Talk:George Galloway

netrality1

I have made significant changes to this page as I believe it was very good but could have been more neutral.

Galloway is a very controversial but interesting figure, so I suspect there may be some heated discussion about George, as I believe he enters the twilight of his colourful career.

-- User:210.50.217.13 22:15, 23 Oct 2003

You did some good work there. Although you're free to continue editing anonymously, it's helpful if you get a wikipedia account - this makes it easier for other wikipedians to contact you.

I have a couple of suggested improvements - I'm not just pasting them in myself as I'm having some difficult wording them properly. If someone can finish my sentences in an NPOV way, I'd be grateful:

• "Galloway's supporters say he is a traditional left-winger". I think we're qualifying this a bit too hard - I doubt anyone would say George wasn't from the left wing of the party. Perhaps it should just say "Hailing firmly from the left of the party, he is a voluble..." ?

I think "unreconstructed" is the perfect term. Frankly, I think whomever put in that "his supporters say" thing (an anon IP) was being overly-NPOV. I doubt even Tommy Sheridan would call George anything other than left wing. -- Finlay McWalter 23:57, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• wrt Mariam: "token" is slightly POV. I'm sure george would say "symbolic", but that's too far the other way. Is there a word between the two? Or perhaps we just nuke the word altogether, and say "a single child" ?

"a single child" is better, I think GrahamN 00:11, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• we should mention that George did have some notable support for his "trial". The current wording kind of implies he's entirely a voice in the wilderness, which isn't entirely true.

-- Finlay McWalter 22:57, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

GrahamN resolved the "left-wing" issue to "unreconstructed", which is perfect. I already put in the thing about Tony Benn supporting him. If anyone has an idea about "token" I'm still open to suggestions. -- Finlay McWalter 23:52, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know I'm going to get some stick (at least from non-brits, thinking it's POV) for inserting the Gorgeous George part, but do a google for "Gorgeous George Galloway" - it's far from a figment of my imagination. -- Finlay McWalter 23:08, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I added stuff in about his threatening to sue the Labour Party, but I didn't put in the reason (because I don't know it). As "it's not fair!" isn't legal cause, I figure it's either some kind of breach of contract or employment-rights thing, but I dunno. Then again, George is more fond of threatening to sue than he is of actually suing, and I'm beginning to wonder if each individual threat is itself encyclopedic. Anyway, if anyone knows the actual legal "causus" he intends to sue for, could you update the page accordingly. -- Finlay McWalter 19:05, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In an interview with John Humphreys for BBC Radio 4's On The Ropes programme, he said: "I met Saddam Husein twice, exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and gas. I met him to try and bring war and suffering in Iraq to a close." I got that from an audio file avalible *here. I think it should be included but I don't know how it would fit in with the rest of the text.

He also said much the same thing during his appearance on Have I Got News For You. Saul Taylor 07:26, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality2

This article, started by an anonymous, is more like a verdict than an encyclopedia entry. His "Political views" are condensed to what the editors think is useful to defame him, starting "He is an unreconstructed left-winger." I very much doubt that any serious encyclopedia would start writing about a politician with a section "Early and Persoanl Life" including a statement about vanity and Kenzo suits. It is clearly not neutral to write "Although he was cleared of dishonesty, he paid back £1,720 after an audit identified a lack of controls." The whole article is written in a Limbaugh style. Get-back-world-respect 22:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That may be, but please don't go deleting bits of articles you don't like. If you think something makes an unsubstanciated claim, please post on the talk page first, requesting cites. If those aren't forthcoming in a few days, then it's reasonable to edit out the obviously outlying claims. As it is, you've removed the "victory to the intifada" thing, which George is well known for saying. Here, after about one minutes searching, is a typical transcript of one of his speeches [1]. I've heard him say it myself, in the flesh. I know it, and the Arafat/Lenin bit, look like they were inserted by smearmonkering rightwingers, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily false. Please be more respectful of other people's hard work, rather than just zapping stuff. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "hard work" of this user consists in spreading propaganda in bad language, reverting several times although others warned him and explained why his edits were inappropriate, and he insults others on his user page, suggesting to "suck their own dick" and similar stuff. As much as he can set up a partisan article I can delete obviously inappropriate parts of it. If he dares to come up with them again a discussion can still start. Get-back-world-respect 01:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "this user" in your comment above? I'm not familiar with the discussions to which you refer. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The user I meant was TDC. I have to admit that the only part of his hard work I removed was the term "credible" charges against Galloway concerning the Oil for Food programme. I see that you made a lot of the changes in this article. May I ask why you spend so much time on defaming such an unimportant politician? Get-back-world-respect 01:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Language of the nature of which you speak is unacceptable at wikipedia. If you can cite edit-deltas (not quotes, which can be read out of context) then you're entirely within your rights to request some kind of censure of TDC. I can see from some of the other pages you and TDC have edited that you're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on much, but I must ask you both to keep calm. We've resolved far more vitriolic conflicts than yours, but it needs both parties to keep a level temperament. As I explain at some length below, I don't think the article is at all defamatory (although I can see how the language might make it appear so to someone from a country where "communist" is an insult). If you think the article is unbalanced (it is, most are) then the best thing is to add more information (GG's background, voting record, more details of his union activity, and we have a horrible big hole about "what GG did after his expulsion"). By simply deleting things without making a commensurate replacement you make it easy for partisan opponents to brand you as a simple vandal (which, for the record, I don't think you are at all). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC already did get banned for his dick sucking proposal. For two days. Have you ever read through your own article? Do you think Galloway ever would have won an election if all the things you wrote about him were true and there was nothing else to mention about him? Get-back-world-respect 02:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good, I hope TDC moderates his behaviour. I didn't say there was nothing else to say about GG - infact, I listed four significant catagories where I thought there was more to say. As to electability - GG is tame for Glasgow politicians - in a nice safe labour seat like Hillhead (his old constituency) this stuff mostly counts as colour. Kelvin (the redistricted one) is a bit more marginal, but I'm fairly sure that were GG still in the labour party he'd win next time round (he's immune to any Blair-distrust-downturn). If he wins the Telegraph thing (which I suspect he will) that will only count in his favour. Yes, I have read the article, and if you look you'll see a consistent pattern of GG being accused of something terrible, threatening to sue, and either winning outright or the something terrible turning out to be something exceptionally mild or largely unproven. If we take out these "turned out to be very different from first accusation" claims then the next time he's accused of the next heinous misdeed it will look to the casual visitor like a great revelation. If we leave them in it more accurately shows the pattern of GG being repeatedly accused of things he mostly hasn't done. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, all mud-throwing should be reported here in order to show that nothing sticks and people whose articles start with their vanity and clothing expenses are nice and electable. Get-back-world-respect 11:46, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fwiw, I only just heard of this George Galloway guy today so looked him up here to get some info on him. However, despite my complete ignorance of the guy I can tell that this wikipedia article reads very much against him. After reading about a half the way through, I had a firm distaste about him. From the facts stated in the article, I gained an understanding that a) he was kicked out of his party, b) corrupt with a history of accusations of financial abuse, c) an unfaithful husband, d) an inappropriate sensationalist, e) a Stalinist communist who thinks the dissolution of the USSR was a catastrophe, f) a supporter and mouthpiece of Saddam Hussein, and g) a traitor to Britain. After all that, I decided that I cannot trust Wikipedia to give me a sufficiently neutral portrait of the guy. I don't know enough to know which of the above conclusions are incorrect, but there's enough POV there to make me question the entire article.

I see in these comments that there is a hesistation to delete things. However, the article is HUGE as it stands currently, and filled with irrelevant stuff. I don't care that about his divorce or business dealings or book writings, and the corruption allegations really don't seem worth devoting so much space to. It also dwells altogether too much on seemingly every random allegation and rumor about the guy. It sounds like he's outspoken enough that the article could paint a sufficiently complete picture by just focusing on the proven facts.

As it is, the article is so poor that I've decided to ignore everything I've read here about him, and seek a different source. Generally I trust Wikipedia more than other sources, but this article does not serve Wikipedia very well in that regard. 65.172.181.6 17:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has actually rather delicately traced through all pertinent details of the man's life, career, and views. If the facts cause you discomfort, then perhaps you should trust your judgement rather than question what is being recalled.

As for deleting corruption allegations that is patently absurd. It has been a huge news item, particularly in his own country, and is not yet resolved to any satisfaction by both sides on the issue.--TJive 08:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

On neutrality

I felt the article was rather heavily slanted against George Galloway when I did my rewrite, but kept true to the wikipedia policy of not deleting info. However I did write the complained about phrase about Galloway's conduct as Chief Exec of War on Want. I do defend that as a neutral statement. The War on Want episode is important in the context of George Galloway's probity with money. To say that he was cleared of dishonesty would imply that the result was a complete exoneration that the funds in his expenses account were used entirely above board, and that was not quite the case. Essentially what was going on was that War on Want did not bother to look into his expenses account so long as the general funding was looking OK, which it was. When they did look in to it, they found that they really ought to have stopped him spending the money on some of the things he was spending it on.

Galloway's personal liking for nice suits is relevant to his political life because it has affected his perception. He has been quoted, I know not whether accurately, as saying that he needs at least £150,000 a year to survive as a political figure. This has persuaded the SWP to drop their campaign for "a worker's MP on a worker's wage" in the case of Respect.

Perhaps someone could come back with proposed redrafting and justification rather than just stick a disputed message up and remove bits they don't like. Personally I think the political views section was written by an American and ought to be redrafted by a Briton.Dbiv 00:13, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I really didn't think it was too far from NPOV (and is markedly more charitable to GG than is much of the british press). Some of the stuff might seem more inflamatory to north american readers that it will to a british reader (perhaps that's why GBWR thinks its such a hatchet job). Here calling someone an admirer of Lenin really isn't much of an insult, whereas in the states in particular it mostly reads like "evil babyeating monster". I really don't doubt that GG is an admirer of Lenin, say, nor that he would at all deny it, nor that he would think that a big deal, nor that lots of other people wouldn't think it a big deal either. Perhaps the article's big issue is that it's controversy controvery controversy (although unlike GBRW, I think GG mostly comes out of the thing with very little of the thrown mud sticking). The thing is that GG is really a rather minor MP - he's never been a minister, surely never will be one, isn't the leader of a significant faction, hasn't sponsored any private members bills or anything interesting like that. So there really isn't all that much of "encyclopedic" content to write about him, other than all the exciting controversy stuff. And because GG knew he'd never be a minister (or whatever) he plainly never felt the need to bite his tongue, so there's lots of juicy soundbites from him. I'm sure there's several labour MPs of broadly similar views as GG, but they've mostly kept their heads down, while GG (who surely likes being on telly a lot) certainly hasn't. I think the Malkovitch part is rather beside the point, but other than that it's what one would reasonably expect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just re-read the "political views" section, and I think it's a fairly accurate summary. Again, it might come off to a non-brit as being rather pejorative, but I don't think that for a british (non-Daily Mail-reading) visitor it would seem that way at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question: If this is such an unimportant person, why does he need such a long article? Maybe because someone likes to write inflamatory article linked to more inflammatory articles like Oil for Food Allegations which may seem more credible once the reader sees what a bad guy one of the main suspects is? Get-back-world-respect 01:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I will let the facts speak for themselves. If your hero gets a little dirty GBWR, then there is not alot I can do to soothe your bruised and enraged ego.TDC 03:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your language shows time and again that you do not know how to behave appropriately. You already got banned once for suggesting someone to suck his own dick. Get-back-world-respect 11:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GBWR asks Why does such a relatively minor politician get such a long article? As far as I know there is no rule that says that the length of an article should be in direct proportion to the importance of its subject - although the burgeoning impenetrable tangle of bureaucracy in this place is now so Orwellian that there could well be such a rule hidden away somewhere, unbeknownst to us. We may expect a sinister mirror-shaded zero-tolerant gun-toting administrator to leap out on us at any time and impose summary life bans for infringing it. But I digress. Most Wikipedia editors are amateur volunteers, who are writing articles purely for pleasure. So the longest and most detailed articles are going to be on subjects that interest and entertain the editors. And why not? You might expect that what most interests and entertains editors will most interest and entertain visitors, too. Whatever you think of Galloway, his politics, and his alleged antics, you can't deny that he's terrifically good value when compared with most of the devout, sober, image-consulted, party-line-spouting dullards that pass themselves off as politicians these days. GrahamN 01:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are entitled to think that it's pleasure to include a plethora of disparaging quotes and stories in the article about a minor politician, but you have to accept that this leads to a neutrality dispute message on the top. Get-back-world-respect 02:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No I don't. The thing doesn't bother me, though. If it makes you happy, I for one don't mind it being there. GrahamN 03:38, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although "Recent events involving the Oil for Food Program, however, may shed new light on Galloway's clandestine links to the former Hussein regime" may not be what we want in the article, replacing it with the biased "Shortly after the failure of this crude attempt by persons unknown to blacken his name" in the name of NPOV is atrocious. silsor 04:26, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, do you have better information? What was it, then, if not an outrageous and crude attempt by persons unknown to blacken his name? If you do have other information, I think there's a bunch of Christian Scientists who might be very interested. I take your point, though, and I'll amend the wording, although I don't see how anybody could still be taking this pantomime seriously. GrahamN 04:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had assumed that the allegations were at least real, and that the para just needed NPOVing, but a tiny amount of research shows they are not. This is the article by the investigative journalists which this seems to be based on. It says These files do not implicate Mr Galloway in personal corruption. Nor do they suggest that Mr Dalyell and Mr Reynolds, who always paid their own way, had any knowledge of what was going on. Mr Galloway said he was unaware that his financial sponsors were getting oil cash from the UN programme. But he accepts that he knew his supporters had links with Saddam's regime, and regarded that as an inevitable price to pay [for an effective anti-sanctions campaign]. In a letter from him published in the paper the following day, he points out that It is hard to see what is dishonourable, let alone "illicit", about Arab nationalist businessmen donating some of the profits they made from legitimate UN-controlled business with Iraq to anti-sanctions campaigns, as opposed to, say, keeping their profits for themselves. He doesn't deny the accusations, because he hasn't been accused of doing anything wrong! I'm deleting the whole paragraph. GrahamN 05:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have had another go. War on Want certainly did go into administration although it has subsequently come out. Some irrelevant material has been removed and many paras rewritten more concisely. The al-Mada allegations must be mentioned because they are significant, but the paragraph as written had a few factual errors. Perhaps anyone who doesn't like this draft can propose amendments here to try to get a consensus. Dbiv 17:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

May I ask for a source for his alleged "nickname"? Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Source for which 'nickname'? He's been nicknamed 'Gorgeous George' since long before he came into Parliament. He stuck out like a sore thumb in the Labour Party in Scotland who do not value dress sense. His nickname of "the Hon. Member for Baghdad" is a natural thing in the House of Commons for any MP who takes up a particular nation's cause and I can quote similar names for more than a century. You don't normally get sources for nicknames but I can vouch from my personal knowledge (I have been working in and around Parliament for nearly a decade) that both are accurate. As for the disputed sentence "Galloway said that he had been demonstrating against Saddam Hussein outside the Iraqi embassy in London, at a time when British cabinet ministers were inside the building arranging an export of British-manufactured arms to Iraq.", this is argumentative unless you can actually name the day. To the extent that it can be justified, I suspect Galloway is using poetic licence: he may have been protesting outside the embassy, and previous governments may have been arranging arms deals at around the same time, but not exactly contemporaneously. So far as I can remember, no-one has found proof of Galloway protesting outside the Iraqi embassy in London (when they had one). Dbiv 00:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given the amount of quotes used here to disparage him, even commenting about his clothing preferences, I do not see why his defense against allegations should be included as well. I was asking about the "Member for Baghdad", and I think if the only source for this is your personal memory it should go. Different question: There was a link to timesonline, which is not freely available. What is the wiki policy about such links? I think since those links cannot be confirmed by everyone they cannot be attached a title here. Get-back-world-respect 01:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Sources for George Galloway being nicknamed 'hon. Member for Baghdad': Daily Telegraph 22nd April 2003 [2], ABC News (Australia) [3], BBC News online [4], Irish Examiner [5]. That's just from a simple google search and I stopped after four. As for links, the Christian Science Monitor is normally a pay site which Times online isn't. As I have previously pointed out Galloway's dress sense has affected perception of his political views and is therefore relevant. I suppose Charles James Fox's defenders would object to discussions of his drinking and gambling but they affected his political life. You are supposed to be participating in writing an encyclopaedia, not acting as unofficial counsel for George Galloway who you clearly worship. If you don't like the article propose amendments here and try to get a consensus instead of just amending the article. Dbiv 09:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He has been described as member for baghdad in the media, but I think reporting the house of commons where it was intended as an insult. Being as DBIV was employed there as adviser to labour MPs, he should know. The labour party really hates him for his opposition to the war.Sandpiper 09:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had not even known of George Galloway before I got across him in the obscure article about oil for food allegations. I had only heard that there was some strange british MP who had won libel suits because some newspapers accused him of bribery. I do not care about Galloway personally, I just think any reader will lose all respect to wikipedia after reading articles like this one, not informative but just trying to destroy a person however evil or stupid the person may be. Get-back-world-respect 23:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some of this article is ridiculously bias against Galloway. I have moved his comments about George W. Bush from Criticisms - because they are not criticisms of him at all and merely his own views when looked at neutrally. They are only criticisms of him if one is bias against him or bias towards George Bush. Simply for the level of subtley negative wording in the article I have added the Neutrality deisputed template. -Erolos 22:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political Views section

My proposed redrafting:

Galloway was allied with the left-wing of the Labour Party, and while a party member was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group. He is an advocate of redistribution of wealth, greater spending on welfare benefits, and extensive nationalisation of large industries. As a practising Roman Catholic he is firmly opposed to abortion, although he is more tolerant of homosexuality, supporting equalisation of the age of consent. He is also opposed to independence for Scotland. While a Labour MP he was more amenable to obeying the party whip than his reputation would tend to suggest. He was not among the 25 most rebellious Labour MPs in the 1997 Parliament, and while a Labour MP in the 2001 Parliament voted against the whip 27 times, placing him as only the 9th most rebellious MP.

However he has attracted most attention for his comments on foreign policy, taking a special interest in Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and the Israel/Palestine dispute. Galloway's support for the Palestinian cause began in 1974 when he met a Palestinian activist in Dundee; he converted the rest of the Dundee Labour Party which flew the Palestinian flag over the Town Hall and twinned the city with Nablus. As a unilateralist, Galloway supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. His involvement with Iraq began after the war in 1991 when he visited the country to observe the effects of United Nations sanctions.

Any comments? If no objections received I will make the edit tomorrow. Dbiv 10:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only thing which I think might be improvable is the wording of "As a unilateralist, Galloway supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament." You want to say he wants Britain to disarm unilaterally? Is he active in supporting disarmament of other countries? Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is what unilateralist means. Being a unilateralist means that one believes that the UK should disarm even if other nations do not, but one does not cease being a unilateralist simply by calling for other nations to disarm as well. George Galloway was always involved in CND and not in European Nuclear Disarmament (END), a body which campaigned with equal fervour against the Soviet bloc's nuclear armaments and led by E.P. Thompson. (Incidentally, not relevant here, but END received considerable unwanted assistance from MI5 who would far rather have people join it than CND). Dbiv 23:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And CND is? Get-back-world-respect 19:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't know what precisely you mean by that question, but CND is specifically unilateralist. While they might welcome disarmament by other countries, they do not think it a requirement for UK nuclear disarmament. Dbiv 22:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just did not know what the abbreviation means. Always one of the more difficult aspects of foreign languages. But checked with google: Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: "Change Government policies to bring about the elimination of British nuclear weapons as a major contribution to global abolition." Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Dbiv's re-write has improved the article a good deal. Thank you. [Incidentally, I don't see the point of typing a proposed change on the talk page and inviting comments. It may seem polite, but in fact it is just a waste of time and space. It is more efficient just to make the change to the article: everybody can see what you have done, and if they don't like it they can change it again. That's the glory of the Wiki!] I'd be glad if Dbiv and GBWR would examine the three edits I just made. I've tried to counteract the anti-Galloway bias that GBWR complains of, but it's possible I may have over-egged it a little. You know, I've become so inured to the right-wing bias that pervades this site that it's started to feel normal. If an article doesn't get skewed to fit a pro-American neo-conservative viewpoint, then I wonder why not, and suspect a hidden agenda. What a state of affairs. GBWR is right. Sorry if I seemed a bit arrogant before. GrahamN 04:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've made some changes. I still think it would be better to highlight Galloway's tendency to outspokenness at the top because if truth be told, Galloway is not nearly such a far left-winger as he makes out - he just has a tendency to use bloodcurdling rhetoric. Also if you check National Constitutional Committee hearings they always use the formulation "expelled from the Labour Party forthwith" when throwing someone out.

An anonymous user then added the following para which I have reverted because it is vague, possibly libellous, and reads more like a clumsy attempt to link George Galloway to Al Qaeda:

In 1995, Galloway became involved in a campaign - via his lobbying company Hawk Communications - to fight the deportation of Saudi dissident Mohammed Al-Massari from the UK. He was involved in somewhat complex financial dealing with the leader of the campaign, one Saad Al-Fagih. Following a complaint to the Parlaimentary Commissioner for Standards, an investigation was launched into the nature of the lobbying. Galloway was cleared of any serious breaches of the rules of Parliament in 1997, but heavily criticised by the investigating committee for being misleading about his role and financial involvement. Since then, Saad Al-Fagih has been arrested for links to al-Qaeda, and Mohammed Al-Massari claims to be in contanct with Osama bin Laden.

It's possible something could be made of this but this para isn't it. Dbiv 10:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The details of the findings of the Select Committee on Standards are in the public domain in the Stationary Office, including full transcripts of the conversations and testimony. Reading the transcripts is very illuminating; the £10,000 cash exchange was never adequately explained, and the final word came down to Galloway's refusal to name certain Saudis in the UK in case the Security Services took action against them. The committeee actually found that he'd misappropriated his office resources for personal projects (including free postage), had made a misleading declaration in the Register of Members' Interests, but was not technically a paid lobbyist. Also, the Daily Mail, which was the source of some of the allegations, was found to have overstated the evidence for the core claim that Galloway was a paid lobbyist.

---

Should the link to the BBC report Galloway accepts libel damages be at the bottom of the page, or in the text? It seems to me it should be in the text, but User:Get-back-world-respect evidently disagrees. What does anybody else think? GrahamN 03:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Putting this to the bottom with its title is my alternative to putting a neutrality dispute message at the top od this article, which is still mainly about accusations raised against Galloway and not about himself. Get-back-world-respect 08:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the idea of neutral point of view with the idea of balance. Unless the rules have been changed recently, there is no requirement for wikipedia articles to be balanced, merely that they have to be expressed from a NPOV. Balance is such a subjective thing that it would be a very hard rule to define anyway. Wikipedia articles tend to become more balanced over time because they are worked on by a large number of people with different opinions. If you think this article is unacceptably unbalanced (and I can see why you might think that), then what you must do is add more information. A good source might be George's new autobiography, I'm Not the Only One. I have ordered a copy from my local library, but it hasn't arrived yet. I don't think it is legitimate to move a link to make it more prominent merely in order to alter the balance of an article. GrahamN 17:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I actually do not care much about this guy, I just did not like that apparently he had become a victim of some maniacs who thought they could make this a bashing article, which is a shame to wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 21:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I like and respect Galloway (though not agreeing with everything - or even the majority of - what he says). However, it is fair to say he has, since before he was an MP, been controversial to say the least, and has done and said things that even he probably regrets. If you leave all these controversies out, you are not left with very much and you would get a false picture of the man. He has also been accused of things that he is not guilty of, and this is significant whether you think the accusations are part of a deliberate smear campaign or not.

Exile 13:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quotes section

I have added back the Quotes section GrahamN removed.

This is revised with the second quote with a little more context. Please revise the section rather than remove it if you feel there are improvements required. Cheers, Now3d

The improvement that I feel is required to the redundant and pointless "quotes" section is to remove it entirely, and that is what I have just done. It contained the grand total of two quotes, one of which is already included in the article. If you feel the second quote sheds light on the subject, please include it in the context of a meaningful explanatory paragraph in a relevant section of the article. Ta. GrahamN 16:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with GrahamN. The "strength, courage and indefatigability" quote is important as it's the one most often quoted against him, and that's fully explained in the text. Meanwhile I would like some proof of Galloway's involvement in Clause IV, especially since this took place as recently as 1974 and Galloway has clearly changed his views on several things since then. Why would Galloway have been involved in a campaign to remove Militant from NOLS when he wasn't a member of NOLS? In addition, being a left winger and supporting Militant are not synonymous so it is misleading to quote it as an example of his not being on the left. Dbiv 00:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's "NOLS"? I don't have any evidence of any of that stuff. I was just proposing a NPOV version of some comments from another contributor which had been deleted because of alleged POV. Maybe I shouldn't have. Please feel free to modify or delete anything I wrote. Or indeed anything anybody else wrote. GrahamN 17:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't getting at you specifically as someone else inserted that reference. NOLS is the National Organisation of Labour Students. 'Operation Icepick' was an incident in January 1974 when the Scottish delegation to NOLS conference pulled in at a travel cafe en route, with a secret rendezvous time given to all the non-militant delegates, so that the few militants were left behind. Dbiv 22:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you could write articles for us about Clause Four Group and Operation Icepick? other than this article, the only references that google comes up with are from sources that personally I wouldn't trust to tell me the correct time. GrahamN 16:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is 'figurehead' NPOV?

As someone who knows nothing about the man or the RESPECT organization, the wording struck me as odd. —Chris vLS 14:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not quite the right word for Galloway's position within the RESPECT coalition. Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead, a person with no personal power. He's the co-founder (with his former rival party, the SWP), leader and prospective Parliamentary candidate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, made change. BTW the RESPECT page has some pretty POV language as well, calling RESPECT a "front." —Chris vLS 17:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't take it that seriously. It doesn't matter how hard it tries, Wikipedia on any current affairs coverage regarding US taboos such as socialism is going to have a touch of "Fox News" about it. This will be ironed out in the fullness of time as more eyes see and edit the text, adding factual information to dispel rumor. A bit like the search for those mythical WMDS. :) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George Galloway and protests against Iraq before 1991

I know that this is always mentioned by George Galloway when he is asked about fawning over Saddam, but I did a Lexis-Nexis search on any mention of George Galloway and Iraq before 1991 and found nothing. He may have been on these demonstrations, but none of them were very prominent. One thing to note is that he protested outside a building "on Tottenham Court Road". What exactly this building was I have not yet been able to find, but the Iraqi Embassy was at all times at Queen's Gate SW7, so it wasn't there. It may have been a trade mission or consulate. Dbiv 11:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've found out what it was: an Iraqi Cultural Centre operated at 177/178 Tottenham Court Road from about 1978 to 1990. Odd place to protest about arms sales. Dbiv 20:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was a Cultural Centre, somewhere around Goodge Street I think. It was mainly a propaganda outfit, including covertly funding and co-ordinating the publishing of a number of Arab-language newspapers in London. But it was also thought to be running surveillance on Iraqi opposition and refugee groups. There were protests outside it to publicise this, particularly by Kurdish groups, but I've no idea if Galloway was involved.-- Gregg 20:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits by 80.168.14.138

I don't think it is appropriate to say that the Telegraph documents were "allegedly found ..". No-one has doubted that David Blair did actually find the documents in the Foreign Ministry building in Iraq. I was at the trial and George Galloway's counsel did not question that part of his story. What is disputed is whether they are genuine documents, and if so, what interpretation is to be placed on them. To say that they were "allegedly found" is to indirectly accuse David Blair of perjury, which is unwise.

Secondly it seems better to say that Tony Benn gave character evidence because his evidence could not go to the actual accusations levelled at George Galloway - he was not at the meetings in question. Tony Benn's evidence was more in the nature of a political argument against expulsion. Dbiv 23:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The term "Palestinian flag" is hardly POV and should not be in inverted commas, unless every other flag should be put in inverted commas as well e.g. the "US flag". PatGallacher 10:01, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

"Performance Indicators"

I find this section a little difficult to digest. I'll list comments per item:

• George Galloway spoke in 0 debates in the last year — tied for last, out of 659 MPs.

Which year is "last year"? 2004? His last year in which he worked as an MP? Why is GG being tied for last out of MPs when he no longer is one? Besides, this is surely not true - we have a picture of him debating on Newsnight at the top of this page. Are we to mean parliamentary debates, in which case why isn't this stated?

• Asked 0 written questions in the last year — in a large multi-way tie for last, out of 659 MPs.

Again - which year is "last year"?

• Has attended 3% of votes in parliament — 649th out of 657 MPs. (From Public Whip)

In what time span - While he was an MP? - "last year"? - ever(!)?

• In the 1997–2001 parliament Galloway rebelled against Blair in just five votes out of 665, 0.8%. (For comparison: Jeremy Corbyn rebelled 77 times, and John McDonnell 72.)

Isn't it rather un-NPOV to list rebeling against Tony Blair as a measure of performance? Are we to suggest he would have been a better MP if he had blindly rejected everything his own party put forwards? Where GG agreed with TB it was good performace to vote with him; granted, the point made is that he didn't rebel as often as his various stances indicate he should, but that is hardly summed up by such a simple metric.

WikianJim 14:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That the meaning is parliamentary debates is clearly implied by both the obviousness of that sense of the word, and the context of the statistic being in comparison to other Members of Parliament. (Perhaps most people would consider the Newsnight picture as being from an "interview" or "appearance", in any case.)

Galloway was an MP right up to when parliament was dissolved when Blair called the May 5th 2005 election, as a clear reading of the article will reveal. He continued as an independent following his expulsion from the Labour party.

Your other concerns, including the excellent point regarding rebellions, seem to have been dealt with in the piece.

Thanks for the clarification, I was unaware he was a current MP. Just one futher problem: when we say "In the 1997–2001 parliament Galloway voted against the majority of his party in 5 votes out of 665..."; shouldn't that be "his former party" since he was no longer representing Labour in parliament? WikianJim 13:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! I see my mistake. 1997-2001!! Never mind. WikianJim 13:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

And i think you had a point about specifically parliamentary debates after all :)

I suggest adding the BBC Newsnight link to http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/41107000/rm/_41107023_blogger22_pax0305_vi.ram

which shows (02:00 into clip) George Galloway praising Saddam as "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability..", etc etc and covers the recent election in Bethnal Green and Bow.

Harper Valley PTA

Watching the news clip of Galloway in front of the Senate committee, it made me think of Jeannie C. Riley and the day that "Momma socked it to the "Harper Valley PTA." Ted Wilkes

Messy

This article is swelling and becoming messy and overlong. It needs some serious pruning, esspically the stuff about the Oil for Food allegations.--JK the unwise 13:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of text regarding alleged forgery

1) The "Socialist Worker Online" page is not a credible source anymore than directly linking to the "findings" of a G.O.P. website, and certainly not to buttress factual assertions, indirectly or not (as in "appears to" in the image caption). 2) These documents are not sourced at all. 3) A visit to the actual source of these documents: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_eab.pdf shows some of the claims to be demonstrably false. For instance:

In these documents, the only people whose nationality is not identified are Galloway, Zurayqat, and Abu al Abbas (the leader of the militant Palestinian Palestine Liberation Front).

Even a cursory examination reveals this to be false. See, for instance, M/06/59, M/06/70. In the first and second, the nationality is only listed for the entity the individual represents, where in the second it is likely that the nationality for the individual is not even Swiss (see: M/06/60, where the exact same entity is represented with an individual of apparent Lebanese ("LABANIES") origin. This occurs in many other instances. In the instance where Mr. Zurayqat is mentioned as being listed "properly" by nationality (M/11/10), M/11/04 is not far above where the nationality is only listed in reference to the contracted company, and furthermore the font differs from even the entry below [which is to say this is not even a clever ruse on the part of Socialist Worker given the vast discrepancies in type throughout the entire documents, particularly for space limitations but also without--font style, size, density, and slant].

In the instance where the allocation is referred to in a single line, the use of the word "people" cleverly evades instances where the nationality is also not given (even where not apparent in the name of the contracted company or ministry). See: M/09/58, M/09/101, M/09/102 (the latter two match the prose of M/09/112, where the nationality of "CYPRUS" is given). It also does not have the benefit of being true, as in for instance (NIL lifted) entry 67.

Until these problems are dealt with in the absence of evident partiality this should either stay removed or the article tagged with a POV/accuracy warning. --TJive 19:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• As I originally had it the reference to the Socialist Worker website stated something like "The Socialist Worker Online [14] (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6511) reported what they say is evidence that the key document, used by the Senate committee and the Duelfer report, has been altered, with George Galloway's name being added to the document in a different font and at a different angle, apparently typed over the nationality of Fawaz Zurayqat. - It is a matter of fact that the Socialist worker reported this - there should be no dispute with the inclusion of this information. I uploaded the images of the pages taken from the "Duelfer Report".

• What do you mean "2) These documents are not sourced at all." ? I have clearley indicated the source on the uploaded jpgs.

• I agree that the statement saying that only Galloway, Zurayqat, and Abu al Abbas do not have nationality listed is false. That was added by someone else.

• I do not agree with your statement about the font differences. As far as I can see the entries which have Mr George Galloway shown next to Zurayqat are the only ones in which two different type faces have been used (at a different slant) on the same line.

• I do not understand your last point regarding M/09/58, M/09/101, M/09/102 Jooler 20:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Addressing the points in order:

• That wording (particularly in regards to the image) conforms to a better standard of neutrality; chiefly it should have been noted that the particular instance in which the slant appears mid-entry is regarding exactly that; the wording had left a broader impression. It should also be noted in this section that these are not unhampered copies to begin with--that comments (at the beginning) have been added and names (involving US citizens) redacted, and that there are Arabic versions--are these available?
• When I said it was not properly sourced I meant that there was no evident link to an external copy of the documents; indeed I can not find where these yellow prints are from and was only able to follow the SWO website (when it was available--it was even offline for a point) to the PDF file of what appears to be part of the actual Duelfer Report.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:Galloway_Evidence.jpg - clearly indicates the source. What more did you want? Jooler 09:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• I was addressing the broader point the article makes about font style and density (and even slants), which are varied across the many pages--this too being the impression given.
• M/09/58, M/09/101, M/09/102, and 67 address the point of unnamed nationalities in the single bracket format. --TJive 23:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well not precisely in order but I trust you follow. --TJive 23:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding expulsion from the Labor Party

This article does not seem to mention the actual charges against Galloway (I believe there were five of them) and which specifically were deemed to be true on what basis. Furthermore it mentions controversial statements about Iraq and inciting disaffectment, but this leads to nothing specific "below" but comments made in the previous decade which had nothing to do with why he was being kicked out. This needs edited. --TJive 00:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

facts contradicting galloway's assertion are not "pov"

TJive, (though in context it makes no grammatical sense were this so) is not a NPOV. The reader must judge, not us. We are not writing a book or a journalistic article. We are editing an encyclopedia. Cheers and respect Svest 01:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC) ^{wiki me up™}

The wording as it was seems to me rather incredulous, as if there is equivocation between what plain words mean and do not. If the reader is to judge, it is necessary that he actually SEE the words in their entirety as it stands in relevance to the paragraph, rather than simply "this is the most contentious part" and "but St. Galloway says _____". This effects misdirection on the reader whereby they believe that some "controversial" things were said but it is not actually clear what the meaning was, simply as it is disputed after the fact because of the heat he took. As I said, this is not a matter of opinion and thus has no bearing on POV, unless you believe, "I do not believe his words mean what they say," is a legitimate point of view to hold. --TJive 01:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

POV If...

If you are trying to maintain NPOV the worst thing you can do is begin a sentence with "If..." and then proceed to make a value judgement. A speech being for "the benefit of.." does not neccesarily mean it was directed directly at them. Galloway was in the presence of Saddam Hussien. To make a speech which was NOT directed at him personally would have been impolite and bizarre. Please don't try to make some kind of judgment about the value of the speech because of grammer. It is disingenuous. 07:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Jooler

It now says The comment represents a shift in his stance towards Saddam Hussein, this implies (as I read it) that he didn't like Saddam but changed to likeing him which assumes the POV that his comments were for the benifit of Saddam, I was just making that clear. If his comments were for the benifit of the Iraqi people then no change in stance towards Saddam is implied.--JK the unwise 08:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, that was part of the way it read I modified it before TJive changed it completely. Jooler 08:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Tjive had inserted the following "Galloway maintains that his praze (sic) was for the benefit of the Iraqi people collectively, though arguably this would make the finnal comments of his speech grammatically incorrect, and has repeatedly expressed his regret over his flattering remarks directed at the Iraqi dictator." - TJive seems to be basing his judgement on the final comment whereas Galloway is referring to the entire speech when he talks of it being for the benefit of Iraqis, not just the flattering of Saddam in the final few words. Jooler 08:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Now I know to even stoop to the level of stark apologia for Galloway requires several intellectual contortions but you have quickly moved to flat out lies, and easily determinable ones. The relevant insertion, as you quote it, was most emphatically not of my creation and was instead a mutation by a certain "JK the unwise" [see: here]

Apologies, but please don't accuse me of lying. What good would it do for me to lie like this? This was a mistake on my part of mistaking the edit of JK the unwise for yours. JK's modification of this para is actually earlier than you point out it is this edit [6]. Jooler 09:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The very second sentence you gave in support of the deletion collapses upon itself by the fourth. You say, "A speech being for "the benefit of.." does not neccesarily mean it was directed directly at them." and then proceed to say, "To make a speech which was NOT directed at him personally would have been impolite and bizarre." I do not recall ever inserting an instance of Saddam's "benefit" but merely noting the fact that Galloway's words may only be construed as being directed at Saddam (and thus not praising the "courage", "strength" and so on of the "Iraqi people" "collectively", much less anything to do with the denizens of the Gaza Strip (though Galloway also claims to have spoken on their behalf). Of course, all that is then allowed is Galloway's extrication from his actual words in hindsight (when most convenient and when he actually bothers to defend himself on the point rather than dodge the question or storm from the interview), which we must uncritically accept, less someone actually look at what he said and determine otherwise (hence, the words may not appear in the proper context either--instead we merely have vague assertions which assure us all that indeed Mr. Galloway is rather contrite over the ordeal though we can't list it specifically).

Finally, "TJive seems to be basing his judgement on the final comment whereas Galloway is referring to the entire speech when he talks of it being for the benefit of Iraqis, not just the flattering of Saddam in the final few words," [my emphasis] is truly a bizarre and brazen contention if one actually bothers to read the speech. But it is no surprise whether you have or have not.

I am going to attempt to reconcile the paragraph in the fairest manner possible. If it is reverted to the current craven version with no attempt at compromise then a POV tag is in order. --TJive 00:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What I was trying to say, (and I was obviously not expressing myself clearly enough) - was that Galloway was in the presence of Saddam and his speech was directed at Saddam and it included flattering remarks directed at Saddam, but Galloway asserted that he went over and made the speech for the benefit of the Iraqi people - this is what I was given to understand. I have now looked into this in further detail and found that my interpretation is probably incorrect. I cannot find a specific reference quoting Galloway directly but several online reports imply that "He said he had meant those words as praise of the strength of the Iraqi people" Jooler 09:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the aversion to "if". "the comment represents a shift in his stance towards Saddam Hussein" is POV because it assumes that a reading of his comments that is disputed by some people. "If genuinely expressive of his attitude these comments represent a shift in his stance towards Saddam Hussein" is NPOV as it does not assume this reading nor does it say that this reading is wrong. As I see it the only other way to be neutral is to say 'supporters claim...' and 'critics claim...'. A certain "JK the unwise 08:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)"

I have no aversion to how you phrased it [your spelling, on the other hand....], but apparently others cower before the slightest equivocation which suggests a negative interpretation of his remarks is at all possible. I think even as it stands that a specific quote of Galloway's in reaction to the mention of this speech should be included rather than simply apologizing for him. A certain falsely accredited TJive 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Tariq Aziz

"It [the sumcommittee report] also included information from interviews with former high-ranking officials now in U.S. custody, including former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan." - I can find no reference in the report of either of these gentlemens' evidence being used in reference to the allegations against Galloway. I don't believe it is relevant to the specific allegations against Galloway, which basically hinge on his name on a few documents (possibly forged) and the testimony of an unnamed source quoted as saying "Galloway, Labor Party (sic) was the owner of a company that was involved in the Iraqi oil trade scheme." and Taha Yassein Ramadan who Galloway claims he's never met. Jooler 08:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can find no reference to either of the men you cite then this would certainly discount your last sentence which states that indeed Ramadan was cited. Whether he met Ramadan does not seem to be pertinent to any ascertainable facts of what Galloway may or may not have done, and is not by virtue of Galloway's claim to be asserted as fact or thereby sufficient for removal of the context. However, a rewording of the paragraph is in order in which it should be asserted that these two men were listed in support of the claims against Galloway and Pasqua but that in reference specifically to Galloway only Ramadan and an unnamed official were cited, and perhaps it is not clear whether this could refer to Aziz (I do not recall offhand the description of the unnamed official and whether it precludes the possibility of Aziz by virtue of his office/rank). --TJive 00:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies. I originally was only going to point out the fact that Tariq Aziz made no reference to Galloway, but then noticed the other name and so modified my post on the talk page. I became confused by different spellings of Arabic names. I searched for one spelling and did not find it. So my assertion about Taha Yassin Ramadan is incorrect. The unnamed official is specifically not Tariq Aziz as can be deduced from the footnotes of the subcommitte report. So that point still holds. Jooler 08:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be modified as it is, in such a manner as I suggested. --TJive 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Notablility

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I included Galloway's appearance before the Senate committee on the 2005 page, but somebody claimed that this was not sufficiently notable. Any comments? PatGallacher 11:54, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Senate Censorship

I can't help feeling that simply saying his testimony has been removed from the Senate webpage is to gloss over the point that his testimony has clearly rattled them - let alone the fact it is astonishing that they have replaced it with the patent lie that "Mr Galloway did not submit a statement". The implications for US freedom speech alone are staggering. [[7]] Shedden 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

They appear to refer to written statements. Do you know for your own part whether he submitted one? Did anyone actually access this page to download a PDF statement of Galloway's? I would be interested to know, because the wording seems rather misleading. --TJive 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem that the others are anything other than transcripts: compare the start of the video footage with the start of "Member Statement" from Coleman on the same page from which Galloway's testimony is missing. If they are just transcripts, why is Galloway's missing? In fact, he did also submit some written evidence: the dossier about his history of opposition to the Ba'ath regime, so if the criteria were a written submission, why is that not there? Shedden 19:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the criteria was "a written submission", I said it might be a "written statement". You know, it's pretty obvious that Coleman is reading off of a paper (as opposed to Galloway). --TJive 19:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

May 17 statements

Why has the full version of the May 17 statements before the Senate, with bullet points, been removed? This is important, interesting, relevant and should remain.

It was moved to Wikiquote, apparently for the sake of space. --TJive 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. Even some of the remaining quotes should be moved, and the substance of the comments recorded. Having lots of quotes isn't encyclopedic, and for Wikipedia is an intermediate development step, not a permanent solution. Rd232 09:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It may be that a quote directly and succinctly explains exactly what was said, rather than entering into interpretation of what was said. But I agree, a separate page for the full statement is desirable, preferably including thew comments of the senators.Sandpiper 17:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of nationality

I suppose, in what seems to me a rather surreal situation to be placed in of any necessity whatever, that I am forced to launch a more formal objection to the factual assertion of "Socialist Worker Online"s viewpoint in regards to the documents. And I note that yet still no one seems to have sourced these particular prints as uploaded. --TJive 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you clarify your concerns? Rd232 09:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out the source is clearly indicated. I uploaded them. Jooler 22:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The source is given as the Duelfer Report, in which the relevant form does not appear as yellow. Am I the only one who sees the difference in color? I don't understand why this would be so. --TJive 01:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't see much of a difference in colour (and I wouldn't describe the uploaded version as "yellow" - maybe "yellowish"); and it's the only difference I can see. There's any number of possible reasons. If it really bothers you, do new screenshots from Duelfer and upload them. Rd232 09:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The very slight difference in colour is because the images taken from the PDF report have been converted to jpgs, and the compression algorithm has evened out the colour. No more no less. Were the imaghes to remain a lossless copy of the original the files would be about 1.5MB instead of 150kb. Jooler 10:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jooler. I have never converted PDF files into .jpg format before so wasn't aware that this was a realistic possibility. --TJive 13:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

bad edit?

This:

but was expelled from it in October 2003 following controversial statements about the war in Iraq.

Has just become this:

but was expelled from it in October 2003 for publicly opposing the war in Iraq.

(edit by 137.222.189.16) This seems worse to me and I am reverting - many Labour MPs publicly opposed the war, and this was not in itself the reason GG was expelled. If this is a wrong revert, please discus here. WikianJim 10:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new edit is more informative and less biased than the older version.

1) Because the word controversial is not informative. It could for example mean that Galloway was in favour of bombing Iraq more heavily.

2) Because most people (in retrospect) do not regard Galloways anti war statements concerning Iraq as controversial. Therefore these statements should not be presented as controversial.

3) Controversial is a loaded word. By describing a person as controversial you are undermining their credibility, and therefore not respecting NPOV

--Fergie 10:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial is ambiguous as to content, which could be supplied but is left unqualified in any case. Controversial implies nothing but that, and in fact his statements were controversial. Your edit is simply your POV on the merit of the charges. --TJive 11:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

"controversial" can simply mean "arousing controversy" - which clearly they did; I've added some more details on this under Expulsion. "for publicly opposing the war in Iraq" is plain wrong, as many others did this without getting expelled from the party - eg several ministers resigned in very public protest. Rd232 13:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial is probably more correct here, because there was certainly a controversy as a result of Galloways actions. It was probably the publicity rather than the content which led to his expulsion, even if the grounds for expulsion were the content. But if this was a one-line explanation with nothing further, then 'for opposing the war' would have been a more accurate summary of the reason for his expulsion. Here 'controversy' is fine as it just encourages the reader to look further down for the details.Sandpiper 4 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Footnotes and source

The disorder and inconsistency in footnotes and externally linked sources is ghastly at present and I do not know what fashion is the current preference in resolving this. Also, is there any source for the "bestial" comments on Iraq? --TJive 19:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Consistently accused of heinous things, then cleared by subsequent investigation

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

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

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

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

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

Here's one for a start: Roy Greenslade (no fan of GG) sugests that it is because "he has become so unpopular with both the media and political elites that they regard him as outside the normal rules of the game" i.e he is their new "leftwing whipping boy" [8]

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

Is his missus really a muslim?

It seems unlikely to me. He's a Catholic. Wouldn't he have had to convert to Islam to marry her? I just did a Google search on her name and the only references to her religion seemed to stem from this article. I'm removing the word "muslim" until somebody provides a reliable source for this. GrahamN 04:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She is a Palestinian Muslim, according to this writeup from the London Times. In google, I simply put "George Galloway" "wife" in the search box. [9] Wahkeenah 06:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. Mind you, if you think The Times is some kind of irreproachable fount of knowledge you are sadly mistaken: it's just another appalling Murdoch comic these days. Hardly the place to check facts. But I see that The Scotsman also say she's Muslim [10]: I doubt they'd have repeated such a mistake. I still find it surprising, though. For some reason I had assumed she was a Palestinian Christian. GrahamN 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if Mr Galloway is a practicing Catholic he could marry a Muslim in a Catholic church. However, the church requires that the couple guarentee that the children be raised as catholics. I don't know what requirements Islam places on intermarrage but historically Islam was always quite tolerant. (And ofcourse this assumes that both are observant of their religions. Galloway doens't seem the type to follow rules!) Seabhcán 09:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think Muslims were allowed to marry outside the religion. Isn't it supposed to bring shame on the family, and all that kind of thing? Or am I thinking of Hindus? Anyhow, the soon to be ex Mrs Galloway evidently doesn't stand for any of that sort of nonsense. GrahamN 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Muslim woman can not marry a Christian man and have the marraige recognised in Islam. It happens all the time, but it's not considered a valid Nikah. If she was Muslim she must not have been a practising one. For what its worth, The palestine Chronicle said she was Christian --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Notable instances of tolerance notwithstanding, it may be a bit of a stretch to say that Islam was "always historically quite tolerant." There was the whole dhimmi issue and whatnot... More to the present point, the Sharia (Islamic law) absolutely forbids marriage between a female Muslim and a non-Muslim man. A non-Muslim man who engages in consensual intercourse with a Muslim female may be subject to death, according to traditional interpretations of Islamic law (however, this is not current official law outside of certain areas of Nigeria and possibly Iran and Saudi Arabia).

POV

The point isn't simply the "evident fact" of the leaning of the Times that you find. You consider it essentially a Murdoch mouthpiece. One that has recently discovered and published memorandums that are all the buzz on the relevant circles that Galloway inhabits. Very well (or nevertheless,) the reader can come to a conclusion about the editors of this particular publication--which is hardly obscure and in need of identification--without an attempt to attribute motive to unflattering facts. That is most certainly unencyclopedic.

myself, I had not even considered Murdoch. The Times and Sunday Times are good newspapers, but they have always had their own POV. Their primary thrust would be exactly as it has always been, to discomfort a Labour government. Galloway is a labour politician, but one at odds with the government on one particular issue, Iraq. Anything they publish which supports him on this, only does so by further discomforting the Labour government as a whole. Perhaps you are familiar with details of which british newspapers hold which points of view, many people are not. The viewpoints are openly help and broadly not disputed by the papers, but that does not mean someone would be specifically aware of them unless he was in the habit of reading them all. I believe there is a New York Times and a Washington Post. I have heard of these papers, may even have seen them on news stands in the UK, but I have no idea who they support.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

I doubt that one act on their part which pleased Galloway by taking his side on the issue where he himself is at odds with the governmentSandpiper 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

As is the latter case, where it is very apparent that the original author (to which it has been reverted twice) intended to attribute cowardice to the panel, whereas it was not a trial of accused and accusor, it was a public hearing which are very commonly not attended where some gain of exposure is not paid for the effort, as very little tends to be established within the actual session; that is, it is largely theatrics (something of course that Galloway excels at). It is dishonest to say that prior to this it was not "unencyclopedic" as the attendees were mentioned; in fact this would make it redundant. What seems to be clearly objected to instead is that issue of defense is not formed around the appearance of the members. Sorry, but there is no need, and it is not proper. --TJive July 1, 2005 02:45 (UTC)

"revert, important to note context of times allegations as part of a political campaign"

Which is why the article already stated, "The Sunday Times....splashed the story on their front page four days before the general election" which is a contextual detail otherwise lost for which it is not necessary to expound your particular views on the unspoken politics of a paper.

sorry TJive, I find some of your writing a little cryptic to follow. Coming back on this point now, I was not expounding my own point of view about the paper. The politics of the paper are most certainly not unspoken. It is a matter of record which side a newspaper normally favours, and reading a few sample papers and comparing them would quickly demonstrate this. All UK papers have a well established bias in one direction or another which is pretty solid over the years. An informed Uk reader would already know this. An uninformed one might not be familiar with the particular slant of the Times, a foreign reader would surely not be aware of it. Telling Wiki readers that this took place in the context of an election is only half the story. The other half is which side in the election this paper is on.Sandpiper 4 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Apparently though nobody is even reading the content surrounding the reverts (especially considering the other unmentioned section) but are going solely on their blind political zeal. --TJive July 1, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

It is plainly relevant to the credibility of the allegations where and under what circumstances they were made. It is not reasonable to assume that a reader will be fully versed in the political leanings of different British newspapers, or to assume he would otherwise realise that this formed part of a party political campaign (and also part of a pro/anti war campaign). By all means, add information about how different papers viewed the allegations, whether it was handled equally by papers of all political slants, and so forth, if you believe this is needed for balance. Failing to mention the originators of the story and their own positions is to imply that it was universally treated the same and accepted as true, which it was not. This is in itself bias.

Galloway is not someone who would be of any significant importance in british politics, except for his stance on Iraq. He has been reviled for this both by British and American politicians and newspapers. He has had a number of notable successes in bringing court cases to demonstrate lack of proof of various allegations. I recall a deal of fuss about whether Galloway was actually asked to attend the senate hearings at all, or asked for any written comment before the committe published allegations against him which it maintained had been substantiated by proof. Coverage at the time suggested very much that Galloway appeared at his own insistence, rather than that of the committee. And then that the committee did not in fact attend the meeting. Just the bare minimum to represent both sides of the argument. In essence the committee did its very best not to attend its own hearing.

You may be quite correct that such committees are normally not attended by people on them. This hardly improves their credibility. I assume that these committees meet regularly, but it is quite rare for any of their proceedings to be reported in the UK. Yet in this most celebrated case, the committe itself does not attend. Whatever inference you draw from this fact, it is in itself most striking and worthy of report. If even half the committee had attended, it might be possible to imagine that the others had a pressing need to be elsewhere, but all of them?

I would be loath to impute cowardice to any politician. Not a job for anyone with weak nerves. I would agree that the absence or presence of people at a meeting is directly related to the importance they place upon it. It has been alleged by Galloway that he was pre-judged by the committee, which was not interested in anything he might have to say in his defence. Failure by most of the committee to attend seems relevant. To my mind, more pertinent than anything which he did in fact say. It is indeed a question of balanced reporting. But again, it is not balanced reporting to ignore that the 'judges' failed to turn up. Failing to mention this automatically creates a presumption that in fact the whole committee turned up and listened carefully. I am not suggesting a discourse on why they failed to do this. Sandpiper 4 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

The story is already mentioned as being in the context of a political campaign. Whether other papers' coverage is mentioned is irrelevant to the fact that it is inappropriate and beyond the capacity of this site to casually infer certain views of a popular publication like the Times.

It is a matter of record which side the times supported in the election and its editorial policy on the war.

A reference to an explicit endorsement of the paper for a candidate opposed to Galloway in the election would be appropriate; interpreting its politics on your own part is not. --TJive July 4, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

I repeat, I am not interpreting its politics. I did not write this line in the article, but I do endorse it. The Times writes articles generally favouring 'establishment' values and the conservative party. This is evident from its content as well as being explicitly stated in its editorials. Galloway was a Labour politician before having a rift with his party. The nature of the rift was if anything to the 'left' of politics, wheras on this issue the Labour party had been taking what might traditionally have been a conservative line. The normal policy of the times would therefore be doubly to ridicule Galloway. Sandpiper 4 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

If I am correct that members are often loathe to attend hearings then this presents no special challenge to the credibility of the accusations which is what you are intending for the article to imply. Most of what you recount is a rehash of things that I am already aware of which are stated in the article concerning how Galloway was asked to attend. As I stated before, the paragraph already mentions who attended, so your inclusion is redundant and the objection then becomes that it is not treated in such a manner so as to reflect poorly on the credibility and substance of the allegations in the first place. --TJive July 4, 2005 01:17 (UTC)

Could you please supply statistics on the normal number of people attending a hearing. If The normal number is in fact 2, one from each party/side, then I think this in itself is a fact worth recording about the credibility of committees. If it is normal for more to attend, then the low attendance remains worth reporting. It is entirely correct for an article here 'to reflect poorly on the credibility..' when that is what the presented facts suggest. Anything else is to distort the facts. It is not NPOV to remove critical implications from articles when these follow from reporting of facts.

I'm afraid that actual statistics are not published as far as I am aware, though I could be wrong. As a popular example, the Democratic contenders for President and VP of last year were both accused of low attendance to hearings on their respective committees (which they did not deny), and despite the constant repeating of the charges were not particularly the worse for it; it is an accepted fact of American politics that public hearings are largely a theatric spectacle. It is not appropriate to edit the article to reflect this assumption in mind, of course, but neither to impugn it for the opposite. --TJive July 4, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Then I am afraid that the only statistic we have is the dismal one of 2/13 attendees at this particular hearing. Whether common or uncommon it quite fairly demonstrates the unimportance which the members place on the meeting. I do not quite see what theatricality has to do with it. The committee has had plenty of time to create the arena which presents it in its best possible light. we are only reporting what is. (User:sandpiper July 5).

Theatricality is important because it in a very large part the purpose of public hearings--getting things out to the public and presenting the committee chairs in the most heroic light possible; making names for themselves by crusading for a particular issue. That has been true especially of this committee going back to the McCarthy days. This should not be taken to impugn the credibility of the process or substantive allegations, merely that public hearings themselves are not themselves terribly important--which of course is all Galloway was interested in as well, and why he came out happy; he delivered a very dramatic performance and so believes himself vindicated on the question. --TJive July 5, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

I think there is a contradiction in the last paragraph. Either the hearing is important, or it is not important. Either it is important to put on a show and disseminate the information,or it is not. The above says it is important for the purpose of disseminating information, but not for obtaining it? No new information was likely to arise? So the party most interested in having the hearing would be the one which most wanted the information to be heard? So the party which believed the publicity would benefit its case, would be the party which attended the hearing? Um. In light of that, is it relevant who actually attended and who did not? Do we allow the reader to draw his own conclusions or do we choose not to present the information?Sandpiper 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

What in the world? This conversation has been drug through several insubstantial steps over a couple days so I'm not completely sure what is being said here and why it matters. I am basically saying that the meetings are not important in that they do not themselves establish the facts of the matter and are only important insofar as publicity itself is important--hence the theatrics of witnesses and chairpersons alike. This does not imply that the article should be edited with any such or differering perspective in mind, but that it should not be edited to simply impugn the allegations for the fact of attendance, which exists there after all. --TJive July 5, 2005 01:32 (UTC)

Indeed. But how far can you take that? Imagine a crime scene. Article states, 'body was found on floor with bullet hole. man was found holding smoking gun, spattered with blood.' Where is the NPOV? Do you edit the article to remove all mention of blood on the man, or that he was holding a gun? If you leave these facts in, then it makes an implication that he shot the one on the floor. If you take them out, then you are witholding facts with the intention of discouraging an obvious conclusion. Either choice of facts implies something about the 'real' situation.

My reaction is to state the facts, and add extra information to explain them if needed. So I persist in wanting to state the facts of who attended this meeting and who did not. I do not want this to be presented in anything other than a neutral way, but witholding facts is also a distortion.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are wanting here, because you are either being too obtuse or simply presenting an argument for its own sake (which I am not particularly interested in). There is already included a statement concerning the attending members. What is wrong with it? --TJive July 5, 2005 02:31 (UTC)

As it stands at this moment, it's fine. (I think it needs a new paragraph start before beginning to quote Galloway, but that is just a style issue.) However the detail has been popping in and out like a yo-yo. If it had never disappeared then we would not have been having this debate. Admittedly, two separate points have become a bit mixed up. Sandpiper 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

It would be incorrect of you to assume that the hearing is impartial and does not itself have a strong pre-existing bias. If the system works like the British one, then committee members are chosen to reflect government views.Sandpiper 4 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I never said anything which would indicate otherwise; you seem to have misconstrued my earlier contribution. I meant to say only that Galloway was "one part" of the "allegations relating to the Oil-for-Food programme"; this does not presume the rightness of any side. --TJive July 5, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Except that selective choice of facts does presume the rightness of one side. It presumes that the comittee members failed to attend because they never do bother to attend. That this assumption justifies not presenting the fact of their absence to wiki readers. Where is the evidence that the committee failed to attend for entirely impartial reasons which have no bearing?Sandpiper 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

See above. --TJive July 5, 2005 01:32 (UTC)

above you said that there was no evidence on normal attendance records, that none existed.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)

I was referring to the section of comments above from the same-time edit, where the point is addressed already. --TJive July 5, 2005 02:31 (UTC)

Matter vs. Anti-Matter

I wonder... if George Galloway were to appear on Bill O'Reilly's program, would those two "human lightning rods" be like matter and anti-matter, and anihilate each other, with the resulting enormous release of energy bringing about world peace, one way or another? Wahkeenah 1 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Maybe we could harness that massive release of self-righteousness to provide electricity, and the huge indefatigability to reverse climate change. A great idea. Seabhcán 1 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Or at least to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. :) Wahkeenah 1 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

User:Sandpiper please read No original research

Your claim that the Sunday Times is opposed to Galloways politics is just that, your claim and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Please keep your pro-Galloway POV out of this article. --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Stating the bleeding obvious isn't original research. And it is relevant to the S Times' decision to publish the material days before a general election Galloway was contesting. Given the narrow margin, the article could easily have kept Galloway out of Parliament (effectively losing him his job, as well as political voice). Rd232 4 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Wiki policy says 'The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".'

The notion that a newspaper has a bias, and indeed what that bias is, is frequently published and discussed. Whether newspapers themselves constitute 'reputable publications'in which to publish, i don't know. It is hardly a new interpretation. The entire economics of running a newspaper is based upon writing articles with a particular slant which will appeal to their readers. No newspaper can afford to change its established slant.Sandpiper

Cite your sources. Please read original research before you comment. Why would the Sunday Times do a favour for the Labour Party? Lets keep original research out of this article. --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

See above where already answered, but discrediting Galloway also discredited the labour party to which he not so long ago belonged, just before the election. Reporting the marital failings of a member of a political party is not normally seen as helping them.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)

It is original research because it is the analysis of Wiki editors in an attempt to attribute motive for dishonesty. If the paper itself (and not, say, Oliver Kamm) stated its support for a candidate opposed to Galloway this would be a relevant contextual detail which is fact. --TJive July 5, 2005 00:14 (UTC)

No, it is an attempt to report facts. reporting facts is not research. As again already posted elsewhere, failing to report facts is bias.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)

The concept that a paper can be biased is not novel in that it can be readily found in many notable publications, for the purpose of gathering views on the potentiality of bias. What is novel is the analysis of users that this particular paper is many things: "strongly ideologically opposed to Galloway's politics", an "appalling Murdoch comic", and now "favouring 'establishment' values and the conservative party". These are not facts; they are the perceptions of Wikipedia editors, not even having the benefit of speaking through a briefly Googled link or two. As I said, if there can be found a factual example where the Times board openly endorses an opponent of Galloway's against him, this would be a relevant contextual detail to that specific report. As it stands, the attempted insertion is merely the irrelevant POV of a few users for the purpose of constructing a morsel of defense for Galloway and nothing more. --TJive July 5, 2005 02:40 (UTC)

TJive, you're being silly (if you're British; I'll let you off if you're not). It is common knowledge that the Times, like most British newspapers, is conservative with a small c (and when the Conservative Party isn't too embarassing, with a big C; it urged readers to vote Conservative in the 2005 election[11]). Ergo it is opposed to Galloway's leftwing politics (which is on the left side of Old Labour, never mind New Labour), all controversy over Iraq and Palestine aside. See for example this interview, which you'll surely agree is pretty hostile. Rd232 5 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

I think their complaint is that "common knowledge" is insufficient. "Common knowledge" is something everyone knows, i.e. that the sky is blue and water is wet. Not everyone knows what the Times' editorial policy is. However, citing a source that either asserts the Times policy or from which the reader can infer it, should be a valid approach. For example, you could simply state that "This linked interview illustrates the Times' view of Galloway's politics" without restating what that view is, just led the readers draw their own conclusions. However, in the case of your citation, it requires registration to the Times, so that link could be regarded as spam. Wahkeenah 5 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

I found the interview through Google; it doesn't require registration. Or at least, I'm not registered and I can access it. Rd232 5 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

When I click on the interview link, I get the following:

The area you wish to access is behind registration.

If you are an existing user of Times Online please enter your Username and Password on the spaces provided below on the right.

If you are new to Times Online please click on the Register Here button below on the left and follow the steps indicated.

Wahkeenah 5 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

I also tried it, and got redirected to a page saying I would require to allow cookies before registering. I allowed cookies, and retried the link. This time it gave me the page immediately. To the best of my recollection I have never registered with the times, but certainly not in any way requiring more than a simple logon id. Now I shall go and read it....It reports the extreme conservative bias of the telegraph, which lost in the libel trial against Galloway. But it does on the whole portray Galloway negatively, and certainly identifies him as extreme left wing labour. As it lists Galloway's libel victories, I imagine it was carefully written. It does not congratulate him on an outright victory, rather suggests that some issues remain unresolved.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Rd232, I am neither British or silly. I read content from The Times/Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph (some say Torygraph), The Guardian/Observer, The Independent, Financial Times, and Economist rather frequently (in proportion to any other such content--though nothing from the likes of Daily Mail, Daily Mirror or The Sun and I am aware of the general thrust of the editorial positions of most of these papers. It is the same here in the US often with the added irony of geographic approximations (and thus a New York Times and Washington Post opposed to a New York Post and Washington Times). That isn't the point--which is that these casual inferences of perception are inappropriate to include particularly in the matter proposed here. Here in the US, the New York Times is generally regarded as left of center but it vehemently claims objectivity. It would thus be imprudent to mention in an article which makes reference to its reporting on, say, prisoner abuse that, "The New York Times, a paper strongly ideologically opposed to Bush's politics, published what it claimed was a secret report from the ICRC.... The obvious intent there is discredit the source by subjective inference on a tangential issue. Where might such an interest be more duly and factually reported? Well, a few days before the election there came a dual NYT-CBS report on a purported incident of weapons stockpile mismanagement in Iraq during the early days of the war. The report itself and the timing of its release (which I believe was the subject of a dispute between the two organizations) were criticized very heavily by many commentators and more importantly the NYT endorsed Bush's opponent John Kerry for president, which reveals a very obvious stake in releasing a damaging story so close to poll time, regardless of its veracity or how the event may be interpreted (a comparable story would be one of the Sunday Times's own, the so-called Downing Street Memo). Similarly, I asked for a reference to the paper endorsing a candidate opposed to Galloway in the election as this would be a relevant contextual detail, but instead we have only established how widespread perceptions can be. Perceptions, however, are neither facts nor are they always so much as appropriate to include.

Careful now, I didn't suggest you were silly (that would be ad hominem), I said you were being silly (about STimes' political leanings being unknown). Anyway, I don't think the article actually needs the comment - and it's slightly editorialising - but given the issue (personal, not a matter of political importance) and the front-page treatment and it being 4 days before the election, it's a rather better example of political leanings being relevant than your latter NYT WMD one. Anyway, I've added a quote from Galloway. Rd232 6 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

By the way, your link undermines you in stating that the Times in fact endorsed Labour this year, as well as for the last election. [Edit: Actually I was wrong; you were referring to the section below where it mentions separately the endorsement of the Sunday Times, which was the actual subject.] --TJive July 6, 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, BTW, it is a rather handy reference. --TJive July 6, 2005 03:18 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute about this information again. Could someone please provide a citation for the claim that the Sunday Times is generally opposed to Galloway's politics, and then explain why it is relevant or approriate? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

London bombings comment

In view of recent comments from other politicians, commentators, the Chatham House report, the recent poll [12] showing 2/3 of Britons see a link between the 7 July London bombings and the Iraq war, plus everything that was said in the runup to war on heightened risks of terrorism, there's a case that Galloway's comments aren't really that notable. (Adam Ingram's response, by contrast, is so over the top that it is notable - but that applies to his article, not Galloway's.) In the interests of not cluttering the article with superfluous detail, I suggest removing that subsection. Rd232 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your view, but I think it should be retained (for now at least). George did make the comments on the day of the bombings, and they were widely media reported, which makes them notable to a degree. If nothing else, someone else will probably add something similar/inferior if it is removed now. Maybe a more considered view should be taken in a year or two. - Rwendland 10:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Rwendland. Eventually to be merged with other content and moved more substantially to Wikiquote. As of now notable. --TJive 18:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Having your cake and eating it too

The pertinent fact that editorially the Sunday Times is is opposed to Galloway's politics is not a "point of view". It is a matter of record. What is POV, however, is to state that Galloway hails from the "far left". This is not an encyclopaedic fact, it is Dbiv's personal opinion. My own opinion isn't encyclopaedic either, but for what it's worth his politics seem to me to be of a traditional British social-democratic socialist kind that was mainstream in the Labour Party until relatively recently. The leadership of the party he loved may have lurched way over to the right, leaving him stranded with only a bunch of Trots for company, but his politics haven't changed at all. He wasn't from the "far left" when he was a Labour MP and he isn't from the "far left" now. GrahamN 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

To say that "editorially the Sunday Times is is opposed to Galloway's politics" surely IS a point of view (I don't agree with much of what either say). I am certain that there are ST editorials that Galloway has agreed with, reluctant as he might be to admit it. But the phrase also, in its form of wording, seems to imply that the ST exists only to oppose Galloway. Perhaps it would be better to say something like "The Sunday Times, a newspaper which does not generally share Galloway's politics" or something similarly softer and less POV.

Oh and I don't think most Labour Party members would recognise George as ever being mainstream Labour - "far left" is unfair but he was never the standard bearer for any major wing of the Labour Party. Mtiedemann 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

He may not have been a "standard bearer" but until the advent of New Labour he was on the left of the Labour Party, in the same political area as many others. And yes, "far left" is clearly problematic if not POV. Rd232 22:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. If the Sunday Times "editorial line" is opposed to Galloways politics, please cite a reputable reference that states this. If you cannot do that, it is original research. Please bear in mind also that this is an encyclopedic article about Galloway, not the Sunday Times. --Mrfixter 23:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mrfixter's words hold true still and we've been through this before. Cite the paper advocating a candidate against Galloway in the election or else it is completely inappropriate. Unfortunately it seems a common trait of leftists to simply discredit a source by inference in passing; the speaker is more important than the merit of what is said, and we are told this by sleight and digression as often as hammering it home in broad platitudes.

"Far-left" can certainly be pejorative and I do not cry for it but it is most definitely the case here. The campaign of post-Soviet totalitarian nihilists, who are here inaccurately described as "Trotskyists", is with a person who remains in his belief that "Trotskyist" itself is pejorative. And with that in mind, let us recall:

"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

This is a man who bows to the portraits of Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat which adorn his wall and makes no haste in appealing to the most religious fanatic and belligerently nationalist of Arabs and Muslims in order to defeat his own country in combat. No self-respecting "social democrat" in his right mind would do such a thing, or have positive words to say about the Soviet goddamn Union a decade in retrospect. I would politely suggest I am not the person whose face is stuffed with cake here. --TJive 00:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget the call for an alliance with the "oppressed Arabs," ie, the likes of the Iraqi "resistance fighters" and such. At least the Arab nationalists back in the '50s and '60s had some genuine socialist credentials; nowadays, pure Islamic fanaticism is the order of the day. J. Parker Stone 01:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia correctly lists The Times as centre-right. The Sunday Times (UK) is its sister paper. Rd232 16:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about Galloway, not the political affiliations or otherwise of the Sunday Times. If someone is making a claim that Galloways marital issues specifically suited the Sunday Times "editorial line", please cite it. If not, stop adding your original research. Shall we go round this whole article, making judgements on whether a source is opposed to Galloways politics? Obviously not. His marital issues are noteworthy, the Sunday Times political viewpoint is patently not, unless someone is claiming that it is a totally fabricated story. As Galloway is a notoriously litigious person, and no writs have been issued...--Mrfixter 20:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have less of a problem excluding the comment on grounds of relevance; but it really pisses me off to have people say "ooh, it's original research". Expletives, etc!! As to relevance, I think it is relevant, because underlines the maliciousness of running the story on the front page 4 days before he faced an election. It's not like they were neutral towards the guy or his politics, and that clearly has some relevance. Rd232 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is all very well, but this is not an article on the Sunday Times, but on George Galloway. Please cite your sources, where does it say explicitly that the Sunday Times opposes George Galloway politics? Not your original research inferences, please. In a section about his personal life, his marital issues should be reported, but not as a rightwing conspiracy, which is what some people seem to be desperate to do. Is what the Sunday Times reporting incorrect because the Sunday Times is centre-right? No. This has been gone over and over and over and...--Mrfixter 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"This is not an article on the Sunday Times" - you're being silly now. As for STimes opposing Galloway's politics - equally silly. All national newspapers (other than the Morning Star) oppose Galloway's politics, but the STimes opposes it more than the Guardian (and if you dispute that, I have nothing to say to you). The statement of fact about STimes' attitude to Galloway is more about Galloway than the STimes, because it's not much different than the rest of the press - but it is highly relevant to the STimes' decision to run the story. I don't see where you get the idea that the note of the Times' politics damages the credibility of the story, since it isn't otherwise disputed. Rd232 08:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the editwar as I'm not sure if an adequate NPOV case can me made to include the qualification on the times politics unless it can be proved that they ran the story because of their anti-Galloway Politics insteed of becuse it was merely 'in the public interest' or such like (I beleive the former is correct I'm just not sure how it could be proven with No orginal reasearch (NOR)). However, I think it is a commonly known matter of fact that the times apposes Galloway type politics. How does the NOR policy deal with commonly known matters of fact? --JK the unwise 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you can't cite a source saying that The Sunday Times opposes Galloway's politics, then it certainly is original research. It also appears to be irrelevant at best, poisoning the well at worst. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I disagree, as noted above. As for citing sources - I spent well over half an hour yesterday trying to find out who the current editor of the Sunday Times is. Maybe I was just tired - but I couldn't even find that, so what are the odds of finding a citable source for the STimes' politics without going overboard on a point that isn't worth it? Rd232 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

From WP:NOR "it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". From poisoning the well: "Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he is about to say." They both seem to fit perfectly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd made it clear I wasn't trying to discredit the STimes' claims, just provide context for them. Hello, anybody listening?? Rd232 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "context"? Yet more original research? It looks like you are poisoning the well, as has been pointed out. It was a legitimate story in a reputable newspaper, dragging the Sunday Times "political" line into it is laughable and hopelessly irrelevant.--Mrfixter 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The "context" you provided appears to be "The Sunday Times doesn't like Galloway, so they printed negative things about him". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

precisely. I fail to see how the major editorial decision of what to put on the front page is irrelevant, when that decision ends up embarassing a politician 4 days before an election, and the editorial line which is the context for that decision is quite strongly negative towards him. This is both relevant and notable, I think. Rd232 20:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no major newspaper in Britain which supports Galloway's policies, so it's hard to see how singling out the Sunday Times for this would be either relevant or notable. Find someone notable who accuses the Sunday Times of printing the article because they oppose Galloway's policies and then you'll have something. 22:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Anybody who would deny the relevance to this context of the fact that the Sunday Times opposes Galloway's politics either knows nothing about the recent history of that newspaper, or nothing about Galloway's politics, or is being deliberately perverse. And if we were seriously to subscribe to MrFixter's hilariously wacky interpretation of "original research" then it would also be encumbent on us to find a source to support the unsubstantiated assertion that 1 May 2005 occurred four days before 5 May 2005. It's my belief that extended disputes about surreal misinterpretations of policy such as this are a deliberate ruse by a certain type of editor to waste other people's time and keep them from writing or editing articles. GrahamN 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well it's my belief that people who insist that they can say whatever they like in an article because "everybody knows its true" are using hand-waving to get around the WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Cite sources rules. Anything well-known is also well-cited, and this specific dispute about 6 or 7 words is hardly keeping anyone from writing or editing the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Given the (low) significance of the issue, I'd be prepared to drop the point if somebody could tell me the current editor of the Sunday Times, for the The Sunday Times (UK) article. Anyone? Rd232 22:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

John Witherow. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. At least something useful came out of all this... Rd232 09:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, etc.

Brilliant summary. It does your argument justice. --TJive 01:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Galloway signing an asylum seakers petion, sitting on the edge of the StWC stage at the 2005 Make Poverty History rally

As there are lots of photos on the page already (some more free then others) I wasn't sure whether to add another. I think it would add something.

what ya think? yea or nay?--JK the unwise 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I like it, a nice quirky photo. It would be a good excuse to add with a new para noting that George is/was Vice-President of Stop the War Coalition, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in George's article yet. -- Rwendland 19:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The mighty rhetorician, George Galloway

I really don't know if GG is noted for his rhetorical skill or not. Would it be possible to cite a source or sources for this? Thanks. --Mrfixter 16:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

He's quite famous as a public speaker. It's hard to cite sources for this sort of thing, since no-one except someone writing an encyclopedia article is likely to bother writing "George Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill". However, if you look around at some of the stuff written about Galloway, you'll find that his proficiency as a public speaker is mentioned quite often. Cadr 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Just found this [13], the phrase "gift for rhetoric" is used. However, is that what Galloway is noted for? I am sure I could rustle up many articles commenting on his cigar-smoking, mercedes driving, villa in portugal owning, but is he really "noted" for these things? I would prefer the phrase "noted for his rhetoric" as a compromise. Comments? --Mrfixter 17:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"Noted for his rhetoric" just doesn't sound quite right to me. It's not his rhetoric as such, it's his skill at using rhetoric that has been noted. Why do you prefer "noted for his rhetoric" to "noted for his rhetorical skill"? Which is how it is currently worded. Cadr 22:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"Skill" sounds a little too subjective, and I agree that "noted for his rhetoric" sounds wrong. What about the phrase "noted for his outspoken rhetorical style"? --Mrfixter 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)