Talk:Alexander Galloway

26 January 2011

This entry plagiarizes directly the following paper

Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky “A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography.” Middle Eastern Studies 46/5:655-675.

As the first author, I take umbrage. This is the sort of behavior that gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.198.179 (talk • contribs) 26 January 2011‎

Mr. Joffe: I imagine you are referring to the "Post war" section. There is a substantial amount of text here, including many quotations of Galloway, which are uncited / unattributed. This is not the normal convention in Wikipedia. If indeed content has been taken from your work, you should consider inserting paragraph by paragraph attributions / citations to the relevant pages of your paper and where appropriate adjusting the wording as it currently stands. Of course, if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing syntax and conventions, I would be happy to do this for you if you provide the relevant page numbers and the official full name & dates of the publication your paper appeared in.Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to address the above issue in the article. There was way too much detail anyway compared with the rest of Galloway's career so I have shortened and summarised. I have also cited the Middle Eastern Studies article. What do you think? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you efforts to rectify this situation. I must note, however, that there are passages in the first part of the piece which appear to have been directly lifted from Richard Mead's book, which I do not have in front of me at the moment. The relevant Foreign Office documents were discovered by me in The National Archives. This effort is not noted and the documents are cited, somewhat pointlessly, since they are not on line. Furthermore, it was our research that discovered the correct citations for both the Rev. Karl Baehr Senate testimony and Sir Alexander's 1952 opinion piece. The thrust of my criticism is precisely factual; several years of research by my colleague and myself were responsible for the unraveling of a small historical mistake that has large implications. In that sense, having now set things right we are also part of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.198.179 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the FO refs. I've also had a look at Mead. Whilst the wording follows Mead closely, I personally don't feel it's necessary to re-write it into a more indirect paraphrase and make it less close to a direct quote because the elements are all properly attributed to Mead via footnotes. If someone else wants to do that I would have no objection though. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. One of the "rules" of Wikipedia is that entries must not be "original work" but based on material already published in "reliable sources" - see WP:BRIEF. As such, the whole of Wikipedia qualifies as "plagiarism" under your definition! However, the convention is to attribute content to relaible sources through footnotes rather than making direct reference within the text. This is why I have not made direct reference to your piece in the article. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"According to an unverifiable claim by the Reverend Karl Baehe"?

• Zero: "be clear about the evidence for this quote" (diff)
• attn: Stephen Kirrage

As I see not only the following reference is used for "Baehr - Galloway" quote

It is perfectly clear than the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die..

The next one (Joffe, Romirowsky) has cited it too.

@Zero, I may understand your claim if you'd place an appropriate {{dead}} tag, but... I've found new "live" link and am going to replace the old one by it:

• http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00263206.2010.504554#.VMgXBv7kdZg

Moreover, an open link to the "A Tale of Two Galloways Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography" article may be found as well.

So I make corresponing changes in the article. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your version is quite wrong. The only known fact is that Baehr told a Congressional committee that he had met Galloway and that Galloway had said these words. As to whether Baehr's story is correct, we don't know and Joffe and Romirowsky did not confirm it. You can read in their paper that they tried quite hard, including searching Baehr's private papers and the private papers of another person on the same tour, but did not even find proof that they had met Galloway. They conclude "Further confirmation of Baehr’s account cannot be found." (p.668) Given that Baehr was a Zionist activist with an obvious conflict of interest, this makes the story unsafe and the article should reflect that. Zero^talk 23:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Baehr's statement is unverified, not unverifiable. That he would invent such a statement is unlikely, particularly given that it in harmony with the thrust of Galloway's published statement. To call Baehr's statement "unsafe" is vague, pejorative and frankly unfair. -Alex Joffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.44.177 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree about "unverified". What is "unsafe" is the actual wording used, which is too often presented as a Galloway quotation when it is really a Baehr quotation. The chance that Baehr exaggerated Galloway's words is substantial. But I'm not proposing the word "unsafe" for the article, that would be against the rules. What should be in the article are the bare facts: Baehr reported that Galloway said something, and J&R failed to confirm it. Zero^talk 08:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. So I'd propose the following variant:

According to an unverified claim by Reverend Karl Baehe, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, in 1952 Galloway made a statement to a group of visiting American church leaders regarding the problem of Arab refugees arising from the 1948 Israeli-Arab War:

It is perfectly clear than the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.

Successive retelling of this quote over the intervening years has resulted in some instances of Galloway's identity being lost and the quote erroneously attributed to a (non-existent) UNRWA employee, Ralph Galloway.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly: The article now says (wikilinkinking added): "According to Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, the Reverend Karl Baehe, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, in 1952 Galloway made a statement to a group of visiting American church leaders regarding the problem of Arab refugees arising from the 1948 Israeli-Arab War:"

This really makes no sense. Or rather, it implies that Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky also verified this.

Secondly: Galloway wrote many things about Palestinian refugees, e.g. in Daily Telegraph of 29 August 1952. It is completely unacceptable that we use this quote on the Palestinian refugee-article. If we cite him there, at least cite him directly, and not this unverified quote. Huldra (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, are you so hurry? If you have not noticed, there is a discussion here, not a "sentencing" :) Optional text above is only possible one, there may be others, such as:

• "Some sources cite ... However ..."

In the meantime, you may look a source below. IMHO, it can make something clear. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you were in a hurry inserting it into much read articles? And yeas, I have read the sources. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I make the following edit at the moment to avoid such claims & to let us continue:

According to an unverified yet testimony by Reverend Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, made in 1953 during the Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Galloway made in 1952 a statement to a group of visiting American church leaders regarding the problem of Arab refugees arising from the 1948 Israeli-Arab War:

It is perfectly clear than the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.

Successive retelling of this quote over the intervening years has resulted in some instances of Galloway's identity being lost and the quote erroneously attributed to a (non-existent) UNRWA employee, Ralph Galloway.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What about this quote?

• Palestine Refugee Program: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations

1 page matching "Alexander Galloway The Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore... as a weapon against Israel" in this book

--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is Baehr giving his testimony, not a separate source. Zero^talk 01:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see. It only gives a linked quote for this testimony and some additional info.

For example, such its quote as:

• “Give each of the Arab nations where the refugees are to be found an agreed-upon sum of money for their care and resettlement and then let them handle it. If... the United Nations had done this immediately after the conflict – explaining to the Arab states, ‘We are sorry it happened, but here is a sum of money for you to take care of the refugees’ – the problem might have been solved long ago.”

--Igorp_lj (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that Baehr's Congressional testimony exaggerated or distorted Galloway's words. Archival evidence that I did not cite in my published piece strongly suggests they met. And speaking as Galloway's biographer, the only person who has read virtually every letter he ever wrote, I am quite certain that Baehr's quotation is correct. Galloway was notorious for being blunt and to the point. I have also documented how his words and identity were distorted by polemicists in later years. But efforts to poke holes in Baehr's testimony have an equally polemical intent. - Alex Joffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.44.177 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take your word about Galloway's nature and opinions. But the point is about Baehr, not about Galloway. I've known hundreds of political activists from extreme left to extreme right and I don't think a single one of them would be able to publicly testify on their pet cause without exaggerating. Zero^talk 08:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If "Galloway was notorious for being blunt and to the point": why didn´t he put the same into writing? Say, into the Daily Telegraph of 29 August 1952? And this is not the only dubious quote that Karl Baehr was involved in; read the Maximos V Hakim-article. See also the Azzam Pasha quotation. I suggest that we limit ourself to quoting from Galloway´s Daily Telegraph-article, if we want Galloway´s views. Huldra (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Erskine Childers investigated the claims made about Hakim, and in The Spectator of May 12, 1961 published a letter from Hakim addressing them"

And what Hakim wrote in 1961 about other his quote-1948:

• "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
• - Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948

? (:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Alexander Galloway so I don't think that Hakim's alleged quotes belong here. This one has been discussed many times in other places. You should improve your sources before joining in (example: Sada al Janub was not a Beirut newspaper). Zero^talk 01:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sir-Alexander-Galloway.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)