, then wait until there has been some sensible and factual discussion? Viewfinder 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Below is the reason I gave for removing Marks alteration of 'Galloway is perhaps best known for his visits to (and personal praise of) Saddam Hussein in 1994 and 2002.'

(The first sentence refers to the earlier line that Mark replaced (on GG's view of sanctions.))

A line starting with 'perhaps' is always weak. GG denies the praise was personal. That it definitely WAS is Mark Thomas's & others POV but NOT the POV of millions of others - do they count, Mark?

As anyone will surely see, you haven't read it properly. I used every character allowed, by the way. In 'millions of others' I am obviously referring to the real world - the one beyond our computers! Some people out there actually use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia - none will be using it to seek your opinion. I have posted communications to you on the need for Wikipedia to be tackled properly - I doubt you have properly read them either. So you have a POV –that is great and I mean it! We all need a push from somewhere. But it needs skill to sneak your POV in in BALANCED way - unfortunately you have yet to show any skill.

I have to go out right now to do some adult things (a funeral amongst other things - I am VERY upset with you right now and taking your abuse perhaps over personally, but I cannot believe you still think I am another editor here - you are being deliberately abusive to me personally I am sure of it). I wish I could show you the adult word, Mark. You must how respect to people who you just do not know. I'll find out how to report your attempt to take unacceptable control of this article when I get back tonight. Perhaps my complaint will be filed under your ID - I don't know what they do. Believe me though, I'd rather not have the hassle. I have written well-balanced things I wish to include here (as Ihave said to you before), but only have so much time- I do not want to see my efforts blindly reverted. I can see why people back of from Wikipedia (esp as potential contributors), but I've seen how many people use it too (that is, as an encyclopedia, Mark) --Matt Lewis 18:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, what edits have you made previously to any other page? From your contributions page it appears your sole purpose in life is to positively edit the GG page. Why is this view incorrect? MarkThomas 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Around this time last year I was involved in a minor squabble over whether to include the visits to Saddam Hussein in the lead at all (let alone the "strength, courage, and indefatigability" speech), because some editors wanted them removed – so I've been watching the disputes on this page with an amused detachment. However, it's clearly becoming a slow-burning revert war. Might I suggest that an approach for mediation might be appropriate? David | Talk 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but on the other hand, we may be able to come to an agreement ourselves if only Mark Thomas would stop making personal attacks on, it would seem, everyone who disagrees with him. Viewfinder 18:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just telling it like it is - the allegations of "personal attacks" are classic SWP/far left techniques. What we really need is not so much mediation but some non-UK and non-SWP/Respect/STW editors taking an interest. MarkThomas 18:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am amused by the way MarkThomas keeps trying to allege people - including me - are "SWP/Respect/STW" - I don't even know what "STW" stands for! Yes, he is making this very tiresome indeed and doesn't seem to appreciate that his outpourings of bile everytime someone disagrees with him make it LESS not more likely his edits will remain in the article.

Now I have been thinking about this, and have decided to let MarkThomas's view prevail (that the whole "Galloway praised Saddam" bit should be referenced in the introduction). I am in fact of the view that this is adequately dealt with in the article as it stands, and should not be in the intro. But I don't want to edit war with MarkThomas. So what I have done is removed the foolish "lavished praise" wording, and referenced the ambiguity in Galloway's words which have allowed him to maintain he DIDN'T in fact mean to praise Saddam (although I think most people think he did, Galloway maintains he didn't). After all, the BBC article MarkThomas links presents the claim as an accusation and not as settled fact. What do people think? --SandyDancer 13:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, although a child of 10 (but not apparently members of Respect and Stop the War (STW)!) could see through Galloway's specious and self-serving "clarifications" worthy of the New Labour spinners he professes to loathe. MarkThomas 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinion - there are two conflicting views on this and presenting one as fact is presenting one point of view and therefore isn't what we want to do, particularly in an intro piece which should not aim to slant the whole article. --SandyDancer 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If Mark Thomas could only discuss his edits on this page first, without making personal attacks or mostly irrelevant tirades against Mr Galloway, and allow time for ongoing discussion before making his controversial edits, then he might get some of his edits to stick. Viewfinder 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mentioning the visits in the opening is not a problem. Its notable enough to warrant its inclusion there. However, giving one POV on the matter and not the other violates WP:NPOV, and it not needed, as its discussed in detail later on. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you stopped people in the streets and asked them "what do you know about George Galloway?", the one thing they would be sure to come up with would be his praise of Saddam - this I suspect would rank alongside his appearance at the Senate (also not mentioned in the intro) as top facts. It's actually POV by Irishpunktom this bit of ignoring it, because it shows Galloway up in a bad light, somewhat unavoidably perhaps. But to clearly demonstrate that my purpose is not pure POVery but highlighting importance, I am also very happy to accept the mediated proposal and also believe that we should include mention of the Senate appearance, which is of course widely seen as a victory for Galloway. So how about (minus all the cites and links):

Galloway is perhaps best known for his vigorous campaign to overturn economic sanctions against Iraq, and for his visits to Saddam Hussein in 1994 (in which he appeared to praise the Iraqi leader for his "courage, strength and indefatigability") [1] and 2002. His televised appearance before a US Senate committee in May 2005 was globally reported and many felt he achieved considerable success with a typically robust performance during a somewhat diffident questioning session. He was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003 when a party body decided that he had brought the party into disrepute over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when he called the Labour government "Tony Blair's lie machine" [2], and stated that British soldiers should "refuse to obey illegal orders" [3].

Please comment but not just with accusations of POV - we've already covered that in depth and this won't go away. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Plus, in a sort of WP:BLP sort of a way, there is the fact that George Galloway went into the witness box at the High Court and swore an oath to tell the truth, then said he always thought Saddam Hussein was a "bestial dictator". To say that Galloway was a supporter of Saddam is potentially actionable on the grounds of accusing him of perjury if on no other account. David | Talk 12:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This latter point just has to be nonsense - if usable, Galloway would by now have sued every newspaper in the world. MarkThomas 12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But remember that Wikipedia is a neutral, impartial encyclopedia. Newspapers do not even pretend to be impartial. Viewfinder 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(in which he appeared to praise the Iraqi leader for his "courage, strength and indefatigability") - if we include this, we should also add that he denies this. Viewfinder 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he denied it, but that's just one of his standard manipulative "clarifications" which underline how devious this so-called "man of the people" is; in the US he would be one of those "inside the beltway" politicians who pretend to be outside it to cadge a few well unearned votes. Anyway, I'm happy to see such a clarification, so how about this then:

Galloway is perhaps best known for his vigorous campaign to overturn economic sanctions against Iraq, and for his visits to Saddam Hussein in 1994 (in which he appeared to praise the Iraqi leader for his "courage, strength and indefatigability" - aimed at the Iraqi people Galloway claimed) [1] and 2002. His televised appearance before a US Senate committee in May 2005 was globally reported and many felt he achieved considerable success with a typically robust performance during a somewhat diffident questioning session. He was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003 when a party body decided that he had brought the party into disrepute over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when he called the Labour government "Tony Blair's lie machine" [2], and stated that British soldiers should "refuse to obey illegal orders" [3].

If editors take the tack of ignoring this and hoping it will just go away, would some kind editor please insert it anyway after allowing a reasonable length of time for discussion? I will be among those then supporting it with appropriate reverts to preserve facts on this page. Thanks. MarkThomas 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken but "reasonable length of time" has not yet been allowed. Please be patient. Viewfinder 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no comments against my proposal, I propose to publish it later today. MarkThomas 13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am against the change. It bloats the intro and warps the intro negatively. The existing text is compromise text that was laboriously reached. To throw in this additional point, and it is a negative point that is leaned on routinely and persistently by his critics (such as Christopher Hitchens and Norm Coleman and others), distorts the intro further towards a unbalanced critical point of view. The man has done a lot of more notable things in his life than praise Saddam Hussein, and they could be placed up front. The idea that the 'first thing everybody thinks of is the Saddam praise' is not really true IMO, and to whatever extent it has any validity it is because his critics remind us of it through pedantic repetition. It would only be appropriate to place this text forward if Wikipedia were a place for unbalanced criticism of Galloway, a la Hitchens Central. DanielM 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The changes made by Mark Thomas have been made without answering the above criticism, and imo go beyond what was discussed. Also the Mariam appeal addition is negative material without citation and therefore contrary to WP:BLP. I move that they be reverted. Viewfinder 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting then Viewfinder that every single sentence about Galloway be cited? If so, I will add the cite tags appropriately. If not, try coming up with something more convincing. Everyone knows my changes were accurate. MarkThomas 08:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts by Viewfinder

I'm curious why in addition to the above-mentioned "praise of Saddam" reverts you routinely do Viewfinder, you also choose each time to remove the Oona King comments on Galloway on this page, but not on the Oona King page, where they are repeated. Is this because you know you will be overturned on that page, but you view this one as "under control"? MarkThomas 18:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. Viewfinder 18:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's merited. You really are completely uninterested in a proper debate about the facts Viewfinder. You repeatedly and high-handedly revert. You demand apologies for things you repeatedly do. You demand explanations and refuse to answer perfectly straightforward questions about your edits. I repeat, why did you remove the perfectly factual Oona King comments? Do you have the honesty to answer the question, or will you just carry on spouting SWP bollocks? MarkThomas 18:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored wholly unjustified and (against WP rules) true Viewfinder deletion of my comments on talk page. MarkThomas 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas, its very difficult when you constantly try and wreck the article NOT to just "high handedly" revert your edits. --SandyDancer 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your term "wrecking" is very subjective; I am trying (as now again) to give an accurate view of Galloway's actions and motives, the page at the moment lacks real analysis of why he behaves in such apparently strange ways, heaping praise on mass-murdering torturing dictators for example and then later denying it. This page, and Wikipedia, deserves better than the kneejerk auto-reverts of politicised ultra-leftist editors supporting Galloway's jew-hating and US-hating agenda. MarkThomas 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)#

Accusations like "politicised ultra leftist editors" are, to say the least, unhelpful. Viewfinder 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark, we salute your courage, your indefatigability!

Hello everyone, I'm back! Being banned for 8 hours was a salutory lesson and I am suitably chastened and deeply humble. From now on I will take no notice whatever of the POV on this page. I will restrain myself from auto-reverting every attempt to render it factual, as happens routinely at present. I swear, the mighty and gorgeous George is the greatest war leader Britain has ever had! How lucky we all are!MarkThomas 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on a possible attack on Blair.

I've added a bit about the comments he made earlier this year about the moral justification of an attack on Blair. I'm not sure how best to put it while being NPOV, but given it was widely reported, and he was pilloried for what's probably in many cases a misinterpretation, I think it should be here. J•A•K 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks J•A•K, I tried before to add that important bit and it was immediately reverted more than 3 times, so expect difficulties. :-) MarkThomas 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put in some sources, so it should be reasonable. For the record, I think he was perfectly justified in saying what he did, given he was directly asked his opinion on the issue. It came up a lot, and I'm looking for the HIGNFY bit where it's mentioned, in for proof it was commented on. J•A•K 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear a moral argument as to how you justify a suicide bombing on a politician, you must share that with us, but don't give your phone number, otherwise you might risk arrest. For anyone who thinks we are dealing with minor disagreements here on the Galloway page, we have it in black and white - on the one hand, people who think assasination is fine and moral. On the other, human beings. MarkThomas 12:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a suicide bombing would be justified - I say that since he believes that and was asked if he does believe it can be justified, he should have answered the way he did. Especially the part where he said he wouldn't condone any attack, and wouldn't encourage any. J•A•K 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mere sophistry, but the sort of sophisticated political lizardish sophistry of which Galloway approves. MarkThomas 13:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we possibly change "many news analysts" to "some news analysts", or cite a more middle of the road analyst? I do not think an article by Hitchens is a good enough citation of "many". Viewfinder 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do know that there were many when it first was out - I just couldn't find one to hand immediately. I remember that Mark Steele said it was appalling on Have I Got News For You, and he's pretty left-wing. J•A•K 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Thomas seems to feel the most strongly about this matter. If the appropriate citation of "many" is out there, I expect he will find it (unless other editors agree that it is OK as it is). Viewfinder 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make this edit, but it is basically accurate. We could refer to condemnations from the Sun, the Guardian, The Observer, The Times and The Daily Telegraph as I recall they all had critical comment the following day; researching this will take time but we can cite it. In the meantime the Sun, Ming Cambell and Stephen Pound all condemned it here. MarkThomas 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Caviar etc. "allegations" unidentified and unsourced

In the Mariam Appeal section it says without reference that GG was faced with allegations of lavish spending, caviar consumption etc. However when I do a websearch for Galloway and caviar, the applicable references (I scanned the first 40 or 50) all seem to point back to Wikipedia and sites that copy the Wikipedia text. I think there is some weasel phrasing when any article says "allegations arose" or whatever without saying who made the allegations. Anyone care to defend this text, or shall we go ahead and amend or delete it? DanielM 14:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PAGE REDIRECTING???

Hey lefties, I wonder wich one is more important, George Galloway or Galloway Scottish region. After searching with keyword "galloway" I get da scott region but not da disambiguation page. Somebody fix that please. Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia |wanna Talk? 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think that Galloway should redirect to the 'George Galloway' rather then the region? There is a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the region page.--JK the unwise 11:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, let's rush to add the redirect. Can we also redirect useless phrases like "God", "Undisputed leading intellectual of our age", "oily little snake" and "degenerate self-serving stalinist thief" to this page too? Thanks. MarkThomas 11:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Control yourself Mr Thomas. You seem to have become increasingly vexed by the slings and arrows thrown at you over the last few months. Rise above it, like a beautiful and varied and even fantastically coloured butterfly. Good luck with your battle against these feckin socialists with their 'please sir, can I have some more'. Galloway with his love of the oppressed- well I tell you that won't put food on the the table. --The Three Jays 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

talkSPORT

I recently added a part on Galloway's dislike of Jon Gaunt. Would Sweetalkinguy explain how this is "un-encyclopedic" when it's quite notable and relevent to the section?

Edit: I'd like to point out my edit wasn't the vandalism to this section which was removed earlier today. Itsmeltc 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want a list of persons who do not like George Galloway, I suggest you include it in a new article. Guy 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)