Talk:George Galloway/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Marriage ceremony unreffed

The Early and personal life section, second par, says (a) "... he married Amineh Abu-Zayyad as a second wife in a Muslim ceremony..." and (b) "...married as his third wife Rima Husseini, a Lebanese woman and former researcher, also in a Muslim ceremony." Neither statement re ceremony is referenced. User talk:Moriori (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There are stories in the press like this one [1] (there are others) that have wife number 3 complaining that he he's still married to her under Islamic Law. Maybe it could be changed to "under Islamic Law" rather than "Muslim ceremony", with some referencing. At the moment, there are plentiful references to confirm marriages to Muslim women and references about the complaint of his third wife. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, then someone do it. My point was and still is that the "muslim ceremony" claims were not referenced. Even if they are changed to "under Islamic Law", they would still need referencing. Or be removed. User talk:Moriori (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it just needs to be done with a little care as the chain of events doesn't stand up unless reference is given to his Islamic marriages, so the alternative would be to delete all mention of wife numbers 3 and 4. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuing this with a proposal, can I suggest that para change from this:

From 1979 to 1999, he was married to Elaine Fyffe, with whom he has a daughter. In 1994, he married Amineh Abu-Zayyad as a second wife in a Muslim ceremony (later after his divorce from his first wife, he and Abu-Zayyad also undertook a civil ceremony); Zayyad filed for divorce in 2005. In 2005, Galloway married as his third wife Rima Husseini, a Lebanese woman and former researcher, also in a Muslim ceremony. She gave birth to their first son in May 2007, and a second son in December 2011. In March 2012, Galloway married Putri Gayatri Pertiwi, a consultant with a Dutch research firm.

To this:

From 1979 to 1999, he was married to Elaine Fyffe, with whom he has a daughter, Lucy. Fyffe and Galloway divorced in 1999 and the following year he married Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, a Palestinian scientist. They were estranged in 2007 and Zayyad eventually filed for divorce in 2009. In 2005, Galloway married as his third wife Rima Husseini, his former Lebanese researcher, in what she claimed was an Islamic marriage that still existed at the time of his next marriage. She gave birth to their first son in May 2007, and a second son in December 2011. In March 2012, Galloway married Putri Gayatri Pertiwi, an anthropologist and a consultant with a Dutch research firm.

Comments please. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph source says nothing whatsoever about Galloway marrying Rima Husseini. The Mirror (a far from ideal source) makes clear it is repeating 'reported claims' by Husseini, who also states that "Under English law, he hasn’t done anything illegal". It is far from clear from the source whether the claimed marriage to Hussaini was ever legally recognised (note that the Guardian 'Comment is Free' piece by Sara Khan explicitly states that "few British Muslim marriages have been registered under British law", under a headline that says "Muslim marriages like George Galloway's should be registered" [2]). There also appears to be no source whatsoever for the year of birth of the 2nd son (the first is mentioned in the earlier Telegraph source). Given the questionable value of the Mirror as a source for anything controversial (especially when it is repeating 'reported claims'), it is difficult to see how Wikipedia can definitively assert that Galloway was ever legally married to Husseini at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that bit about Rima Husseini does need extra sourcing, you're right. I can see articles online at the Mail, Express, Sun, Mirror and Huffington Post that all give details about that one, though obviously all of those will raise quality concerns. The Guardian blogs do have other articles, also of course debatable as to their QS standing - this one [3] seems fairly definitive (entitled "How Many Wives Does George Galloway Have") contains the sentence "Zayyad filed for divorce which was granted in 2009 and he married Rima Husseini in 2007 in a Muslim ceremony. It's not clear whether he divorced Husseini before marrying Putri Gayatri Pertiwi at the weekend". However, we have some sort of censoring problem if we take Husseini out of the picture altogether, given that most sources have a wife count, we need to explain somehow. I think several of the lesser sources could cover it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• This source discusses his various marriages, and the circumstances of the divorce of Husseini is detailed here. Ankh.Morpork 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Salma Yaqoob resignation

Salma Yaqoob, leader of Respect, has resigned following her much-publicised falling out with GG over the Assange comments - I think this is relevant to this article as it closes the Assange allegation section - an edit I made earlier on the subject, whilst declared to be true, was reverted with the edit commentary that it is not relevant to this article. This is the edit I wanted to introduce:

" Yaqoob resigned as leader of Respect over the affair on 12 September 2012, citing "a breakdown in relations of trust and collaborative working".<no wiki> "</no wiki>

I think this is strongly relevant, as the leader of GGs political party has resigned over his conduct and propose it be added. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Article links her resignation to Galloway's conduct and reports her criticism of him. Of course it should be included in the article. Ankh.Morpork 18:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yaqoob's criticism of Galloway is already, rightly, included in the article -- it was, in fact, me who added it. Her resignation has not been explicitly linked to this, except by inference, and therefore to add it here is unacceptable synthesis. It is also, in my opinion, not relevant in this article, which is about Galloway, not about Yaqoob or Respect. The article cited merely states that her resignation comes "after" she criticised Galloway, not as a result of this. Unless you can find a reliable source that this was the reason for her resignation, it has no place in this article. RolandR (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a huge stretch of Synth to say that it's not about Galloway - isn't she largely the founder of Respect? It's a big thing that the founder of Respect and the first Respect MP have not only fallen out badly, but caused that founder and leader to then resign as leader. I want the article to avoid censoring and to give all aspects of the Galloway story, both pos and neg. It's actually quite indefensible to leave this out and it certainly isn't Synthesis, as the actual edit never said it was a result of the GG dispute, merely that it was the end point of the story. Wikipedia is here to tell the truth and not censor facts that we find inconvenient. This is major. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you wait for the source James. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

? No source is needed for the edit in question other than the one already supplied, which was not queried as to factuality by the deleter - the issue at odds is what constitutes WP:Synth here, not what is accurate sourcing for the edit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The article cited did not support the edit. The text added stated that Yaqoob resigned "over the affair"; that causal link is not present in the article. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this then? "Yaqoob resigned as leader of Respect on 12 September 2012, citing "a breakdown in relations of trust and collaborative working". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not in this article. It is only speculation that Yaqoob was referring to Galloway. This might indeed be the case; but, until a reliable source draws this conclusion and publishes it, such an assumption would not be sufficient evidence for Wikipedia reliability requirements. RolandR (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How about, "George Galloway, has refused to apologise to his Bradford constituents for comments on rape that have caused widespread offence and led to the departure of his party leader, Salma Yaqoob. Ankh.Morpork 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Careful, as I don't think anybody has charged accused Assange of with rape and he is a living person. Other than that I could agree with this wording. --John (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was merely quoting verbatim from the Guardian which establishes the direct link that previous editors opined was speculative and unfounded. But thank you for your BLP concerns, one can never be too careful it seems. Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion - is Galloway now a Muslim convert?

The infobox currently gives Galloway's religion as "Roman Catholic" but given this controversy [4] and his marriage in a Muslim ceremony to a Muslim woman (illegal under Islamic law if he is not a Muslim), this appears to be in some considerable doubt. Perhaps at minimum the RC status should be removed. It isn't self-declared by him that he's now a Muslim but there appears to be evidence that points to that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read the past discussions of this issue in the archives (links above). Given that Galloway has declared Khan's allegations as being 'categorically untrue', and given that we base statements on religious beliefs on what people themselves say, rather than on dubious claims by others, we are not going to change anything without clear evidence in reliable sources that Galloway has himself stated either (a) that he is no longer a Catholic, or (b) that he is a Muslim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's a valid line of argument. Firstly, to have it in the infobox, we need to ascertain if he is still a Catholic - from the source mentioned, plus others, it appears he currently refuses to declare his religion - therefore it probably isn't correct to have "Catholic" in the infobox - I did change this to "Raised" as that's what the evidence suggests. Secondly, there are sources raising the strong suggestion that he has converted to Islam clandestinely. That's reportable isn't it, if it's backed by good sources? I'm not suggesting we suddenly switch the Religion line in the infobox to say "Islam" but that we include material about the controversy in the article where quality-sourced. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It is already. See the section on his early and personal life. Road Wizard (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Jamesinderbyshire, Please provide links to any sources you have (conforming to WP:RS) that state that Galloway has "converted to Islam clandestinely". So far, I've seen none (we obviously cannot take Khan's assertions as fact, given Galloway's categorical denial). In fact, I can't see how you can have a reliable source for a 'clandestine conversion' at all. As to whether we should be describing Galloway as a Catholic, he was certainly raised as one, though contrary to what I wrote earlier, we don't actually seem to have a source where he describes himself as one, and on that basis, we shouldn't be describing him as Catholic in the infobox. On the other hand, in the CBS video we link (broadcast in November 2010), he explicitly describes himself as 'a Christian' ([5] 12m 56s from the start). The infobox should therefore either read 'Christian', or be left blank. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought videos aren't generally usable as sources in this way unless further referenced in another QS? As you say, there isn't any obvious self-reporting by him in a usable source as to his religion (personally I suspect he's being his usual tricky self and covering up a tactical Muslim conversion as he's really an atheist, but that's another story) - so the religion status should probably come out? Are we agreed on that? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This has to be the surreal comment of the day. What on earth are you thinking of? Galloway is a Christian for certain, and it's not Wikipedia to preempt anything or for you to talk about "other stories" (what 'other stories'?). Why should he jump through hoops for Wikipedia? He's made his statment. I suggest editing something you know about, not just a topic you clearly have some strong feelings about (or against I should say). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Removing it altogether sounds like the best thing to do. --John (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It might be best to add a hidden comment rather than blanking the parameter. A blank parameter just begs for the next editor to fill it in. Perhaps the following should be included:

<!-- Various sources describe Galloway as Christian or Muslim but he does not either confirm or deny these statements, saying that his religious beliefs are a personal matter. This situation is too complex to be covered by a single infobox entry and should be discussed in more detail within the body of the article --> Road Wizard (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, and done. --John (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally feel that biography infoboxes should have categories like 'religion', but WP unfortunately uses them. For your attention George Galloway has talked of his Christian and Catholic faith scores of times on his radio show over the years. Does anyone have proof he's changed? He is surely still a Christian (why would he not be?), and Wikipedia has no right even suggesting he isn't based on this kind of speculation, and the flimsy reasoning that Galloway is not jumping through silly hoops just to make things easy for !BONGO! outfits (like Wikipedia these days alas). Galloway has always openly been a liberal Muslim-friendly Catholic who believes in the 'one Abrahamic God' - ie the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims. "Allah", "Jehovah" etc to him would mean God, as it does to countless people. Whether he is still in his 'Sunday' church or not (and we simply don't know) he is still a logically a Christ-ian because that's what he's manifestly always been. We cannot say he isn't a Catholic without evidence of him leaving the church.

Galloway has always had this pitchy level of often just-daft speculation surrounding him on something or other - the mud can stick, but if you follow him properly, rarely the story. I am particularly sensitive about Islamophobia on Wikipedia. This is not a life and death issue here, it's just an issue that is linked in some way with !Islam! Elements of Original Research and bias are very clearly present in this discussion imo. Wikipedia policy has to be the key. Wikipedia is not supposed to be ticker-controlled by !NEWS! (in this way at least - and imo it shouldn't cover NEWS at all - partly because it's unsurprisingly extraordinarily bad at it) and it cannot change this kind of existing IInformation because a man won't deny a highly personal and loaded 'accusation' - an 'accusation' Galloway will certainly find demeaning and insulting to all faiths involved, Islam especially (the Muslim world has clearly always been an interest of his).

If you must change the existing text, the obvious thing is to put in 'Christian' instead of Catholic - but does Wikipedia really have a 'right' to change its own 'info' text in these kind of cases? I certainly dislike using footnotes at these times - people end up inserting stuff like "who could be Muslim!" in bold, but at least that hasn't happened here. I think some people are following the wrong type of !STORY!. There are usually lower-down sections for this kind of stuff until they properly develop, or just eventually evaporate. The article proves that there is hardly anything to show. You could say to me "OK, well it's not a 'life or death thing' at this juncture either" (ie with the religion removed), but I don't like the general attitude behind this. There isn't sufficient evidence to change anything. WP:Redflag and WP:weight (and primary sources) say that the two 'positions' are not equal - the speculators have no new 'statement' to stand on, however much their story has been recycled across the internuts. Galloway did refute Jemima Kahn's big claim of conversion - he's not been totally silent at all. He's just telling people to buzz off.

Anyway I don't like the following 'hidden parameter' for a few reasons (most covered above - but it's really not that 'complex' imo):

"Various sources describe Galloway as Christian or Muslim but he does not either confirm or deny these statements, saying that his religious beliefs are a personal matter. This situation is too complex to be covered by a single infobox entry and should be discussed in more detail within the body of the article"

So I'm compromising between my own preference (no personal infobox stuff at all) and what we have a right to believe (that he is a Christian) - and so am putting Christian (raised Catholic) in the infobox - which was almost what was there before its' removal. I think that removing everything pays heed to stories without any significant depth or weight, and I'm uncomfortable with the situation being changed on such unbalanced evidence. Wikipedia certainly can't suggest George Galloway is a liar (eg diminishing his statement denying Khan's accusation of a conversion ceremony) - and it is coming very close to doing that via this 'info' removal. It might be Wikipedia's biog, but it's his life. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is right as it now is, but on a response to the above, Matt, you need to take a reality pill and check the facts. He simply cannot have been married in anything even vaguely approaching a Muslim ceremony to a Muslim without declaring that faith himself in some attempt at sincerity. I would suggest you check out some material on Islamic marriage. Your faith in GG's total honesty, whilst touching, is hardly supported by many aspects of his statements-vs-his actions and the many factually-based scandals he's been involved in over the years. I dislike your slagging off Wikipedia in the ways you just did, in fact in this article as in others, Wikipedia is giving people more access to facts and reality than you would ever get from Galloway himself in a million years. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please dispense your 'reality pills' elsewhere. This is not a forum, and your opinions regarding GGs honesty are of no consequence to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - you are full of Original research and totally biased opinion James, and are starting to sound like a bully. This place used to have policies to follow. You have no idea what has or hasn't happened in GG's life, and you are clearly not an authority on Muslim people, religion and Imams etc. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but 'raised Catholic' is not a religion. We have a clear and unequivocal recent statement by Galloway (the CBS video, which is about as good a WP:RS as one could get as a public arena) that he is "a Christian", and that is all the infobox needs to say, if we say anything at all. If statements in infoboxes need qualifying in parenthesis, they don't belong in infoboxes at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. I'm afraid it's a BLP issue and in cases of doubt, it's better we say nowt. (Hey, it even rhymes!) --John (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Andy is saying use "Christian" or use nothing - you have inserted a highly dodgy hidden comment which is effectively calling Galloway a liar. That is not "saying nowt". Totally removing Galloway's religion was extremely suspect - that is not doing nowt. In reality there is actually no realistic 'doubt' in this matter at all, outside of some people's speculation - that's the whole flipping point here. I wouldn't add religion to the infobox either (on principle), but I'm extremely uncomfortable with the reasons you have for deleting Galloway's religion, and how you are continuing to do so despite the raised issues.

I'm changing it to 'Christian' per the absolutely normative and perfectly reasonable status quo, and per Andy's acceptance of that. It's outrageous that James has given any stock here at all given the way he's gone about this, and how the reasoning/evidence behind it is all effectively unsupported anti-Galloway speculation. As an admin you should point a few things out to James right now. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just stepping in here as you are indirectly accusing me of calling Galloway a liar. I understand that discussing the religion of an individual can be a highly emotive subject, but making statements like that aren't particularly helpful. The comment I drafted states that other people make assertions about his religion but he does not choose to respond as he sees it as a personal matter. Someone who wishes to keep a private matter private is not a liar. Road Wizard (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

His assertion that he's Christian is two years old. For most people that would not be a problem, but in this case discretion is the better part of WP:Bold. There is no question of lying here. People can and do change. Paul B (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What is two years old? I heard him talk about his Christianity a few shows before his Talksport stint ended this summer. Life is not all about discovered internet quotes, and people can't have fresh press releases every morning just so Wikipedians can balance speculation with affirmations. Saying "people can and do change" is suggesting he has changed - but there is no evidence for that. Galloway made a counter statement to Jemima Khan that strongly suggests he is still the Christian he always was. James actually thinks he's an 'atheist' - that's how bizarre this all is. Let's just stick to policy guys. Matt Lewis (talk)

Oh thanks for winging in and reverting me, that's really mature. Every time I come back to Wikipedia I find out that policy means nothing, and friendship means everything. It literally takes me about an hour to find that out again. Wikipedia is just a farce. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any point to having this? I can't think of one. I was referring to the date of the statement cited. I've no idea what you may or may not have heard him say. I'm not 'friends' with any editors in this thread, and your near-hysterical response is unhelpful. How is it "mature" for you to revert other editors, but not for me to revert you? Paul B (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at various personal abuses heaped on me above for defending Wikipedia and thinking to myself, what's happening here? Are we dealing with objectivity or strongly motivated personal desires to ensure Mr Galloway gets his own PR version in place? Looking at sources like this [6], where George Galloway praises Allah to Muslim crowds, it's kind of difficult to see him objectively as "Christian", despite any video statements of his to that effect. The status should come out, Wikipedia deals with facts and is not a PR vehicle for particular politicians. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Defending Wikipedia"? "That status should come out"? Do you realise what you sound like? And how dare you suggest I'm nothing more than a Galloway 'PR' man? That is a basic absence of really-necessary AGF here. 'Allah' to millions of people is the singular 'God' that the Western world shares. Galloway and millions of other people say that all the time: 'he' is the God of Abraham and the Old Testament; and Jews, Christians and Muslims all share 'him' on that particular level. After that they certainly radically depart, but it's still the same God! Jesus Christ is seen either as the son of God, an important prophet to Muslims, or a false messiah to the Jews. Galloway has always been pluralistic in regards to these 'great' religions living together. You have shown above that you know nothing about any of it. It's a classic case of prejudice before knowledge.

I'll say it straight - it seem pretty clear to me that there is more than a hint of Islamophobia here (what exactly are you 'defending' Wikipedia from?), not just extreme anti-Galloway sentiment. You have actually said above that in reality think Galloway is an atheist playing political games. That would mean he's been performing his 'act' throughout of his entire life. How can Galloway be such an atheist and a Muslim too? It's all mixed-up prejudice and Original Research, James. Without proper evidence you have no right to force in you own conclusions on anything - and you are not supposed to do that here even with it. Your various personal attacks on the man have been really cowardly in my eyes, and completely unsuited to Wikipedia. In my opinion you are just another Protected Editor marching around, in an area where he just assumes he can get away with more than usual. At the end of the day it's a simple equation to me - you are admin-protected and auto-supported editor, and I am not. That is how content is allowed or disallowed on Wikipedia. Clearly you either play that game or you don't.

What upsets me the most is the time I take to rationalise these things in detail, and how much of a waste of time it is when people already have their revert&reply - and don't even bother to sit down, read a little, and think for once. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if you could reduce your rant-lengths a little Matt? It's quite a job wading through them. As far I can tell, your basic objection is that the Muslim convert allegation is not sourced. This is total nonsense. Here are just some of the recent quality press speculations on the topic. New Statesman/Jemima Khan [7]. Telegraph [8]. Guardian ("Galloway is often asked about his faith but refuses to answer, saying his religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities") [9]. There is considerable evidence and to my mind perfectly adequate evidence to demonstrate that at least his religious stance is ambiguous, something you yourself appear to confirm in one of your dialogues higher up. Given this obvious ambiguity, how can we objectively state he is "Christian"? I agree that BLPs shouldn't really state religion anyway but in answer to your specific points, yes, I personally think (not that it matters) that he's a 100% political animal who would be happy to announce he was Jedi if running for a Jedi vote and yes, you were attacking Wikipedia in your previous pieces on spurious grounds and yes, personally I think he's a huge and serial liar, exploiter and manipulator, but that also doesn't make any difference. The sources are the sources. Are you going to restrict yourself to 1000 words in your rebuttal? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You have just proven that A) you still haven't followed my arguments (and I at least dealt with the main Jemima Khan source, which Galloway refutes), and B) you seem to nothing about Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia doesn't "objectively" anything in the manner you are talking about. Editors are not meant to 'weigh things up' over this kind of speculatory evidence: in terms of stating facts this kind of evidence is meant to be (on the table at least) ignored. Wikipedia is not about discovering the 'truth' in any journalistic sense (using pointy stories etc), and your own conclusions are logically suspect anyway. I've warned about this 'Wiki journalist' nonsense over the years, and it's probably getting worse with all the impossible-to-do-right news reporting that goes on. Anyway, I must have been wrong about you, because I thought you were more of a 'name' here than you clearly can be. I may actually have confused you with somebody else. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Jamesinderbyshire, it has been made perfectly clear to you what Wikipedia policy is in regard to this issue. Unless you have a more recent reliable source than the 2010 CBS one where Galloway asserts that he is a Christian, this topic is closed. This is not a forum for ridiculous conspiracy theories about 'secret Muslims' that would claim to be Jedi if it suited them. If you want to vent about Galloway, do it somewhere else. 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What is closed? That he should be described as Christian, or that it should be left undefined? I have cited a number of recent QSes above that expose considerable speculation and doubt as to his religious stance. Do you disagree with those sources? You appear to be confused about the discussion Andy. I am advocating we not call him a Christian, is that something you disagree with? Also the video clips you mention are doubtful, I haven't seen anything conclusive that says we can use video clips as definitive sources unless supported by textual materials. Isn't that the case in BLPs? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that a statement by Galloway broadcast on CBS that he is a Christian isn't a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. As for the rest, we don't give a flying fuck about crackpot conspiracy theories about 'secret muslims', as you have been told multiple times. If you persist in using this talk page as a soapbox, I shall ask that action be taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you say so! Although it seems the Guardian, Telegraph, New Statesman, etc, that are reporting it and not me. Perhaps you only recognise sources that confirm your viewpoint? I'm still waiting though to hear what point you are actually making - are you advocating it should say he's a Christian? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Underneath it all I expect that few people watching the article really see 'religion' in a BLP infobox as a particularly great idea. By rights it should be returned, simply because the reasons for removing it haven't held up. But if no one is doing it then no one is doing it. It's claiming some kind of solid consensus on the matter that's objectionable, as if the issue of him no longer being a Christian (presumably) has been solved. It seems to me that it's more a case of it being put on 'hold', due to the speculation. Anyway, I'd quit while you're ahead if I were you! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of religion status from BLPs, as too often it's simply there for POV reasons, but as to quitting while I'm ahead, it wasn't me who was slagging off, being vituperative or making unwarranted assertions of seeking to introduce conspiracy theories when all I did was introduce additional sources on Galloway's activities and statements. There seem to be some ownership issues going on here, I will have to monitor this article more closely and I invite others to do so as well. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just hope you would feel the same about excluding religion from infoboxes if "Muslim" actually did appear in Galloway's box. I'd be curious to see your list of all those people out there who you say put religion in infoboxes for 'POV' reasons. As for 'ownership' issues? You have simply been disagreed with, pointed to basic policy, and even (as things stand) have your own way. But if the current edit situation changes it simply changes. I don't like this 'I will be here to defend this truth' attitude. In my experience it discourages people from getting involved, and you see the same blustery attitude in many of the more difficult areas on Wikipedia. You cannot claim any consensus here, or any new "status quo". I just hope your invite for more Watchers stretches beyond those who follow yourself, because the more general disinterested editors watching this article, as with any article, the better.

The word "Christian" wasn't ever sneakily added by Galloway's 'PR people' (!), it was actually removed due to pressure, and entirely on the back of speculation. I think that those who decided to edit war over that should think a little more deeply about their actions, and why exactly they took it to 3RR. I am hoping that this policy-inept and highly ill-mannered injustice will blow over, and that religion can simply stay out of these over-personal 'information' boxes altogether. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL, talk about pots and kettles, I made a few measured comments to start this thread, you responded with about a page of diatribe slagging off me, Wikipedia, various random targets! The only "ill manners" on display here are those of your good self and Mr Andy Grump (appropriate name) or whatever. You really need to try out some self-reflection. As for the removal, I think you'll find if you check that the "pressure" derives from the fact that current sources don't bear out the assertion that Galloway is a Christian, he's not exactly saying that himself now is he? Given the sources we saw that he keeps stum about it, understandably given what's really going on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Measured comments? That Galloway is in reality actually an atheist? Deary me. I could say that media speculation cannot "bear out" anything on Wikipedia (or anywhere else), but of course you are simply trolling now. Kahn says Galloway converted to Islam in a ceremony "around 2000" (she hasn't provided an exact year) - that's actually around 12 years before his marriage of this year, and Galloway simply denies it happened. That's 12 years of Galloway saying he's a Catholic since that period, despite Wikipedia's current "I am a Catholic" source only being from 2010 (there will be a more recent one out there somewhere). But 2010 is still 10 years after the alleged 'Muslim conversion', so that other 'edit war' rational of "how do we know for sure - people can change" is frankly ridiculous too.

It doesn't matter how many journalists have covered Jemima Kahn's allegation in the New Statesman, only she is saying that she's heard he's a secret Muslim. She's given no actual proof of the incident (she can't even give a proper year it's so heresay), and it's been flatly denied. It's barely even mud you're scooping up here - it's mainly just reporting of her allegation. Regarding your sources, The Telegraph added an 'Update' to it's article after Galloway made the denial (and had actually remarked on how illogical the story was if true), and the Guardian article is actually framed around his denial, and mainly reports the New Statesman's counter statement, who are choosing to defend their interviewer by posing a couple of speculatory questions to counter Galloway's request for a full retraction. (Snd they are foolishly generalising about Islamic law regarding marriage, which they may well have got from the weak article here - which unwisely conflates the word of the Koran and the wider world of Islamic law).

It appears that you managed to impress one or two people in the ether with your own ludicrous theory that Galloway is an atheist who constantly lies about religion for political purposes. This deception of Galloway's is presumably from at least 1994, the date of his first Muslim marriage - or does it cover all of his life? (And we have to wonder how 1994 ties in with his alleged 2000 'conversion' to Islam, apparently before which he cannot marry a Muslim at all). Regarding your atheist theory, you don't have a single shred of evidence to back it up. Galloway is clearly a 'One God' Christian pluralist with a globally renowned interest in the whole Muslim world - he's obviously not an atheist. I'm not religious a man myself, but a few more of those type of people in the world can only be a good thing if you ask me.

All that's of extra note here is that the New Statesman has decided to consolidate their editorial decision to print Kahn's allegation by placing a couple of question marks next to Galloway's denial; "If you had not become a Muslim then how can you have just fully married a Muslim?" (he had already fully married a Muslim in 1994, 6 years before the alleged conversion ceremony) and, "give us a better denial that you are a Muslim than walking out on us please" (he clearly told them where to go). They haven't managed to come up with any proof of anything at all, which is of course weak of them indeed. The facts: Kahn's allegation of a conversion ceremony is flatly denied by Galloway, and the allegation was regarding the year 2000 or so. The current Wikipedia sources are 2012 for the allegation denial, and 2010 for Galloway referring to himself as a Christian. In terms of going beyond reporting Khan's allegation and the New Statesman's further speculation, those dates are all Wikipedia needs to know. There is no evidence to base removing his pre-existing 'Christian' status on at all. I will add a line on the questions from New Statesman to the section in the article - there is a slightly misquoted line in there that needs working on anyway.

In my experience no two Christians are alike - faith is indeed a personal thing. That's one of the reason's the BLP info box is such a bad idea. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jamesinderbyshire and our article on George Galloway AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming from ANI: Having looked at the sources in the article, I think the current version (with the hidden comment) is preferable to simply stating 'Christian' in the infobox. This is an unusual case: ordinarily, a person's public statement on their religion would be conclusive; but here there's enough reasonable doubt, reported in reliable sources, that it seems best to not make any firm statement in the infobox and leave it to the article to explain the situation. It's not as though religion needs to be stated in the infobox for most people, anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, including from Galloway himself. In this interview with the Independent on Sunday in June this year [10], quoting from the article, Interviewer: "And yet the idea that you might be a Muslim is something you won't comment on?" Galloway: "That is as far as I go on it." Interviewer: "It matters though, doesn't it? Because throughout your career, there's been a consistent overlap between your political beliefs and religious principle." Galloway: "Yes. But if I get into which branch of belief I'm in, there are too many downsides."

Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Meaning Roman Catholic James. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this comment Matt, but I should have done, as it's a solid example of your bias - no objective editor could assume that the comments (Interviewer: "And yet the idea that you might be a Muslim is something you won't comment on?" Galloway: "That is as far as I go on it.") could be taken to mean Galloway confirms he is RC. I assume you mean it proves nothing has changed since his statements of RCism a few years ago, but objectively quite the reverse appears to be possible - Galloway leaves it open! Really, this has gone far enough, this case is over to my satisfaction and most other people's it seems. Stop flogging a dead horse. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's funny because everyone else reading the article could see that he meant his Catholicism, including the interviewer. You are just not up to this James, and your attitude towards policy couldn't be less suited to Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

By "everyone else", do you mean you and Andy? Where is Galloway's statement there that he is still a Christian? Please, give it a rest. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• A runaway victory for George Galloway – and all praise to Allah states that Galloway said "I’m a better Pakistani than he [Mr Hussain] will ever be. God knows who’s a Muslim and who is not." Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He's not talking about himself in the second line, he's talking about Imran Hussain, the Labour man he campaigned against in Bradford. These are unconnected lines next to other lines, hastily plucked out of their context. Just read the source. He says lines like the first all the time, and actually has a Pakistani community award (why he's more of one - not because he's a Muslim!). Look, you really don't have to like the man, you just have to use your brains guys Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The clear inference is that Galloway wants the audience to believe he (Galloway) is a better Muslim than his opponent. Any objective person seeing this could not think otherwise. I suppose this will go round and round because you clearly have some kind of issue Matt about him (are you connected to Galloway or Respect?) but the sources so far are against you. If Galloway comes forward now and says "I'm still a Christian" then fine, if he has done and you can show the source, fine, until then, we're going with the sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No James, you are "inferring" wrongly, because;

A) It's you want to "infer", and

B) You are being flagrantly irresponsible. Nobody in the press felt Galloway way saying "I am a Muslim" from that, because they all properly read it. Why can't you?

Wikipedia is not all about you and your own special 'journalistic nose'. Galloway has two Pakistani 'decorations' (see the article) - and he states clearly that he is "more of a Pakistani" than Hussain - not "more of an actual Muslim". It is NOT up to you or Wikipedia to read more into it without sources claiming the same. A lot of it was around Hussain's pub going, and how un-Muslim that was, but he was very critical of Hussain anyway and how little he's done as an MP.

Look, a lot of the press strongly criticised Galloway's tactics over this kind of rhetoric in the campaign, and I wasn't sure of its wisdom myself, but not one of them said "Wow, this means he's a Muslim!". In all in your head James. You are basically trying to add various weight the loose claim of 'Islamic conversion' by Jemima Kahn, which New Statesman failed to corroborate even to the year. That's is simply non objective for a journalist, and is way beyond policy for a 'Wikipedian'. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that a number of Wikipedia admin have now been pampering you and effectively encouraging you on, which is highly problematic (how are you to stop?), and to me just proves how downhill Wikipedia has gone. I advise people to concentrate a little on the evidence and subject. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You obviously intend to just keep chucking out wild accusations on a scatter-gun basis, so I'm not going to waste my time replying to them all one by one, particularly as they randomly vary and overlap. The key point from the statement of Galloway cited by another editor (not me - apparently I'm not the only "troller"!) above was (you didn't refer to it) "God knows who’s a Muslim and who is not." Those are Galloway's own words and the inference is clear. I don't think it's all just in my head. However, keep attacking the messenger if you feel it helps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The 'inference' isn't clear - journalists have not inferred it to mean that Galloway is a Muslim. What is clear is that you are making 'inferences' to support your case. Wikipedia isn't based on what contributors 'infer' from sources, it is based on what the sources say. Once again, you are engaging in original research. Furthermore, you have repeatedly called Galloway a liar, and claimed that he misrepresents his religious beliefs when it suits him. If the latter statement were to be true, it would surely indicate that you could make no such 'inference' from anything he said anyway. Your arguments are logically inconsistent - you accept any 'evidence' that Galloway is a Muslim as unequivocally true, while rejecting any contrary evidence simply on the basis that it doesn't support your claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I do Andy, "accept any 'evidence' that Galloway is a Muslim" as you put it - in fact, on that point, I am happy to accept the evidence is far from conclusive. To take this to back to my original point before you and Matt jumped all over me, wound me up thoroughly and accused me of calling him a liar, I was raising this in the context of the firm statement in the infobox that he is a Christian. Since that is now resolved, there isn't anything further to discuss. You've tried raising the other allegations you make against me on ANI and got nowhere. Let's stop it now shall we? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is all OR James, and Wikipedia is supposed to have nothing to do with "inferences" anyway. You don't have a single source supporting your reading here - and that is what matters - not you own idea of the 'truth'. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories, categories. Does Galloway believe that Christ is the son of God? Yes he does. Is Jamesinderbyshire a troll - yes he is. I'd get rid of BLP info boxes completely if I were you people. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please withdraw this offensive remark Matt, accusing me of trolling is not helpful. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's one claim that we actually have clear and conclusive evidence for. If you want me to to stop saying it, stop trolling. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Does George Galloway marrying a muslim in a muslim ceremony make him a muslim and renounce his catholic/christian faith? I would say there was no evidence for that. A friend of mine who is of the catholic faith married his wife in a Church of Scotland ceremony to please her but at a later date had a marriage ceremony in the catholic church. If he told me at the first ceremony that he had converted then that would be black and white. He didn't and I didn't ask. What I didn't do was presume that he had. Until George Galloway tells the media he has converted then we should have the decency not to presume that he has. Clay More47 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit at 11:31 today was reversed because of apparent legal action about this claim. First, I must say that I didn't realise that this situation was so serious and I'm sorry that I didn't discuss it here before making the edit. I think that my edit can be justified, as I made it clear that this is what the New Statesman said in response to Mr. Galloway, and I quoted what they said word-for-word from their website. I'd be very surprised if this would leave Wikipedia liable to legal action. We'd be merely reporting what the New Statesman said in response. Epa101 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - my edit summary may have been a little misleading. What I meant was that the NS response was to a legal threat made to them - I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia could be in any way become legally involved. The problem is that once the NS had received the legal threat, anything further they said might then reasonably be argued to no longer be neutral journalism. There is also the issue of weight - a large quote from a single party in a dispute (where the other party has stated that he does not wish to discuss his personal beliefs) which basically re-frames the original allegation as 'he doesn't deny it' looks unwarranted to me. Maybe we should include a brief sentence stating that the NS stood by their claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realise that it was the NS that has been threatened with legal action, so I'm glad that you've put me right on that. I accept everything that you said. It occurred to me after I made the edit that the passage overshadowed the previous sentences, but I wasn't sure what to cut out of it. I would be happy with your suggestion to add a brief sentence. "The New Statesman then published an update to their article and defended their claims." How's that? Epa101 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Non denial taken as proof

This is the lowest type of "Have you stopped beating your wife" tabloid journalism and MUST be removed from the article per WP:BLP. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Couldn't agree more. Neither Galloway nor myself has denied being involved in the assassination of John F Kennedy either; this does not mean we can report that either of us was involved in the act. Outrageous. --John (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you now or have you ever been a JFK assassin? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll plead the fifth. Although the fact it happened before I was born should weigh in my favour. --John (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Yup. This has been discussed extensively. It should never have been restored against consensus, and more to the point against WP:BLP policy. Givine the 'last word' to a journal that may be involved in a legal case (and thus cannot necessarily be seen as 'neutral journalists') is entirely unwarranted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the point at the top, the New Statesman is hardly tabloid journalism. It is a respected newspaper. The point that they were making is that Galloway's response didn't address the main subject of the original article: he complained about several details but not that he converted to Islam. In addition, it not a matter of slander to say that someone has become a Muslim. Comparing it to being the Kennedy assassin is inappropriate.

I feel that the article is currently missing a key piece of information in not mentioning the New Statesman's response, although I agree with the point made before that it has to be worded in such a way that doesn't overshadow the preceding information. I've been unable to find any reports of legal action being threatened by Galloway against the New Statesman. Is there a link to this please? If this is the case, then I think that it should be mentioned in the article that Galloway threatened legal action against the New Statesman. Epa101 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is a blog posting.[11] That Galloway did not respond or sue may be because the comments have no notability. TFD (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I take it that nothing on the New Statesman's blog appears in the paper copy. Nevertheless, this is different from any old blog, and the story was reported more widely: in the Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail and Metro.

So did George Galloway threaten legal action? I have found this interview in the Independent. This suggests that he does not intend to sue. It sounds as if he would like to but doesn't stand a chance when being called a Muslim is not a libel in Britain. I suggest adding a line or two about the New Statesman's response and also adding a few lines based on this article to give more of the Galloway view (this interview is quite sympathetic to him). That should keep it balanced. Any objections? Epa101 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you wish to add? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd just add a little bit, since the article is already long. "The New Statesman issued an update to justify their original story. Galloway was asked in a June 2012 interview with The Independent whether he had plans to sue the New Statesman, and said that he could not since being called a Muslim is not a matter of libel." Epa101 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The outcome of an English libel trial is usually unpredictable and prohibitively expensive. If your reputation is damaged in the eyes of right minded colleagues then you have been defamed -one of the requirements for a libel action and one which appears to apply here. JRPG (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That's actually not true: England & Wales has a very claimant-friendly libel system, and Galloway has used it successfully several times. Epa101 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Libel must be defamatory. I cannot imagine that Galloway would claim that being called a Muslim is defamatory, which he would have to do in order to prove libel. Are there any similar cases where someone has successfully sued for being called a Jew? Better still, are there any cases of Jews suing unsuccessfully for being called Jews? TFD (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Section on Canada

The article is missing a few nuances to the judge's ruling which are critical to accurately disseminate the story. First, the title is misleading. Mr. Galloway was never forbidden to enter Canada. Related is the leading line that says he was informed he was inadmissible. The CBSA informed him that he was potentially inadmissible to Canada. Mr. Galloway did not lose his right to appeal that decision nor did he ever challenge that by arriving in Canada. Based on what the CBSA had told him, he decided not to challenge that opinion. Better title "Dispute with Canadian Government" Better lead line "On 20 March 2009, Galloway was advised by the Canada Border Services Agency he was deemed potentially inadmissible to Canada on "security grounds" due to his involvement in the Viva Palestina aid convoy to the Gaza Strip following the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict."

The second problem with the story is at the end where it says the judge concluded the Canadian government acted for political reasons. While the judge did chide the Canadian Government for appearing to act out of political interests rather than based on the facts, he actually said the most important thing was that the government had failed to prove that Mr. Galloway had actually been involved in a terrorist activity. In fact, in his ruling http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc957/2010fc957.html he specifically mentions in his introduction that he may be wrong about the political interference, but regardless of that he is "satisfied that the evidence considered by the respondents was insufficient to support a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Galloway is a member of a terrorist organization or has engaged in acts of terrorism." Better closing line "Galloway was allowed entry into Canada in October 2010, after a judge concluded that the Canadian Government failed to prove Mr. Galloway was a member of a terrorist organization or had engaged in acts of terrorism LINK TO JUDGMENT. He continued to criticise Jason Kenney, saying that the minister had "damaged Canada's reputation" and had used "anti-terrorism" as a means of suppressing political debate.[151] Galloway has also threatened to sue the Canadian government for the banning incident. To date, no suit has been filed.[152]" Trax34 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Trax34

This section is no longer important because Galloway is allowed to visit Canada. Should be trimmed down. TFD (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Chronology

Moved the private life section to a more usual position in a Wikipedia article because it covers a time period of more than thirty years and is secondary to the events in Galloway's career which will be of greater interest to most people. No reason for the clash earlier this year with the NS over his religious beliefs to precede an account of incidents from several decades ago.

I think the chronology as it stands is a mess, and suggest the article needs sections around specific time periods to clear this up. I do not propose to do this without a consensus. Philip Cross (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talksport infobox

Removed the infobox as a test to see if it was italicising the article/subject's name (this is the default setting see Wikipedia:Article titles#Italics and other formatting) having searched through the document in my word processor programme for the use of the Italic title template. I found that it was, having initially assumed the page the page had been vandalised without anyone having spotted the fault. Setting italic title to no in the template, as it has been, does not resolve the problem.

I am wondering if Galloway's longest running radio programme should be spun off into its own article, as it may be the only way to stop this infobox bug from interfering with the article. Because of its rather extreme length (now in excess of 120,000 bytes) this article has a problem, and some sections might be best featured as separate articles. I have reverted my edit removing the infobox pending further discussion. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what bug you are referring to? The programme title at the top of the infobox is in italics, but that is presumably intended. I can't see any other problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I found that the italic title template in the infobox was responsible for turning George Galloway at the top of the article into italics. This happens in both Opera and Internet Explorer browsers. Philip Cross (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right - I'd not noticed that - it happens in Google Chrome too. It must be an error in the infobox source itself, in which case it needs reporting and/or fixing. Probably best left to the wizards in the basement to actually fix. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox does nothing with |italic_title= it should do something to pass it on to {{infobox}}. Keith D (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It happens in Firefox too. RolandR (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The title is italicised

Govgovgov (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So it is, and has been since this edit in May 2008. But I can't see what caused this, or how to change it. Does someone have the coding knowledge to correct this? RolandR (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. That infobox causes the page to be tyreated as one about a radio show, not about a person. Now to see if I can change this. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the section above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd somehow missed that discussion. RolandR (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I jerry rigged a solution by using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} after the radio show infobox. Ryan Vesey 15:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed in the appropriate manner now - see [12] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Far Left?

Isn't Galloway better descirbed as Far left, rather than left? Respect isn't exactly a centrist party, and it would be hard to imagine a party more left wing.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, "left wing" is adequate. He isn't a complete anti-constitutionalist, as far left groups like the Socialist Workers Party tend to be (they use the 'far left' label themselves), and Respect has had conservative Muslim elements too. Galloway certainly fits the old term 'Fellow traveler' in his defence of autocratic regimes, although in the UK, it hasn't been used to describe him much, if at all, so it is probably an inadmissible description to use in the article itself.

Labelling an individual has to be in a way which is not the user's interpretation of them, it cannot be something which they might see as being disparaging because that is not considered to be neutral. This does not mean strong criticism of Galloway, or any other individual cannot be included, but it has to be comments from authoritative reliable sources. Also see neutral point of view and No original research for an explanation. Philip Cross (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Improper "Controversy" section too long already - condense theatrical speech walk out into commentary about oration methods

The "controversies" section is already improperly bloated. I merged the example of oratorical theatrics of walking out on the debate into the section about his oratory methods. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole article is bloated and disorganised. Galloway as an individual is never going to be an uncontroversial figure, although obviously there are NPOV issues from having a long 'Controversies' ('Criticism') section.

The "as an orator" section should be broken up and incorporated into appropriate sections. Before, it was attempting to prove a premise. Now, including his very recent behaviour, it appears to suggest the reverse. So either way it risks being original research. Philip Cross (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the controversies section is improperly bloated. It's about 23% of the article in terms of word count. Is 23% "disproportionate to [the] overall significance to the article topic" if proportionality is determined by RS coverage as opposed to being determined by comparing different sections of the Wikipedia article, not an RS, with each other ? Is a lot less than 23% of everything that has ever been written by RS about Galloway related to controversies ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Any controversies section is too long, that is why we have

and the length and bloat of this at 25% is staggering. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it too long ? How do you know it is too long ? What evidence and policy based reasoning led you to that conclusion ? An assertion won't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm disagreeing that Controversy is too long but it's a little hard to trim it by the looks of it - seems to be a very controversial sort. As for the claim that walking out on a debating opponent because he's Israeli is an oratorial technique that's akin to claiming Auschwitz was established in the interests in public safety - metaphor may be a little fuzzy but the implication is deliberate! Made world news at least :-) ¬¬¬

"seems to be a very controversial sort"...well, quite. It doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that about 25% of everything written about him has been about one controversy or another. It's probably not that difficult to check with a random sample of sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

the way to handle it is to incorporate any of the really notable "controversies" within a standard chronological discussion of the subject. If the "controversy" is not worth discussing as an important / impactful incident within the history of the subject, then it is most certainly not worth calling out in a stand alone "controversy" section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving the latest controversy to "oration methods" borders on censorship and certainly smells of WP:POV. To be clear, this is a major controversy in which Galloway has been accused of being a racist, it is widely covered in all major British newspapers [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. It certainly merits proper inclusion in the controversy section.Jeppiz (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

clearly, nothing indicates this is more than the latest flash in the pan for the scandal mongers. and as has been explained, our policies indicate that NOTHING belongs in the "controversy" section unless you are deliberately attempting to build an article that violates NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You have already argued that view, the comments from other users suggest the consensus is against you. This is a person who is mainly famous for the controversies he has caused, you want to remove all references to controversies. This is a person who refuses any contacts with people based on their ethnic background, you call it an "oratory method". You're perfectly entitled to doing so, but it seems you're alone in that opinion.Jeppiz (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly did not say I want to remove from the article all of the content. I have said that the content should be removed from an inappropriate "controversies" section. and no matter what local consensus may or may not be, it cannot ignore the project wide consensus that NPOV must be followed, both in content and manner of presentation, particularly in an article about a living person. And it is rather funny that the media and some editor's hysteric reaction to his media stunt is EXACTLY what he was hoping for - are you sure you want to be supporting his campaign?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of information needs to be labelled as a controversy, so if you are counting me in with the consensus against TRPoD it's probably because I've been unclear. I agree with TRPoD that "incorporat[ing] any of the really notable "controversies" within a standard chronological discussion of the subject" is the way we are meant to do it. My concern is more about the notion that the size of an article section, any article section, is somehow dependent on the size of other sections in the article as opposed to the relative weight of coverage in RS. In other words, I don't support condensing/removing information if the only reason given is that Wikipedia editors think it makes a section in an always unfinished article too long. Due weight decisions have to be based on RS coverage rather than Wikipedia coverage. Galloway didn't refuse any contacts with people based on their ethnic background by the way. He didn't refuse to debate with Larry David. He refused to debate with Israelis. Like many people, he apparently finds the Israeli occupation and the associated colonization of the oPt repulsive, so walking out of a debate is not exactly shocking compared to say the IDF killing hundreds of civilians, Palestinian suicide attacks/unguided rockets targeting civilians or the bigotry of many right-wing Israeli politicians. And given that labels are thrown around like candy in the cesspool of the Israel-Palestine conflict nowadays it not surprising when these labels appear. Whatever the due weight of this particular incident, it doesn't need to be labelled as a controvesy or labelled at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if Galloway only discriminates based on nationality, as opposed to ethnicity (I doubt that Galloway would have refused to debate with an Israeli Arab), the argument that Galloway refuses to speak to Israelis only because of his displeasure with human rights violations can't be rationally supported (since this same treatment is not applied to the citizens of other countries with poor human rights records). Let's not forget that Galloway has openly supported the governments of Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Syria, and Iran (among others), all of which have (or had) horrible human rights records, have massacred tens of thousands of civilians, and display extreme bigotry (e.g. denying the Holocaust). Since Galloway regularly praises (and speaks with) government officials and official representatives of these regimes, yet refuses to speak/debate with someone simply because that person is a citizen of Israel, Galloway's self-righteous attempts to justify his behaviour are both laughable and hypocritical.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

That may be so, and I'm curious whether he would refuse to debate with Michael Sfard, but since this talk page isn't a reliable source and our views of the real world are worthless drivel as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, it doesn't really matter. I was simply correcting an inaccuracy in Jeppiz's statement and trying to put this event in a wider perspective. If I cared I wouldn't be editing this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sean, you're absolutely correct. Galloway refuses to debate with people based on their nationality, not their ethnicity. At least that's what he claims himself, and that is what we can source. I agree that ideally we should not have a "controversy" section, but I also continue to insist that as long as we, this major controversy belongs there, not under "oratory methods" which makes no sense at all in this case.Jeppiz (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

While the controversy may have been mentioned in British newspapers it actually went global so it's not a mere "local" scandal, which reinforces the unsuitability of calling it an oratorial technique. Oh while Galloway argues that he refused to debate Israelis since they support the Israeli state that's flawed logic - it assumes all Israeli's support Israel. Perhaps he's never heard of playing Devil's Advocate? Even the BD&S Committee - widely held to be racist, condemned the move as racist :-) 114.35.25.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

Galloway, in his own words, "[does not] debate with Israelis" Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/feb/21/george-galloway-debate-israelis-video 184.162.124.143 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is already covered. See George_Galloway#As_an_orator. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Suing what?

User:RolandR claims he has read the article Government of Canada and insists that Galloway had intended to sue the "government of Canada". If, indeed, RolandR, has read the aforementioned article, perhaps he could explain how Galloway was going to sue both "the whole set of institutions that govern the country [of Canada]" and "the current political leadership [the executive; i.e. the Queen-in-Council]". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

From the source cited: "Galloway said he has also had to make adjustments to his schedule and daily routine in order to protect his and his family's security. He now plans to sue the Canadian government". Seems clear enough to me. As to what exactly 'suing the Canadian Government' might mean, our article doesn't say - but it doesn't need to, since all we state is that Galloway "threatened to sue the Canadian government". To attempt to determine what this might entail is original research, and impermissible. We cite sources for what they say, not what we decide for ourselves what we think they ought to mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the follow the lazy journalism rationale. Only one of the two aforementioned can be sued; that is sourcable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be sourcable, but it is irrelevant. We do not engage in original research to decide what we think Galloway meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Best quote his actual words, then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't give his actual words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me crystal clear. The article cited (from CTV News, an eminently reliable source) states "He (Galloway) now plans to sue the Canadian government." We rely on this, and give a link to our article on Canadian government. If Galloway had meant to say that he would sue the Queen in Council, ha would have said so, and then we could link to it. But he did not, and, as Andy states, it would be unacceptable original research to make such a claim. And, if I can add my own originao research in this talk page, it seems obvious to me, as to anyone who has followed Galloway's political career, that when he speaks of the "Canadian government" he is referring too elected politicians, not an unelected absentee monarch. But I'm not putting a link to this, either, only to the body named in the reliable source. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You all seem to think you know what Galloway actually said, when, in fact, you're drawing "Canadian government" from a media source that doesn't quote Galloway and doesn't make clear what "Canadian government" means. Of course, what's meant has to be the executive--which is the Queen-in-Council--since the other meaning of "government" in Canada is nebulous and therefore can't be sued. Regardless, instead of using the far more definite term "Queen-in-Council", the ambiguous is what's preferred, it seems, though for no discernable reason. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of following WP:OR policy is so hard to understand? It is irrelevant whether Galloway meant the 'executive' or not. Maybe Galloway was mistaken in thinking he could sue someone he couldn't, it simply doesn't matter. We cite the source for what it says, and that is all that is necessary here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty sad; analagous to an argument deeming it to be original research to use the words "the Moon" when the supporting source says "the Eath's natural satellite" in a context that makes it clear the Moon is what's meant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing 'sad' here seems to be your insistence that you know exactly what Galloway meant, based on a source that fails to make it entirely clear. We don't base article content on the mind-reading capabilities of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do know what Galloway meant. He has said several times that he is suing "the government", and explained that this means the responsible ministers. He has never once referred to "the Queen in council", and it is doubtful that he is even aware that an insignificant editor on a minor website thinks that this is what he ought to have said. For instance, in an April 2011 interview, Galloway stated " I'm not sure I'd like to be in the shoes of those at whom it is aimed [Immigration, Nationalities and Multiculturalism minister Jason Kenney and his assistant Alykhan Velshi]."[20] Another report notes "A statement of claim alleging defamation and misfeasance of public office was Tuesday served on Immigration, Nationalities and Multiculturalism minister Jason Kenney and his assistant Alykhan Velshi."[21] Galloway's own website states "George Galloway is suing the Canadian government for $1.5million. The legal action alleges defamation, misfeasance of public office and claims general and exemplary damages amounting to $1.5million. The statement of claim was served today (Tuesday) on Immigration, Nationalities and Multiculturalism minister Jason Kenney and his assistant Alykhan Velshi."[22]

There are several thousand reports of Galloway's intention to sue the Canadian government, many of which specify particular ministers. Not one of them refers to the "Queen in Council". It is undeniably original research, and perverse in the extreme, to maintain that this is what Galloway meant, or should have said, and to attempt to edit-war this into the article. RolandR (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Jason Kenney, a minister in said Council who advises said Queen (or the personal representative thereof). Irrelevant details, I guess.

That's quite a lose definition of "edit war" you have there, too. One revert is an edit war now. Sheesh. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. We go with the sources. What a bizarre proposal. --John (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• The eventual lawsuit was brought against Jason Kenney and Alykhan Velshi, who were the minister and his political assistant, for damages resulting from malfeasance in public office and defamation.[23] Technically Galloway did not sue the government, but he did not sue the Crown either, but he said he would sue the government, so that is what we should say. TFD (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Galloway on Zionists and the Ukraine Revolution

AndyTheGrump is claiming that a video of Galloway's recent statements on Press TV is not a reliable source. The video (which is in English) has been cited by MEMRI,[24], [25], Arutz Sheva [26] and by Alex Massie in his blog in The Spectator [27]. I would argue that these three sources combined are sufficient to include this material in this article. However, I'm willing to wait to see if any other news sources report on this topic. Any thoughts? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Neither MEMRI nor israelnationalnews.com strike me as exactly impartial sources, and we don't usually cite blogs for contentious matters. As for the video itself, we clearly don't know how much editing has gone on (and incidentally might not be able to cite the MEMRI link to the video anyway, as presumably the original broadcast is copyright Press TV). As I said in my edit summary, you could raise the matter at WP:RSN, though I'd suggest that it might be preferable to see if you can find better sourcing first. I'd have to suggest that if this isn't picked up by mainstream sources, it probably doesn't merit inclusion in the article. If we included every controversial statement by Galloway, the article would be even more bloated than it already is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Weight is an important issue. If someone controversial has a television show, there will be numerous comments they make that will attract attention and the article would become endless. TFD (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

MEMRI and Arutz Sheva are surely 2 of the very worst possible sources to use in a George Galloway BLP. It's like citing Hamas and the PLO as sources for something Naftali Bennett said. It's better to wait for reports by independent mainstream RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

All fair points. I'll agree not to reinsert this unless mainstream sources become available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Is George Galloway a Muslim?

I'd be interested to know your views.

When questioned directly, George Galloway declines to answer, stating that, while he believes in God, his religious views are private. Yet, he has, on many other occasions, repeatedly affirmed the beliefs that constitute Islam (basically the Shahada, the belief that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is his messenger, recitation of which Muslims consider to constitute an act of conversion to Islam) and has, as far as I'm aware, never denied being a Muslim, as this rather hilarious video shows: <-copyright violation redacted ->

Do we really need Galloway to say the words, "I am a Muslim", before we accept that he is a Muslim? I'm sure, if someone repeatedly stated that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins and was resurrected, we would consider such a person to be a Christian, especially if he repeatedly declined to deny the allegation. Also, there are many Wikipedia articles where people are listed as being Muslims, despite the frequent lack of cited sources that feature statements like "I am a Muslim".

Renren8123 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Our personal views on this are irrelevant - we go by published reliable sources. And as yet no such sources have been provided. I suggest you look through the archives for this talk page for previous discussions - since you have provided no new source, the situation isn't likely to change. As for other articles, that isn't an issue for this talk page.

Also, per Wikipedia policy, I have had to redact the Youtube link you provided, as a link to a breach of copyright - you must not link to such uploaded videos unless they clearly have been uploaded by the copyright holders - in this case, the BBC amongst others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition. you are heading for the realm of Synthesis here, Galloway said that a Muslim conversion ceremony had not taken place when the New Statesman made such a claim two years ago. See the 'Personal life' section right at the end of the article. Whatever the religious views of George Galloway though, his "personal matter" stance rather closes the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)