Talk:George Galloway/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

International Marxist Tendency

The source cited does not support the claim that the International Marxist Tendency condemned Galloway's position. It merely links to a letter sent to the organisation by "A.J". Does anyone object to removing the claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.237.94 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right (the letter was sent by one AZ, not AJ), so I have removed the sentence. RolandR (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 convoy

I've undone this edit - which discusses riots which erupted when a convoy arrived at Gaza - because the story is really about the riot, not about Galloway. The newspapers don't suggest Galloway's involved in the riot itself or inciting it, even indirectly. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it tags the whole story onto Galloway when his actual involvement is unclear. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's prevent a revert war

It seems there's a little issue of ownership with this section. I made an edit rewording, reformatting dates, adding a little content, and adding a source for the new content here. User:Off2riorob reverted me here with the edit summary, Reverted good faith edits by Elliskev; I like my version and there is no reason to add additional citations to support the content. (TW).

I, in turn reverted the reversion here with the edit summary, revert reversion of my edit. I added new, sourced content. 'not liking' my edit is not good enough. take it to talk with specifics before reverting, leading a the discussion on my talk where I suggested that it be brought to the article talk page, well, here. Off2riorob's response was, Forget about it I will revert it when you have gone.

Now, I'm here for others' opinions on the matter. Thanks. --Elliskev 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the references appear to say GG was "arrested," that's a word that carries a connotation of being charged with criminal activity. The references say he was detained and taken back to the airport. I agree with your edit at a minimum on that point, Elliskev, as well I believe that additional references are a very positive thing to have. We're supposed to be able to cooperate as editors and not be wrapped up in our own words such that we revert to them without any other justification. Accordingly, I encourage you to keep trying as long as there are good reasons the text you change to is better. DanielM (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion from Egypt

A new section on the subject's deportation was created in the last day or so, as though it could be separate from the Viva Palestina passage. In the last few minutes, the Expulsion section has been recreated and a paragraph in the earlier (VP) section removed. But the new section does contain new sources, so a straightforward revert is not possible. In my opinion, the Egypt and VP sections should be recombined, possibly with an Egypt sub-section formed in order that some stability in the section hierarchy can be maintained. Philip Cross (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother =

What is unencylcopedic about talking about CCB scandal? infact he is commonly mimicked for it now. This was a very controversial even in Galloway's career in the UK even the primenisiter at the time made remarks and it was even featured on news night was reveared in most papers. I dont think its a issue of sources of her,e because there are plenty and plus there are NO free replacement.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Non free pictures are not really good for inserting in a blp under any circumstances, the content is also not worthy of inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you didn't waste to much of your time, I know you are new here, would you like a mentor to help you settle in? Off2riorob (talk) 23

38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nah,the images arent hard to find, infact thats how noted the event is you google galloway that is what comes up I knew this probally be argued with appropriateness due to the provoking impact both images have, especially for a page of a politician. Why is the content not worthy?I disagree, Till this day he is still associated with those scenses. I think it should come to a vote or something dont worry i wont do an edit war or something like that wud just be pointless for this thing♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I am available to point you in the right direction, feel free to ask me, hey..what do you think, would this be worth doing? Better to do things that will stay in articles, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

University story

This appears to not be in the citations, so I have brought it here as I seem a bit controversial, if anyone can citing it, preferably to a secondary citation, independent of the university then we can look at putting it back, thanks.

On 6 November 2006, in a debate at the University College Cork, Ireland, Philosophical Society, speaking in proposition of the motion "That this house believes the US foreign policy is the greatest crime since World War II", Galloway controversially stormed out after being accused of collusion with dictators by the opposition speaker; Irish film and television producer Gerry Gregg. Galloway confronted Gregg directly and insisted that he withdraw the allegations. After Gregg, a former member of Sinn Féin and the Workers' Party, refused to withdraw the comments, Galloway left the auditorium and abandoned the debate. Many of the audience of 500 walked out. Galloway threatened legal action and informed Gregg that his solicitor would contact him the following morning. He also remarked that [1] Gregg would probably be able to afford the lawsuit with an abundance of counterfeited money. The debate continued and the motion was defeated by those present by a clear margin.

Hi yes, I was verging on an edit war over some POV stuff, but it was only one phrase within the section that hasn't made it here. There was an assertion that the 500 had walked out in sympathy ... I was questioning the stated motive of that group for leaving. I mean they'd turned up to see a debate, and one of the main participants left. The fact some may have felt remaining to be pointless is not an indication of their general support for galloway, or the specific agreement with his action. Unless someone canvassed them as they left, or the whole lot walked out chanting or something. And whatever happened, a reference is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.12 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the citation to read anything there? I couldn't see any of the content there, did you read it?Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there ... I just assumed the citation had expired at some time, which is an inconvenient but common problem. I did google around and find other reports of this event, but I don't feel the urge to look right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.130 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That what I found funny, you didn't read the citation and yet were removing a specific section of it as uncited? Was it that you just disputed that comment? Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true. I found evidence of the debate, but no reference to the bit I was talking about. Everything else seemed plausible and proveable, but the bit I saw seemed like a PoV assertion, for the reasons I put.

Although, you are tight, unless someone can find some decent citation and replace the one there the whole bit needs to come out. I do remember reading about the event, I was just being lazy about updating references. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.130 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably gets most of it, although makes no mention of the audience members leaving http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/11/08/story17739.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.130 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps take a little time and check things out, that comment should have been tagged not removed, as dubious or dead link and the citation needs to be searched for and checked and looked for in the archives, and then you can say that part of it is not correct, discussion is better than removing bits you don't like. That new citation will help to replace some of the content, but assuming good faith the original walk out in support could well have been correct. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

True, yes. It's such a pain when references disappear or get broken. You are right, I should assume good faith ... even if my personal opinion is that a statement stretches credulity ... such a cynic, me! With any luck the original contributor will pitch up soonish and straighten it all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.130 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian refusal of permit to enter

Seems I'm encountering a bit of ownership or something here ...

THe canadians refused Galloway permission to enter citing his supposed support for a terrorist organisation. The evidence they state was his donation of money and materials to Hamas recently (and a few other things). Galloway clearly says he was supporting democracy and providing aid. The appeal against the judgement discussed this again, and rejected Galloway's reasoning. It was an important part of a notable event, with sources.

I'm not entirely clear what is meant by unwarranted synthesis of sources, but I'm eager to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.130 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know who he did make a donation to? it seems he's been accused of making a donation to Hamas by various sources, and he doesn't seem to have directly denied it. It's a bit difficult to unravel from the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.59 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but my guess is that he made a donation to Interpal, "the largest charity in the UK working solely on the provision of humanitarian aid to Palestinians", which has faced constant unproven, and probably unfounded, charges of Islamist and terrorist links. RolandR (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, I mean probably, but it did seem odd that he didn't point that out to the canadians, he didn't even deny the accusation of donating to Hamas as far as I can find. I suspect that is what the judge meant in his criticism of the quality of the apellant presentation. If what you say is true, the refusal is based on a great big false assumption that is easily destroyed with proof. Guess we'll never know! 90.201.152.199 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talksport censorship

An important thing to add is that Mr Galloway is being censored by his employer Talksport Radio. Around the beginning of December 2009 Mr Galloway had global warming as one of his topics on his show yet he flat refused to discuss the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit in Norwich. This meant that his discussion was fundamentally flawed, there was almost a sense of panic in Mr Galloway when anyone so much as tried to mention it.

I feel that this should be included in Mr Galloways wiki page as his show is supposed to be an open and fair platform, with callers being able to discuss the topic issues fairly and openly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.74.239 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Censorship? how would you separate that from Galloway's own views and opinions being challenged and a clumsy response?

If you think you've got some evidence go ahead and edit!

Given Galloway is happy to speak out both aggressively and profanely against politicians and governments who don't share his views, I'd love to know what hold talksport have over him ... perhaps you could enlighten us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.59 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

asian voice addition

Brought here for discussion, seems to be a bit of an opinionated comment presented as if fact. Its like, which analysts and how have they concluded this and what are the reasons for there unnamed so called analysts assuming this and also what evidence is there to assert Galloway is India phobia, that is quite an assertion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysts have concluded that Galloway's partisan stance supporting Pakistani claims over Kashmir, his Indophobia, and his and defence of Pakistani dictators are due to his financial support by the Pakistani government.

Never a big fan of conclusions drawen based on what analysts or commentators have concluded, in the end they are publishing their opinions. Drill through what they've said and see if their is evidence he is funded in the way they assert and that he is "anti-india". He's frequently suggested as "pro-muslim" and I'd have thouyght that was enough, if it can be supported. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

edit to the lede

An editor is wanting to add this Galloway is also known for his vigorous campaigns in favour of the Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and for his defence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, leading him to being declared persona non grata in Canada and Egypt.

IMO it is opinionated and original research, can it be cited? He was not allowed into canada as they said he donated money to Palastinins , it is uncited original research to say that he does A and this has led to B. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ban to enter canada was down to allegations around his support for palestinian organisations, which I suppose were part of his vigorous campaigns ... so I suppose it isn't strictly inaccurate, just a bit clumsy and overgeneral. I thought it was adequately split apart (by me in fact) when we were discussing the section on Canada. 90.195.131.52 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2006 Sky News interview

My addition of a section on Galloway's infamous 2006 interview under the section Publishing / media activites has been twice deleted by RolandR.

RolandR explained, in connection with a video provided as a reference, that YouTube was not considered a legitimate source and had copyright issues, and that the edit was "mainly commentary".

Firstly, the YouTube video of the interview - especially viewing figures - is a legitimate source as evidence of the interview's popularity on YouTube. There is no source that could be more legitimate.

Secondly, the video linked in the reference was uploaded by Sky News. Linking to a video uploaded by the owner of the copyright does not infringe copyright.

Thirdly, a description of the incident - the exchanges between Galloway and Anna Botting - is not "commentary", in the sense of political commentary, editorial or opinion. It was, as far as I could tell, an accurate and unopinionated description that records a famous appearance by Galloway in the media.

In the absence of any more detailed criticisms of the edit - available in the history of the article - I will restore the edit forthwith. gergis (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to add our own commentry of original primary videos, we report reports of notable events, look for some independant citations that reports this interview and perhaps we can add something. The number of hits it gets on utube are irrelevant. Off2riorob (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for the Soviet Union

Is this really a controversy? If no one objects I shall move it. Support for a state is hardly a controversy, particularly when it is one that enjoyed the support of Britain often enough.Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It is hard to comment as it is unclear what content you are talking about? Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2riorob, the reference is to this interview from The Guardian in 2002. It should really be incorporated into the article without a separate section as now, but it has always seemed difficult to do so without breaching neutrality. Galloway's sympathy for the USSR, long a minority taste in the UK, is something which much of the political spectrum find telling. Philip Cross (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, it is getting extra weight, really it needs attributing , it is presented as though a clear fact when it is an op ed interview in a single article from eight years ago, as a politician you really do need to take care what you say, you say in a moment you don't believe in god and them for whatever reasons, that becomes for the rest of your life that you are an avowed atheist. Clearly if I was a supporter of the soviet union I would be repeating this for ever more. They do it a lot, if you went to a single Marxist meeting in the 60s or 70s you are a Marxist never to be forgotten, mmm. (excuse the rant) I don't think it is really worth its own section, as it is not a big issue in Galloway's life, does he visit Russia a lot? Has he been involved in any Russian issues? I am kind of easy about it, the content has sat there for a while without the wheels dropping of. Perhaps it could be written with a bit less weight. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For example the header Support for Soviet Union how has he supported the soviet union? Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What Lies Ahead

Not sure if the story is reliable, but apparently George Galloway is hoping to launch a new career in Hollywood presenting documentary films. 86.41.75.152 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a blog source, unusable whether or not it is true. Philip Cross (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting it be used, merely putting it on interested editors' radar. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, The Times now has this story. Philip Cross (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Mistake

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I understand that the edit may not be considered vandalism, but it should probably be quoted as it seems like a personal statement. I also understand that the text as a whole was cited. However, the reason why I reverted it is because it seems like it's not NPOV. ElationAviation (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which edit of mine are you referring to? You reverted two separate edits. In one, I removed some commentary (written ungramatically, in bold text) which had no place in the article. I can see no case for reverting this, or describing it as vandalism. In the second, I restored the word "illegal", remnoved by an earlier editor, to describe Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. This could be considered a POV issue, or you could ask for -- and I could supply -- a citation from a reliable source. But, whether you agree with the edit or not, it is certainly not vandalism. I note that, in every other case where you have reverted another editor, you have also posted a vandalism warning to their talk page; but not in this case. Why not? It seems that you were aware that this was not vandalism, and you should not be using anti-vandalism tools to revert it. RolandR (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit I intentionally reverted was the "illegal" part because it appeared as though it wasn't NPOV. I didn't intend to remove the other edit. As far as a vandalism warning goes, I didn't issue a warning to you because I felt it was a POV issue and not a vandalism issue. I also didn't intend to hit the "Revert: Vandalism" button. Please keep in mind that I am still relatively new to Wikipedia editing and am still learning. I am sorry if my editing mistake has insulted you, but I feel that a statement like "In a series of speeches broadcast on Arab television, Galloway described Jerusalem and Baghdad as being "raped" by "foreigners," referring to Israel's illegal annexation of Eastern Jerusalem and the war in Iraq." should use as many quotations as possible, especially with a word like "illegal". Something like this could appear very biased without a careful choice of wording. Thanks for your understanding. ElationAviation (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Illegal annexing

What is the problem with this, is seems to be generally held by the EU and the US and nato and all these people that the annexing is illegal and it is in the citation and so although I have been wrong before I don't see a problem with this and there is no discussion here which is also quite surprising. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that while the EU views it as illegal (not sure that's the view of the US or NATO), that does not make it so. If this description is needed, at a minimum it should be described as a viewpoint, not as fact. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The legal status of Jerusalem is a complex topic, with multiple differing and often conflicting views. It is so complex, that we have an article dedicated to it - Positions on Jerusalem. That article studiously avoids taking sides, and does not call Israel annexation illegal in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Neither does the Jerusalem article, nor the East Jerusalem article. There is no reason to try a run-around those articles, by inserting that descriptor here, as an editorial comment. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Being accused of something and it being the case are entirely separate things. The citation from Haaretz explicitly states that the EU "accused" Israel of this. Writing it like it is an indisputable fact is not neutral, and it completely cheapens a rather complex issue. I can't see why this sort of phrasing would belong in an encyclopedia. MikeMan67 (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the EU, but countless reliable sources which state that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law. In any case, this phrasing does not seem currently to be in the article; thank you for drawing my attention to this, I will check whether and how it is appropriate to restore the comment. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And if you would take the time to head over to the page Positions on Jerusalem, you will see that there are many, many countries who do not use the malicious tone you have chosen to use in this encyclopedia. Also, I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you were trying to say in your second sentence. Anyways, I can see on your user page that you identify as anti-Zionist, and I also can see on this page's history your long history of edits, so I am sure you have and will continue to constantly edit this page until it fits squarely with your personal opinions about Israel. Therefore, I won't even bother touching your edit. If you truly believe that this is the most neutral and fair way of writing that sentence, than I guess there isn't much I can do. MikeMan67 (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not anti-war

If he's "known" to have anti-war views, that's a misconception, and shouldn't be the second sentence in the article. Galloway's repeated praise of the military operations of Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, and various jihadist groups make it unambiguous that he's pro-war on the side of any Islamic or anti-western group. I can cite any number of statements if I have to, but this should be evident from a moment of research into his statements. Calling him "anti-war" is as absurd as calling Christopher Hitchens "anti-war" just because he criticizes Saddam Hussein's Iraq for invading Kuwait. --75.159.252.119 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. If anyone wants to argue why something that's factually inaccurate should be included in the lead paragraph just because some believe it, go ahead. --75.159.252.119 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since my edit was reverted, I wanted to mention that I wouldn't contest that "he is widely believed to hold anti-war views." But the phrasing prior to my revert was blatantly misleading, implying that this perception of him is accurate. Being against an invasion or against certain military forces doesn't make someone anti-war. --75.159.252.119 (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between being anti-war and a pacifist. No-one has claimed that Galloway is a pacifist; but he is Vice-President of the Stop the War Coalition. To my mind, that is pretty conclusive evidence that he is "anti-war". RolandR (talk)

It's only evidence of his duplicity. We're talking about a man who publicly advocated jihad against British and American troops and who has defended suicide bombings against Israeli soldiers and civilians alike. I don't think that this can be laughed off by his dishonest associations with supposedly anti-war groups. Again, is he perceived to hold anti-war views? I wouldn't dispute that at all. But it can't be stated that he seriously holds such views when he regularly endorses violent and militaristic actions. Why not change to sentence to say that he's the Vice-President of the Stop the War Coalition, which is factually indisputable, rather than making insinuations about what he stands for that aren't backed up by his record? --75.159.252.119 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that the Stop the War Coalition is only opposed to wars they view as unjust or illegal. Therefore, his membership in it isn't evidence that he's anti-war on general principle. --75.159.252.119 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone vandalized my post pointing out that Galloway seems fine with violence, terrorism and occupation if that entity is an enemy of the U.S, U.K or Israel. Look at his support for Hezbollah and his support of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Whoever you are please desist.Unicorn76 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not vandalism to remove POV soapboxing from a talkpage of a living person, please provide reliable citations to support your additions to the talkpage as they are extreme claims or don't post them at all. This is not a place to discuss your opinions about someone but to discuss improvements to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another link. satisfied? http://www.standwithus.com/app/inews/view_n.asp?ID=1327Unicorn76 (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an unreliable source. ValenShephard (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why it states the facts.Unicorn76 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What's happening with this article?

According to this log page this article has been vandalized with insertions of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)" more than 150 times in the last 2–3 months. Can someone explain what is going on here? I don't know if there is any connection, but the situation appears to be the same[2] at another page which happens to be on my watchlist, Norman Finkelstein. There is nothing on either talk page or otherwise in the article histories (at least that I can easily spot) which explains this extreme situation __meco (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See this page. RolandR (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I get the picture. __meco (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A case of undue weight?

I've removed from the article the detail about Alykhan Velshi's background; the original information stating he was "a former lobbyist for the predominantly neoconservative American Enterprise Institute" seemed to be imparting a POV through an undue focus on the employment history of this secondary character (the communications director for the minister who disallowed Galloway entry into Canada). Though User:CJCurrie made an improvement by keeping out the "neoconservative" part when re-inserting the info, I still think there's little value to this page in outlining where Velshi previously worked; and he seems to be the only minor player who's given that attention. If someone wants to revert my last edit, that's fine; I've no strong feelings for any of these people in one way or another. I just wanted to explain my motivations for deleting the detail and see if perhaps others agreed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Galloway's comments regarding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

I recently adding a paragraph regarding Galloway's statements on Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV regarding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and his allegations that Israel was responsible for the assasssination of Rafiq Al-Hariri. The source is a video clip and translation provided by MEMRI. This paragraph was removed on the grounds that the MEMRI is a "hostile" source and is has a history of selective editing. It is true that a grand total of 4 or 5 translations are alleged to have been incorrect or selectively edited. However, given that MEMRI has produced several thousand clips, and that the allegations themselves come from sources with an extremely anti-Israel point of view, these allegations alone are not sufficient to warrant the removal of this clip. If there is any evidence that this particular clip has been mistranslated or selectively edited, please provide it. Otherwise, a video (with translation) of Galloway's statements is sufficient for RS. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

I would have thought the policy difficulty here is that this transcript is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source", and WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source ...". If no reliable secondary source has thought it worthwhile to analyse and discuss this matter, then it is not notable enough to get into WP. I think you need to find a reliable secondary source to include this. Rwendland (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is a secondary source; It has taken the original clip, provided a translation, and made it available on its own website (i.e. the source is not Al-Manar's website). Also, the clip is presented as is - there are no editorials. With regard to the concern about reliablitiy, I have provided links to both the transcript and the video clip (with the translation) as posted on MEMRI's website. There is no evidence or even claims that the translation is incorrect or that the video has been selectively edited (if there is please provide it). A full-colour video of Galloway's statements on a third-party website, combined with an undisputed translation, certainly meets Wikipedia's requirements for RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

'As an orator' section

I removed most of this section because it did not seem to be a particularly good way to end this article. A section on 'personal life' is the usual Wikipedia practice.

Jeremy Paxman's description of Galloway as a "demagogue" (a point which only has a tangential connection to his oratorial skills) is better placed in the passage discussing the May 2005 interview. Obviously the quotes from The Times by Hugo Rifkind and from an article by another journalist, though undoubtedly accurately rendered, are no longer freely available, but what is the point of repeating the "demagogue" claim? The quote from The Boston Globe is from a reprint of an Associated Press article which appears to be no longer available on a site which would be considered a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is the "usual Wikipedia practice" to conclude with a personal life/background/family section. That usu. goes towards the front, in my experience. As to the "as an orator" section, in my opinion it should be left in if accurate. Dubious and, probably, non-dubious but merely unsourced parts of it could be deleted at the discretion of any editor. My personal sense though is that an editor should at least express a doubt, if only a light "not sure about this" sort of doubt, before making substantial deletions of the work of others (of course there might be some other reason to delete). I looked for some other reliable source for the quote (it's by AP reporter Jill Lawless, and is accurate) that is I now think mistakenly particularly attributed to the Boston Globe (although I am confident it was published there, as well as at other reliable sources). The problem is, I now realize, that it arguably casts the quote as some sort of editorial opinion of the Boston Globe. I'll take a look at it. Yah, the "demagogue" Paxman comment should not be in the article redundantly. I think when that severity criticism is levied by some third party in any Wikipedia article about a person, it's a matter of fairness that the person's response also be covered. In this case Oona King furnishes a response for Galloway, amounting to a defense, and that would seem sufficient to me. DanielM (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

When a subject has many relatives who are also prominent, that does tend to be near the beginning of an article. But that is comparatively rare, and a nuisance because the substance of the article, the reason for the subjects notability, is usually delayed from being developed.

The "demagogue" reference should be better intergrated, but editor's should watch the interview to see how that might be done. Paxman's use of the term is not unique, I removed some other examples because they seemed repetitive, but there are other sources in a similar vein. Just before the 2005 general election Nick Cohen compared Galloway to Oswald Mosley, for example.[3] I don't prepose to add that source, it has already been removed at least once, but Galloway does keep receiving a strong response from his oopponents, often in very reliable sources. Oona King's criticism of Paxman's approach did not relate to the "demagogue" comment. Philip Cross (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is MP Galloway the parlimentarian who represented the most different constiuencies?

Galloway has represented 3 different constituencies, is that a record of some sort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.211.141 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I've looked at two other politicians. Roy Jenkins represented constituencies in three different cities. Winston Churchill is listed for five constituencies. I think that Woodford might have been split off his previous constituency of Enfield. Although Oldham is in Greater Manchester, I doubt that his move there was a similar issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that those of us who live in Walthamstow would be able to explain to you why Woodford could not have been split off from Enfield, Peter. You obviously live in a different part of London! RolandR (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So that means that WC had five distinct seats over his career. For the OP, I picked the above two to look at because they, like Galloway changed parties which is a frequent reason for looking for a new seat. Other reasons may involve up-and-coming politicos who start in marginals and are then moved to safe seats. We're likely to have a fair amount of churn next time around too when a lot of boundary changes are expected together with a reduction in the number of seats. Fairly well-known people will be dislodged and may end up looking for seats where their colleagues are retiring.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Convert to Islam?

This isn't mentioned anywhere. The article simply says he "returned to the Church"?

George Galloway obviously, at some point, converted to Islam. "All praise to Allah!” said the new MP, through a loud hailer" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html), Muslim weddings, evidence of this video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA , etc. Snowlocust (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a more reliable source than what is obvious to you in order to make this edit; and you will be hard-pushed to find one, since it isn't true (not, of course, that it would matter if it was). "Galloway has never converted to Islam, though lots of his supporters in Bradford West appeared to be under the impression he had. Yet in the early hours of Friday morning as he celebrated in the street with hundreds of young supporters, Galloway made a slip-up which would suggest to any practising Muslim that he was not one of them: he invited them to join him at noon for a tour of Bradford on an open-top bus. It was only when someone called out "what about Jumu'ah?" that Galloway realised his victory parade clashed with Friday prayers. The tour was duly postponed until 2.30pm."Helen Pidd, George Galloway hails 'Bradford spring' as Labour licks its wounds, The Guardian 31 March 2012 RolandR (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you making the mistake of assuming that because he doesn't follow the faith perfectly/made a slip up regarding prayer times, he is not a Muslim convert? If so, you are very incorrect. Being a convert to Islam is simply believing that "There is no God but Allah", a statement GG has said many many times, making him (by the Islamic definition) a Muslim convert.Snowlocust (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of information: Helen Pidd of The Guardian says in black and white (my emphasis): "Galloway has never converted to Islam, though lots of his supporters in Bradford West appeared to be under the impression he had." WP:VERIFY is your friend (as well as being official Wikipedia policy.) --Mais oui! (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So even though there is massive amounts of evidence of his conversion and even though under the Islamic definition he is a Muslim, all of this evidence is overwritten by a biased guardian journalist, and it's not even worth briefly mentioning in his wikipedia article that there is massive amounts of evidence pointing towards conversion? Snowlocust (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion (and mine) counts for nothing on Wikipedia. If he really has converted to Islam, then you should be able to find a reliaable source saying so. The youtube video you cited above certainly isn't such a source; it shows only that, like most politicians, he says things his audiences like to hear. --NSH001 (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an opinion. The FACT is that the Islamic definition of a Muslim is one who believes "There is no God but Allah" (swt). The FACT is that Geprge Galloway believes "There is no God but Allah" (swt). Therefore, by extremely simple logic, George Galloway, by the Islamic definition, is a Muslim.Snowlocust (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Allah" is Arabic for "God" (technically "the God"). 'There is no God but Allah', just means, "there is no god but The God" - ie it is an assertion of monotheism. Being a monotheist is not sufficient to be a Muslim. There are, of course, many non Muslim monotheists. You have to believe that there is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet. In the You Tube video Galloway never says the second half of the phrase and gets aggressive when he he is asked what his religion is, refusing to answer. You don't need to be a genius to realise why a politician would equivocate about that. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of Islamophobic bias - you cannot deny the massive amount of evidence pointing to his conversion - and to not even mention it is simply ridiculous.Snowlocust (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of a complete lack of evidence - and per WP:BLP policy, we'd need a statement by Galloway himself, in a published reliable source, that he was a follower of Islam, before we would put it in an article. We don't rely on guesswork, and our own interpretation of YouTube videos, for assertions about belief - or about anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted the addition of Galloway holds many Islamic beliefs and stances, such as refusing to lie during Ramadan, and counts himself as part of the muslim world per WP:BLP. Snowlocust, on a claim like this the onus is definitely on you to seek consensus before adding it. --John (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA, statements straight from the horse's mouth, seeking admin action regarding this as I suspect users are pushing their own anti-Islamic agendas onto WPSnowlocust (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and WP:RS. --John (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube video us completely useless as a source for anything. We have no source for it - it uses cherry-picked quotes - and what is more it is clearly dubbed (badly) in places. Utter rubbish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your anti-Islamic agenda is extremely transparent and obvious. The video shows legitimate interviews from George Galloway himself. Valid source, awaiting admin decision Snowlocust (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your cluelessness is extremely transparent and obvious. If you want to see Islamophobia, I suggest you check the other YouTube postings by the contributor, 'Couchtripperthetit' - and some of his comments... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Videos, in general, are not reliable sources because they can be easily edited to present a misleading impression. The one you are attempting to rely on is exceptionally egregious, as it includes inserted commentary making claims which are not supported by the evidence, for example the claim or implication that because GG doesn't drink he is a muslim. As I mentioned before, if you want to discuss the reliability of this video further, ask at WP:RSN. --NSH001 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, 'Allah' means 'God', and is widely used by CHRISTIANS, not just Muslims. [4] [5] It is highly offensive to many Christians to say that the use of 'Allah' makes them Muslim! Suara Gondang (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section?

This looks a bit poor. The article really needs a complete rewrite. --John (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article seems to have much content from those with agendas against Galloway. There are numerous very troubling sections in this article. For example, we have this blatant example of undue weight being given for weasely purposes: The Observer reported in 2003 that the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering a request to pursue Galloway under the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934, though no prosecution occurred. A look at the source informs us that this "request" came from a private individual, a lawyer (or solicitor, according to other sources) named Justin Hugheston-Roberts. And the source contains a number of experts pouring scorn on the idea that such a prosecution would be in any way possible. That content can only there for bad-faith reasons: to implying that there was a serious chance of such a charge being made, and that it was being initiated by the British government. In reality the charge was entirely without merit. Interestingly, the same Justin Hugheston-Roberts was, in 2005 defending a British officer charged with disobeying lawful commands by arguing that the Iraq war was "manifestly unlawful". Unless I hear a credible argument for its retention, I am going to delete that content on grounds of undue weight. Meowy 02:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I agree entirely. A misuse of a source, for political purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Scottish election 2011?

I came here hoping for a bit of info on Galloway's failed bid to become a member of the Scottish parliament in 2011 but there isn't a single reference to it. I know this is the sort of thing I should add yourself, but I don't know much about it - which is why I came here :)

Seems like a big omission to me... 91.125.86.120 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD. You are correct, it is a huge, glaring omission. An incredible amount of publicity and hype surrounded that catastrophic campaign, so there must be thousands of reliable ext refs out there.

I am afraid that Wikipedia is the home of hagiography, so any failure or anything negative about a person, especially a living one, tends to get ignored or downplayed. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your Wikipedia hagiography point, in cases where the subject is one deemed to be a sacred cow. However, your "an incredible amount of publicity and hype surrounded that catastrophic campaign" claim is wrong - there was not a great amount of publicity, and his defeat was seen by media sources in the wider context of the defeat of almost all the minor-party or independent candidates who contested the 2011 Scottish Parliament election. Meowy 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the defeat is now mentioned in the article, though the defeat was for the Respect Party, on whose list GG was standing, rather than GG personally. I couldn't find many WP:RSs covering it (in contrast to "incredible amount of publicity") but the matter is adequately covered on the BBC Scotland site. --NSH001 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

When he became mp for Bradford

Please don't edit war. This reference from parliament.uk may be helpful. It gives the winning date as the date of the election. also from Parliament.uk confirms that an mp may not take their seat until they are sworn in. Anyone know when George was sworn in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not yet sworn in, as far as I know -- Parliament has been in recess. The link you cite is actually ambiguous. It states "George Galloway MP won the Bradford West by-election on 29 March 2012", which I read to mean that the by-election was on 29 March, not that GG won on 29 March. I've been hunting, and can't find a definitive statement on this; but I have always believed that there is no MP in a constituency until the Returning Officer formally declares a person duly elected. RolandR (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction -- he was sworn in today.[6] RolandR (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish to dispute George being Roman Catholic

I am asking for help and advice regarding this topic. I will copy most of this over from my talk page (I asked a question about this last night)

New section as the previous one is addressing a different point to this one and got out of hand

George Galloway practices many Islamic beliefs and has consciously included himself as part of the "Muslim world". Facts:

• Galloway refuses to lie during Ramadhan and considers doing so a "very wrong thing to do"
• Always accompanies saying the name of the Prophet Muhammed with the traditional "peace be upon him"
• Believes the prophet Muhammed "ascended to heaven" from the Al-Aqsa mosque.
• Galloway does not drink nor gamble (Not strictly Islamic per se, but a requirement of being Muslim)
• When asked what his religion was, Galloway replied in his usual stance of dodging the question, but this time added "there is only one God, and no God but God", which is the fundamental statement of Islam
• Galloway classes Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"
• Galloway makes heavily implied statements such as "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear"
• Galloway commonly makes references to Islamic concepts, for example "We stand for justice and haqq [the Islamic concept of truth and righteousness]"
• Another example of a statement on his radio show is "The holy month of Ramadan is upon us, we will all be fasting for a longer day than normal"
• Galloway has married 3 Muslim women in Muslim ceremonies. If he was actually Roman Catholic this would be prohibited as Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men.

Source: Newspaper articles, his radio show, his TV show

Here are examples of the TV shows/Radio shows that have been broadcast. Unfortunately these videos are made by obvious Islamophobes and are are obviously not reliable sources, I am purely stating them as examples of the things he has said on his shows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGkq6oO4u50

So, George Galloway. Muslims count him as Muslim. Anyone with a shred of religious knowledge, from the evidence, considers him a Muslim.

No, I am not saying Wikipedia should state "He is a Muslim", as per NOR.

To say he is a "Roman Catholic", end of story, is simply wrong. Roman Catholics do not "refuse to lie on Ramadan", Roman Catholics do not believe "Muhammed ascended to heaven from the Al-Aqsa mosque", Roman Catholics do not "Fast on Ramadan", and so on.

I believe this breaks the WP rules of WP:TRUTHS.

• Galloway classes Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"
• Galloway makes heavily implied statements such as "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear"
• Galloway commonly makes references to Islamic concepts, for example "We stand for justice and haqq [the Islamic concept of truth and righteousness]"

All 3 of these are taken from the recent article here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html . So there should be no problem adding these.

However I need help concerning the TV shows. For example, George Galloway stated on his Press TV show "The Real Deal" that he "doesn't lie on Ramadan" and that he believes "lying on Ramadan is a very wrong thing to do". This can be seen here, at the 20 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA However this video is probably in breach of copyright, and so is unusable. Could anyone help me in finding the correct sources for these videos?

I have been instructed to drop accusations of Islamophobia, under WP:AGF. That said, I still feel that this situation may be due to anti-Islamic agendas, and as such will be watching very carefully and being in close contact with the admins. I find this situation absolutely shocking on a website that prides itself on a "neutral" POV, but let's leave it at that.

Finally, I noticed in the history that user 86.161.253.195 has essentially been making the same changes as I have, but they were all reverted, so if you're reading this it would be good if you could sign up and we could discuss the matter further :)

Snowlocust (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide proper citations for material: we need to look at statements in context, and we also need to be able to verify their authenticity. In any case, we base any assertions regarding the religious faith of individuals on their own direct, public, verifiable statements, and not on our own personal opinion of the meaning of particular phrases. Whether it is correct to state that Galloway is a Catholic, I'm not entirely sure - but it would be totally against multiple Wikipedia policies to use the material you provide to suggest that he is a Moslem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. 3 of the statements are easily verified, here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html As for the other statements, videos are all over the internet such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGkq6oO4u50 but these are not usable as WP sources, hence why I'm asking for help if anyone can find any videos (perhaps in Press TV archives?) that are usable :) Snowlocust (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I follow George closely and, concerning the statements he makes in the above YouTube videos, I have personally seen and heard as they are being broadcast on his TV show/radio show, so I know they are authentic, the problem is finding them online. I cannot upload the videos to the internet personally as that would be a copyright violation. Sadly my own memory is not a good enough source for a BLP for obvious reasons.. any help appreciated in finding these videos Snowlocust (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/galloway-converts-to-islam.85464/ Looks authentic but I can't find a more reliable source, can anyone else? Snowlocust (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple. If Galloway verifiably says he has become a Muslim, then we can include that. The site you refer to is not reliable. It's just a forum. It's reasonable to ask why he would not clearly say that he has if it's true. All of the statements you quote are in contrast intentionally equivocal. Why would someone who has converted to a religion be so evasive about it? It's more reasonable to assume that he is saying that he lives his life in a way that is in conformity with Islamic values in order to butter up Muslim voters. Some of the comments are pure grandstanding. The Ramadan comment is just gratuitous. Why would anyone accuse him of lying anyway? Is he implying that it's perfectly alright for him and for Muslims to lie as much as they like at all other times of the year? That's far more anti-Islamic than anything that's been written here. Paul B (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared the religion attribute from the infobox for the time being. His blog doesn't contain a statement about his religion as far as I could see and the youtube video shouldn't be there. The Guardian article is helpful as a secondary source in that it says "his Roman Catholicism is not exclusive" and "Galloway denied any intention to convert", but again, it's not quite the same as self-identification, and it's from 2004. If his religion is unclear it's fine to leave the infobox attribute blank. It's for simple undisputed facts. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I support this and in fact edit-conflicted with you as you were removing it. This field should only be used for unequivocal and uncontroversial self-identification. --John (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't came out and said anything like that, that's the problem. It's completely wrong to say he's just "buttering up voters" - many of the times he's said things such as his belief "Mohammed ascended to heaven from the roof of the Al-Aqsa mosque", it's been in speeches in the middle of Iran which aren't even broadcast in the UK, and thus would have absolutely no effect on his voters back home. The fact is that, by EVERY definition, he IS a Muslim convert. Obviously we cannot say that in the article until we have a definite source, but as per WP:TRUTHS it would be very wrong to bluntly state his religion when there is so much evidence to the contrary, so I completely agree with the decision to remove "Christian" from the infobox. Perhaps a new section? Snowlocust (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes,he hasn't said he's a Muslim. He's said things that are likely to please Muslim voters. He didn't say he believed that Mohammed actually ascended to heraven. Hwe just said this is the site where it happened. If I say the Reichenbach Falls is the site where Holmes struggled with Moriaty, it does not imply that I am asserting the belief that this literally happened. Everything Galloway says is deliberately ambiguous. That should tell you something. You simply wont accept that he has never said the actual formula for Muslim belief, so you are flat wrong when you say The fact is that, by EVERY definition, he IS a Muslim convert. You have to actually convert to be a convert, not say things that are not inconsistent with it. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we're arguing even though we're on the same wavelength. However, think of it this way. Imagine I was a famous person with an article about me. I might not say directly "I am a fan of football", but if I spend half my wages on fan memorabilia, spend half my life travelling to away matches, go to every home game, watch every game that is televised, idolise football players, and have a vast knowledge of football, then by everyone's definition I am a fan of football. That does not mean we on WP can say "He is a fan of football", but if there is a statement on my Wikipedia page which says "He is NOT a fan of football", even if it is verifiable somewhere, then we have problems, due to WP:TRUTHS. This has been fixed now (the statement about him being Roman Catholic has been removed) so this isn't an argument that has much point...Snowlocust (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• A new section would be a poor idea in my opinion because it would be difficult to source adequately to meet WP:BLP and because on an article about a politician such emphasis on religion would be undue weight. --John (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. In that case I bow to your experience on the matter. I just made a current religion section but no problem if it's gotten rid of. Although would be good if the statements and sources were preserved.. Snowlocust (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

One other point. I am less than convinced that the voice on the video which states that " "Mohammed ascended to heaven from the roof of the Al-Aqsa mosque" is Galloway's. Given the thoroughly-disreputable source for the video (a YouTube Islamophobe), we have no means whatsoever to ascertain its authenticity - and no reason to try. If Galloway says things to butter up whoever he is talking to, he'd hardly be unique in any case. Essentially, it can be shown that (a) Galloway has said things which are pleasing to potential supporters, and (b) he insists that his religious faith is not something he wishes to discuss in public. On this basis, all we can do is report the verifiable fact: that we don't know what, if any, faith he is a follower of. And until we have a clear, direct assertion from him on this matter, in a reliable source, that is how it must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the YouTube source isn't particularly good for that reason. Makes me think of the parody Hitler speeches from Downfall. It would be awfully easy to fake such a video. --John (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There can really be no question of citing the YouTube video itself as a source in the article - it consists of clips from multiple sources, and is therefore almost certainly a copyright violation, even ignoring the obvious problems with authenticity, and the fact that it was complied by someone determined to portray Galloway in a bad light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the source and the factoid that was referenced from it. --John (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We should qualify or remove the claims that GG is a Roman Catholic

We should be rather careful in assigning a religious belief to a person who takes great care not to state in public that he is an adherent of the one or the other faith. However, this care should be applied both to his purported Islamic faith, and to his purported adherence to Roman Catholicism. I'll address the Catholicism issue, since I think that is the greater problem with the present verion of the article. However, this by no means mean that I favour adding editor's own deductions about his Islamic faith. In both cases, we should try to limit ourselves to reported facts or observations, and only to the extent that they could be relevant for the overall biography of the politician GG.

Our text now states about GG's Catholocism:

Galloway was raised as a Roman Catholic. He turned away from the Church as a young man, but returned in his mid-20s after a trip to Beirut in 1977, becoming a passionate supporter of Palestine stating "barely a week after my return I made a pledge to devote the rest of my life to the Palestinian and Arab cause".

The reference for this rather amazing statement was

I followed the reference, in order to see in what way the trip to Beirut was supposed to have caused GG to return to the RC. It turned out to be a completely inadequate juxtaposition of statements from different parts of the Guardian/Observer article. I am not at all claiming that this must be deliberately misleading; in fact, it could very well be the effect of some WP author in good faith condensing formulations about two different and unrelated topics ; however, the resulting text indeed is misleading. In fact, about the trip to Beirut, the author of the Observer article, David Smith, had this to say:

"Two years later Galloway visited Beirut and, with music in the cafés and revolution in the air, his transformation was complete. He told the court last week: 'Although it was a difficult decision for me to make the journey back to Scotland, barely a week after my return I made a pledge, in the Tavern Bar in Dundee's Hawkhill District, to devote the rest of my life to the Palestinian and Arab cause, whatever the consequences for my own political future.'"

Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited. Quoted only for the discussion of the meaning of this source text; the formulations may not be freely copied into Wikipedia articles.

There was no mention at all of GG's religious affiliation in this context.

In other words: according to the source, GG returned from Beirut to Scotland, not to the Roman Catholic faith.

Several paragraphs later (after again describing court proceedings), David Smith indeed claims that GG adheres to the Roman Catholic faith. As he describes it, he concludes this from the following:

"Galloway says he could not be a Marxist because he believes in God and Judgment Day"

Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited. Quoted only for the discussion of the meaning of this source text; the formulations may not be freely copied into Wikipedia articles.

As you may see, for Smith this clearly indicates a Roman Catholic faith. In the same paragraph, he notes that GG also shows signs of an openness towards Islam. There is an obvious trouble with Smith's conclusions at this point; he seems to take for granted that only Catholics but not Muslims believe in one god and a judgement day. This is an incorrect assumption. If David Smith were making a conclusion based on this implicit assumption in a WP article, he would be reverted - quite correctly. However, David Smith wrote this in a "reliable source", and it is not our work to censor his claim just because it may seem to us that it is based on a mistake. Recall, that we are not including statements based on them being true, but just to the extent they are verifyable.

What we can and should do, in a sensitive situation like this biography of a living person who has declined to answer any questions about his religious affiliations, is to to include information about GG's purported RC faith only to the extent that it is corrobated by other sources; or only as a claim by David Smith, together with an explanation of what he thinks support his claim.

Conclusions and suggestion: I think the conclusions are fairly obvious; but since this seems to be a highly contested part of the article, I propose them here, instead of being bold. If no-one objects (or proposes or implement better revisions themselves), I'll implement them in a couple of days.

1. We should treat the Beirut episode completely separated from the question of GG's faith, exactly as the referred article in The Observer does. Suggested formulation:
   In 1977, Galloway made a trip to Beirut, and became a passionate supporter of Palestine, later stating that "barely a week after my return I made a pledge to devote the rest of my life to the Palestinian and Arab cause".[Reference to the Observer article]
2. We should either (preferrably) omit all references to Galloway's Catholicism, except a brief Galloway was brought up as a Roman Catholic; or (alternatively) qualify Smith's conclusions, e.g., thus:
   According to The Observer, Galloway was raised as a Roman Catholic, turned away from the Church as a young man, but later in life stated that "he believes in God and Judgment Day". The Observer article concluded that he thus had returned to his Caholic faith.[Reference to the Observer article]
3. In either case, we should inform about his refusal to answer public questions about his faith.

We then do not claim anything about his purported Catholicism; we just claim that an article in a "reliable source" did state him to be a Catholic, and (without comments) explain on what grounds they did. Our readers then may make their own conclusions, if they wish to. JoergenB (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - we shouldn't be asserting that Galloway is a Catholic - I'd not realised that the article still did, and if I'd noticed, I'd have removed it. We don't make such assertions without clear direct statements from the individual concerned - and Galloway has made clear on multiple occasions that he considers his faith a personal matter, which he does not wish to discuss in public. And no, we have no reason to quote the Observer article (written in 2004) for their vague assertions that "his Roman Catholicism is not exclusive". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. I attempted to make this section compliant with BLP; please review and approve or amend. --John (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some interviews about with Galloway about his faith from reliable sources that should help a bit. They certainly doesn't support being clearly a Catholic [7][8]; more of cultural background at this point it seems. --Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

He's now married to a non-Muslim (Hindu, I believe) woman. So I'm guessing he's not a Muslim now. Also he is now attacking Islamic parties and saying dictatorship is preferable to Muslim rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A note about BLP

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

For example,

• This did not support: "Galloway associates himself with many Islamic beliefs and practices, at a March rally stating "We stand for justice and haqq", "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear", and also always addressing Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"." (my bolding)

• This did not seem to support "Galloway has been conferred by the President of Pakistan with the following decorations:..."

• This is not an adequate source for "On 3 January 2009, after Galloway was manhandled by riot police in London at the demonstration in protest over the Israeli offensive in the Gaza strip, the director of programming replaced Galloway with Ian Collins, saying that this would allow for more balanced reporting of the situation."

WP:BLP dictates that we use only the strongest sources for contentious claims (so not tabloids) and that we do not repurpose sources beyond what they actually support. Let's all be vigilant to avoid more stuff like this creeping back into the article, please. --John (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, your first bullet point was my fault, I should be more careful around such words as "many" and "always" Snowlocust (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I still don't see it as encyclopedic to speculate about whether or not he is a Muslim. I'd be happy to discuss it with others here towards a compromise. --John (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, we shouldn't be using a source that explicitly states that when "asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert", as a source for a claim that there is "speculation he is a Muslim". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&diff=485604049&oldid=485603686 Please stop removing this. You are removing direct statements taken from the guardian article. Will be raising this with the admins if you persist, as you already know my feelings on your relationship with Islam. Snowlocust (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The correct way to settle disputes is by discussing the merits of the edits, not by making personal attacks on contributors - and I have yet to see any indication that "relationships with Islam" are affecting anyone's behaviour - except possibly yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"The correct way to settle disputes is by discussing the merits of the edits" Agreed. Shame John doesn't see it this way, his method seems to simply be bashing the "undo" button until people see it from his point of view. Snowlocust (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In which case, discuss the merits of the edits here, as both John and I have asked you to. Can you explain why you are using a source that states that "Galloway denied any intention to convert" to suggest that there is speculation that he has - and without also mentioning the denial? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is obsolete, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&diff=485603686&oldid=485601501 made no mention of speculation and was still reverted by John (and I have now made formal complaint to admins) Snowlocust (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You have - and I suggest that you take note of what you will be told there - your behaviour is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please keep this article's talk page on topic and discussing the article, thanks :) Snowlocust (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, back on topic, please explain why you cite a source for "[Galloway carrying] a copy of the Koran around", but not for "Galloway denied any intention to convert"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Because when one sources Statement X from Article Y, one does not need to automatically include every single other statement also made in Article Y. I.e. the guardian article states MANY things about George that are not mentioned in the WP article. In reality we should simply paraphrase nearly the whole guardian paragraph "He carries a copy of the Koran around, which has caused speculation he's a Muslim. He says: "That's between me and my God."' But asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert." but I assume that those with anti-Islamic agendas won't be happy with such a change that leads to neutrality, and not the biased, Islamophobic article that they are trying to turn this into Snowlocust (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you really expect us to take that as a genuine attempt to discuss article content? It looks like yet another personal attack to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, a failure to discuss the proposal I outlined above. Snowlocust (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

While you insist on accusing everyone who disagrees with you of Islamophobia, it is unlikely that we are going to take your efforts seriously. But still, I'd suggest that rather than paraphrasing the Observer article, it might be better to quote it directly - if we decide that this isn't giving undue weight to an issue that seems of relatively minor importance to the article. If Galloway considers his faith to be a private matter, and the only reliable source we have giving a direct comment from him on the issue dates to 2004, it might seem rather unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

His aligning himself to appeal to certain sections of the community in Bradford is significant because that is one of the factors in his winning the byelection. Whether it represents any actual religious conviction is a bit unknowable, barring Galloway coming out with a direct statement, but it certainly warrants inclusion as part of his political arsenal. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads|:...or at least it might have been one of the factorsin winning the byelection. As noted by one observer, he won against a very clear-cut local Moslem leader. However, I agree that there could be reason for including the stance on faith he has taken publicly.

@Snowlocust: We now seem to agree that our personal conclusions may not be used in the article (by WP:OR). Thus, we do not have a formal reason to discuss them.

(As a matter of fact, several of the items allow different interpretations. Note, e.g., that GG seems to have stressed points in common for many Moslems and Christians; like professing his personal belief in one god and in a judgement day, but seemingly without claiming to believe either that Muhammed is the prophet of God, nor that Jesus is his son. A possible interpretation could be that he wants to stress similarities between Abrahamitic religions rather than the differences. A less charitable interpretation could be that he wants to win votes both among Christians and Moslems. The interpretations are not mutually exclusive; and neither of them excludes him privately to belong to the one or the other faith - or to a syncretic mixture. The point of this is not that such interpretations are likely; just that GG being a Moslem is not the only possible conclusion.)

Then, the main question is, which statements about GG's religion are well-sourced and relevant enough to have them included? I think that John's present selection is fairly good; however, I'm slightly worried about the Telegraph reference. There were several Telegraph articles about GG's recent election victory, and they provide somewhat slightly different pictures.

I tried to google for confirmation or rejection of the TalkSport `censorship' episode in January 2005. I found virtually undisputable evidence for a sceduled talk show being replaced by a news programme on the Gaza invasion. In fact, the broadcasting company itself made a special point of the substitution in an answer to ofcom about complaints for biased broadcasts: In Breach   George Galloway   Talksport, 22 November 2008; 27, 29 December 2008; 2, 9 January 2009, 22:00 (Ofcom). This official statement included the following:

"Talksport also wished to highlight that, on 3 January 2009 when news broke that Israeli forces had occupied the Gaza Strip, in order to comply with the Code rules on due impartiality in news, Talksport's Programme Director replaced George Galloway with an enhanced news programme presented by the non-partisan presenter Ian Collins to reflect the fact that a rolling news event was being dealt with."

There was much less clear evidence of this being considered as "censorship". The most clear was the Daily Mail reference also provided by Snowlocust. There were some net publications or discussion threads commenting on this, but they all seemed to rely on either the Daily Mail article, or on direct noticing that the GG show was cancelled:

• George Galloway, TalkSPORT Show (World Press Network): "Friday's show covers current topical discussions - especially the Gaza Massacres - George back after being prevented from hosting last Saturday's show:"
• Talksport Radio censor George Galloway (Net comments thread; seems pretty clear that his TalkSHOW was cancelled)
• Thread: Hamas lover Galloway axed by Talksport! (Football Forum)s.net (Quites the Daily Mail article at the thread start). This might possibly merit a comment of the type ..., which was considered as an act of censoring Galloway by the Daily Mail [reference] and some bloggers.
• George Galloway Taken Off Radio Show (Pakistan Daily): I do not understand whether this is blogged or by a journalist. Similar to others supra.

More interesting are the complaints to Ofcom in themselves, and the Ofcom decision. Apart from the primary source, I also found this reported by BBC, namely, Galloway censured over radio show (BBC News). ("Censured refers not to TalkSPORT censoring GG, but to Ofcom criticising TakSport and thus indirectly GG.) The episode might be worth to mention both here and in the TalkSHOW article.

According to the BBC, fourteen listeners had complained to Ofcom about five of GG's shows in December 2008 and January 2009. Ofcom found that GG had not broken the rules about "due weight"; GG had expressed very clear opinions, but had invited guests with contrary opinions, and also had invited especially those listeners who disagreed with him to call the programme. In total, Ofcom found that the five occasions together presented a balanced view, even if not all opinions were represented in each show. On the other hand, Ofcom found that he had "crossed the line from legitimate and provocative debate" by calling the listeners to take direct action.

The original confirmed this, but IMHO has further interest. In the decision, quite the longest part is spent on the acquittal from most of the charges. Specifically, some complaints were against there being a talk show of this kind lead by a person with outspoken Israel-critical opinions. The Ofcom makes it rather clear that they consider programmes of this type, with programme leaders with outspoken opinions in controversial subjects, both permissible and a positive contribution to a vital democratic public discussion; provided that the programmes also do present other points of view in a satisfactory manner. They found that GG indeed had done so. Thus, the main complaints were rejected.

The complaints about GG encouraging people to partake in demonstrations were criticised; and the TalkShow defence that those demonstrations were legal, permitted by the police, and that GG by no means advocated violence, was rejected as insufficient. They wrote:

"The broadcaster was actively encouraging listeners to participate in a political activity with details of the events, addresses and times. These calls to action did not come from an interviewee (who was for instance a campaign organiser on the demonstration itself) but from the presenter himself. At this point, we consider, the broadcaster crossed the line from legitimate and provocative debate with adequate alternative views to one who was calling listeners to action."

The Ofcom criticism was relatively mild; there was no note that the rule breach was considered 'severe' or would be noted for future reference (as with several other Ofcom verdicts).

I think that this could be condenced to a few sentences about the complaints, the mixed verdict, and also the cancelled show on thhe 3'rd of January. Of course, this is of minor interest, compared to the other legal controverses in which GG has been involved, and so it should be treated rather briefly. JoergenB (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He's now married to a non-Muslim (Hindu, I believe) woman. So I'm guessing he's not a Muslim now. Also he is now attacking Islamic parties and saying dictatorship is preferable to Muslim rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

VIEWS ON SYRIA

Galloway's support for the Assad government and stated opposition to an Islamic government in Syria should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that his words "In fact the regime itself looks more and more like the terrorist ... This is a genuine popular uprising taking place in Syria"[9] are rather contrary to that view. GG's views on Syria are rather complex, and a short summary is not easy. Rwendland (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheez 'n' rice

Someone just added to the infobox that Galloway is a Muslim, citing the New Statesman article that Galloway is sueing Jemima Goldsmith over. Folks, he is taking the journalist who said he converted to Islam to court for libel. I can only assume that in this case the IP adding the information did not think it was complimentary, unlike the previous campaigner to get the same information in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The speech to Saddam in the summary

I have reverted the deletion of this passage, and have rearranged the paragraph to contextualise Galloway's comments to Saddam Hussen.* It is impossible to avoid including it in the summary, as someone has said in the edit history, it probably the thing for which Galloway is best known, and is possibly the most familiar bit of archive (in the UK) involving Galloway. His claim that he was addressing the Iraqi people is included in the summmary.

* I know I should have split my actions into separate edits, but I am having browser difficulties on long articles. Philip Cross (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Julian Assange rape comments

This latest controversy seems worth noting to me:[10] I've added it to the article at George Galloway#Julian Assange comments. Robofish (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A 'controversy' assertion needs to be based on more than that. And remember WP:NOTNEWS - we are in no hurry. Wait and see if his comments are commented on further elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"George Galloway condemned by party leader over rape comments", The Guardian[11]; "Galloway 'clarifies' rape comments amid growing storm", BBC[12]; "George Galloway defends Julian Assange rape comment", The Independent[13]; "George Galloway: Julian Assange rape allegations nothing but 'bad sexual etiquette'", Daily Telegraph[14]; "Rape or politics? Assange sex case splits Britain", Reuters[15]; "British lawmaker criticized over rape comments made in defense of Julian Assange", Washington Post[16]; "Galloway controversy over Assange 'rape' comments", AFP[17]; "MP's defence of Assange triggers consensual sex row", Brisbane Times[18]; "Akin to Idiocy, or George Galloway’s Insertion", London Review of Books[19]; and there are many many more. Certainly enough to show that this has received very significant world-wide coverage, that opinions are divided (even within Galloway's own party), and that it is reliably described as a controversy. RolandR (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact his own party leader has condemned him makes the rape comments a controversy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/21/george-galloway-rape-comments-respect). Though I think it's important that the controversy section just doesn't become a list of everyone he has ever offended. The Oxford Union part, for example, seems trivial, as does the Trotskyist Workers' Liberty group being offended by him. And plain false allegations (the Christian Science Monitor part) are not really controversy now they are proven forgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.107.254 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact 'controversies' sections in articles are generally frowned on anyway - if something is of such significance to merit inclusion at all, it should be included in the appropriate section of the main body of text. A rag-bag collection of 'reasons not to like Galloway' isn't exactly encyclopaedic, is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

RolandR is absolutely right. Galloway's remarks clearly qualify as a controversy, as established by the wide range of sources covering the event and the high profile responses that have been given.

Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that a 'controversy' section is nothing more than a 'reasons not to like' section. On the contrary, controversy merely means that a person has done something that has generated much critical response. But this tells us absolutely nothing about whether the said criticism is actually justified. It is absolutely right that we record those instances when our elected politicians do things that generate significant criticism, and people can make up their own minds as to whether or not they consider that criticism to be justified.Hermes223 (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't restore material to an article covered by WP:BLP while a discussion is ongoing. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being overzealous, Sean.hoyland. AndyTheGrump did make a BLP objection - namely that the sources did not support the claim that Galloway's actions constituted a controversy. However, by not responding to Roland's argument (which in my view clearly showed it was) he has, I would argue, effectively conceded this point. Therefore, there is no longer any outstanding WP:BLP complaint against this material.

There are outstanding matters of whether the material violates WP:Notnews and whether it could be better included elsewhere in the article, but these have nothing to do with WP:BLP. I have already reinserted the material once, so I won't do it again, but I would argue that since there are no longer any WP:BLP objections, and since the material is well-sourced, we should revert to normal practices, which are that the burden of proof should be on those who wish to delete well-sourced material. Hermes223 (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Impatience. The discussion only started yesterday. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news source, there's no rush, and I see no evidence of a consensus to include it at this stage. I don't have any opinion on the content issue but I do know that an absence of evidence after a few hours != conceding a point in a discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point. Had Andy not responded at all yet to Roland's point, then your point would be valid. However, in his response Andy raises the matter of whether or not controversy sections should exist at all, but does not challenge Roland's argument regarding whether or not we can reliably call Galloway's actions controversial. When you explicitly fail to challenge another's argument when you could have done so, that is a concession. You see no evidence of consensus; I see no evidence of a dispute (with regard to BLP matters). Hermes223 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you can wait for Andy and verify whether the assumptions in your analysis are correct because there is no hurry. The evidence on this page, including what Andy has written so far, does not support the notion that there is WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. The way to find out what his position is to ask him direct questions rather than make assumptions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That does rather twist what I said. I never claimed that there was consensus for inclusion - I have acknowledged the matters of WP:Notnews for instance. Rather, I claimed that there was no longer any BLP dispute, and so the burden of proof lies on those who wish to delete the material, given that it is well-sourced. Of course, the claim that I am making 'assumptions' is clearly unfair; rather I am drawing a perfectly normal and valid logical inference that is drawn all the time in any rational decision making process. Hermes223 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, this little debate we seem to have got going between isn't really productive anyway Sean.hoyland. So, bearing in mind WP:DRNC, could I invite you to actually express an opinion on the content of this material, and tell us whether or not you think it ought to be included and why. That, I think, would be a far more constructive way forward. Hermes223 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been three days, and there has been no further discussion. Andy's points about BLP seem to have been answered, and in the intervening time Galloway has been sacked as a columnist - which surely renders the whole matter reportable, if ever that matter was really in doubt. I have therefore restored the material. Hermes223 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the sacking etc, I think WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies, and on that basis, the material should stay - though I've removed an assertion in Wikipedia's voice regarding 'English law': Wikipedia isn't supposed to be taking sides in the controversy, and the sourcing seems questionable. I do however stand by my comments regarding the 'controversies' section in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)